Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Image
    Abandon all sanity, ye who enter here!

Moderators: ᴶᵛᵀᴬ, Omphalos, Freakzilla

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 08 Apr 2010 14:46

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
Apjak wrote:Now, I know that quantity isn't necessarily quality, but I think it still says something.


Yes, that the US has more than 10 times as many people as us, and has a reasonably proportionate amount of drug developers. Remember too that we buy a lot from US manufactures, and that a massive amount of innovation actually comes out of our Universities rather than the drug corps.

My point is that there will still be plenty of research, because nothing will have changed other than where the money is coming from. It's not like the gov is going to take over and thn shut down the whole operation, that's just not how it works in countries that do this. The government still employs private sectors to make this stuff, they just subsidize the costy for citizens when they need it. The drug company gets the same amount of money.


Actually, I just counted the number of drug developers on that list, and there are only about 8 times as many developers in the USA, but the US's population is almost exactly 9 times ours. So that list you just posted actually shows a country with public healthcare having around 12% MORE drug developers per capita than the country with the private system.

Now, quantity doesn't mean quality, but I do believe that says something, eh? :wink:
Image

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 08 Apr 2010 15:03

And anyways (sorry for the repeat posts), I'm really not trying to be confrontational. It's just that to the rest of the planet, this whole situation is a little amusing, and frankly confusing.

Especially as these new changes that Obama has instated are extremely minor, really, some of the things that were passed into law (like preventing insurance agencies from denying children coverage) just plain shocked me that they weren't already in place.

This is just one tiny tiny step in that direction, so anyone that's panicking about their country going down the toilet can probably stop and breathe, and relax. This isn't even anything remotely close to a public healthcare system like the one we have up here in Canada, or like the rest of the free world has, these are very minor changes.

I doubt these changes will have any significant effect on anything or anyone, other than the people that will now have coverage (some loving it some hating it I imagine).
Image

A Little Galach
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 16:37

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Little Galach » 08 Apr 2010 16:06

This wasn't supposed to be a Universal vs private health care debate, but rather a bitch about the new law. Again, no one has defended the new law as a whole. Someone please do.


A Thing of Eternity wrote:
A Little Galach wrote: Now that all of these countries have their health care issues solved it must mean that they have vibrant, dynamic, growing economies with little unemployment. Which countries fit this description? At what rate are their economies growing and what is their unemployment rate? How has their standing in the world economy changed since their conversion?


This statement is just childish, when did I say everywhere else is perfect? I said better, not perfect. As for how is their economy doing? Canada's is far better than yours right now.I don't think that has much to do with our healthcare though, not sure why you brought it up.


My point is that having a universal system is a large entitlement/social program that retards economic growth by taxing the population and enlarging the government reach into the economy. While I understand that you didn't say perfect, many on "your" side seem to hold the belief that a larger government footprint in the economy is a good thing with no downside.

A single-payer system creates a large entitlement program at the expense of taxes on the citizenry. My understanding is that the majority of the European community has similar systems. My understanding is that the majority of those countries also have lower levels of economic growth and higher unemployment. My fear is that such a system (and our already considerable debt)would have similar effects here and that in a relatively short period of time the US would go the way of Europe and become a second-tier nation behind China, India and other rapidly developing nations.

This country traditionally has allowed/forced its citizens to look after themselves for 200+ years. I understand that this is in contrast to what Europe and its commonwealths did. To say it worked well for the US is a gross understatement. Specifically the (apparently irrelevant) founding fathers tried to keep the federal government limited because they feared "tyranny" by the Federal government. Making some free market changes to the regulation/conduct of the current system would have been consistent with that, would have garnered more support and been easier to replace if it hadn't worked out. If they had no effect or made things worse, then a ramming down the throat of this abomination or even a public system would have made sense.

Again, no one has said that the current healthcare system is perfect or that it didn't need changes. However it did not need this change.

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 08 Apr 2010 16:10

A Thing of Eternity wrote:...these are very minor changes.


Maybe because the more radical ideas didn't make it through?

:think:
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 08 Apr 2010 16:11

A Little Galach wrote:Again, no one has said that the current healthcare system is perfect or that it didn't need changes. However it did not need this change.



Harumph, harumph! :D
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 08 Apr 2010 16:21

Man, I've had this discussion so many times you wouldn't believe it. You're just going to have to take my word that I'm a capitalist (mostly) and that I'm not a fan of big government. Healthcare is one area I believe in socializing because A: I believe it's a human right to have affordable healthcare, and B: it actually saves everyone in the country money and gets most people better care overall.

So many Americans seem to think that this socialized system causes some kind of welfare state where no one works to take care of themselves, and it's obvious that these people have had no experience with the countries they're talking about.

If the US wants to do otherwise that's fine by me, but the argument that the US's healthcare system works better than a proper socialized one is a farce - not that ours doesn't have a massive amount of baggage that needs to be cleaned up, it's far far from perfect.
Maybe you're correct that the new changes are in some ways detrimental, but the ones I've seen listed seem pretty common sense.

A Little Galach wrote:This wasn't supposed to be a Universal vs private health care debate, but rather a bitch about the new law. Again, no one has defended the new law as a whole. Someone please do.


I agree, but this is the direction that these conversations almost always head that way because people are so polarized over the issue.

I'd be interested to hear different takes on the specific laws that were passed as well. I'm honestly not that familiar with the bulk of them.
Image

A Little Galach
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 16:37

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Little Galach » 08 Apr 2010 16:47

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

3.8% tax on retirement benefits including retirees' medical and RX benefits, lowering of maximum amount allowed in healthcare FSA'a ($5K to $2.5K) and elimination of OTC items allowed, 10% tax on tanning beds, 40% tax on plans that are too expensive in the eyes of congress, $? tax on medical devices (fake hips, MRI machines, etc), employers have to provide care or pay 8% penalty, mandate to carry coverage or the IRS will withold tax refunds and/or press charges that could include jail time, government decides what is an acceptable price for coverage and what is/is not allowed in a plan. The last bit is the the part that most people think will force the private insurers under because their rates will not be able to be adjusted to meet their expenses and they will either ration what they will pay or close.

There are others but that's off the top of my head. There are some regulatory changes but those are fairly small parts of the bill.


The tax on retirement benefits is already causing companies change their 2011 forecasts to include it. Some companies will have their profits lowered hundreds of millions of dollars on that tax alone. That comes directly off the bottom line. Either they will charge more to their customers (some are utility companies), lay people off or eliminate benefits which will force more people onto government subsidies which will drive up costs and away we go. And the most of the "benefits" won't go into effect until 2014.

Oh, and no private banks can make college loans. It's all done by the federal government. Except for one bank in North Dakota because they needed some guy's vote.

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 08 Apr 2010 16:57

A Little Galach wrote:RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!


Huh?


A Little Galach wrote:3.8% tax on retirement benefits including retirees' medical and RX benefits, lowering of maximum amount allowed in healthcare FSA'a ($5K to $2.5K) and elimination of OTC items allowed, 10% tax on tanning beds, 40% tax on plans that are too expensive in the eyes of congress, $? tax on medical devices (fake hips, MRI machines, etc), employers have to provide care or pay 8% penalty, mandate to carry coverage or the IRS will withold tax refunds and/or press charges that could include jail time, government decides what is an acceptable price for coverage and what is/is not allowed in a plan. The last bit is the the part that most people think will force the private insurers under because their rates will not be able to be adjusted to meet their expenses and they will either ration what they will pay or close.


That last bit seems like a valid concern, but it could also be fine, very much depends on the specific situations that arise. They already ration what they pay though, they endlessly try to cut payouts, that's just what insurance companies do.


A Little Galach wrote:There are others but that's off the top of my head. There are some regulatory changes but those are fairly small parts of the bill.


That's odd, I would have though regulating the insurance companies would be one of the main parts of it.

A Little Galach wrote:The tax on retirement benefits is already causing companies change their 2011 forecasts to include it. Some companies will have their profits lowered hundreds of millions of dollars on that tax alone. That comes directly off the bottom line. Either they will charge more to their customers (some are utility companies), lay people off or eliminate benefits which will force more people onto government subsidies which will drive up costs and away we go. And the most of the "benefits" won't go into effect until 2014.
Oh, and no private banks can make college loans. It's all done by the federal government. Except for one bank in North Dakota because they needed some guy's vote.


Some fo that definitely sounds messy. I'd need to know more about that retirement tax and how it works/effects things to say whether I agree or dissagree with it.

This is just bits of it though, it's tough to look at this whole reform without looking at the whole thing. I'm guessing I'd have to put aside at least a full evening to read it and think about it though, and I don't think I'm willing to do that for some other country's healthcare system! :D

I do love to argue about it though! Good times, keeps the mind sharp.
Image

A Little Galach
Posts: 172
Joined: 26 Mar 2010 16:37

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Little Galach » 08 Apr 2010 17:09

A Thing of Eternity wrote:
A Little Galach wrote:RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!


Huh?

South Park. Forget it.

That last bit seems like a valid concern, but it could also be fine, very much depends on the specific situations that arise. They already ration what they pay though, they endlessly try to cut payouts, that's just what insurance companies do.

My fear is that this will set up a perpetual populist system where politicians need to deny increases to seem as if they're for the working man.


There is much more to it than I laid out, but the actual regulations are a smaller part of the bill than they should have been by percentage. The bill is 2K+ pages, much more than was necessary to accomplish what they said they wanted to do. But then the government got involved...

User avatar
A Thing of Eternity
Posts: 6090
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 15:35
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby A Thing of Eternity » 08 Apr 2010 17:13

Maybe the US should just have a state by state referendum to split into 2 countries, half can just join Canada and the other half can do whatever it is they do. :wink:

Seems like the best solution sometimes. Heck, we can do the same thing up here, I know at least 1 province that would seperate from Canada and join the US in a heartbeat. (the one i'm in, unfortunately... oh well, I've been wanting to leave it anyways) :lol:
Image

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law

Postby Freakzilla » 13 Dec 2010 13:47

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-ge ... .Virginia/

By LARRY O'DELL, AP
12 minutes ago

RICHMOND, Va. — A federal judge declared a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

Hudson rejected the government's argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

"Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions," Hudson wrote. "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation" and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

There was no immediate comment from the White House.

The lawsuit was filed by Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. The key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

"This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution," Cuccinelli said in a statement after the ruling.

Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
merkin muffley
Posts: 1584
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 15:18
Location: War Room

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby merkin muffley » 13 Dec 2010 16:16

Yes, but I also know that it snowed this weekend in Virginia, so I think we can all draw our own conclusions about this issue.
"I must admit, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor...."

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 13 Dec 2010 16:22

merkin muffley wrote:Yes, but I also know that it snowed this weekend in Virginia, so I think we can all draw our own conclusions about this issue.



Hell, it snowed in Atlanta this weekend. So put that in your pipe.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
merkin muffley
Posts: 1584
Joined: 23 Apr 2010 15:18
Location: War Room

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby merkin muffley » 13 Dec 2010 17:18

:teasing-smokingcrack:
"I must admit, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor...."

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 01 Feb 2011 12:57

David Nather David Nather – Tue Feb 1, 4:37 am ET

Monday’s federal court decision striking down the Democrats' health care reform law is just Act I in a long legal drama — and nobody knows how it will end.

The suspense is killing both sides.

“A year ago, it was a long shot,” said Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, of the law’s chances of winding up before the Supreme Court. “Now, it’s seen as a 5 to 4 case. And nobody’s exactly sure which way the 5 to 4 will come down.” (see: Health law suffers new blow)

It’s the kind of case the Supreme Court would rather not touch. In most cases this politically explosive, the justices might look for any technical reason to bounce it back to the lower courts. But now, they may not have a choice.

At stake is the biggest social legislation in a generation, and the defining achievement of Obama’s presidency. But the legal challenges also will determine whether the federal government can make people buy health insurance and whether it can prevail over the opposition of 26 states. It’s a showdown that could define limits of federal power for decades to come, pitting Obama’s view of an activist federal government against a more narrow reading of federal authority. (see: W.H. charges 'activism' in ruling)

“This case could define federalism for the next 100 years,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. “If the Obama administration prevails in its view, it’s hard to see what’s left of federalism.” (see: HHS: Call it a law, not a bill)

Chief Justice John Roberts “does not believe the Commerce Clause allows you to do everything and anything,” but he’s not “an adventurer” and therefore might not go so far as to strike down the mandate, according to Charles Fried, a former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan who testified at Roberts’s confirmation hearings in 2005. “I think there’s a good chance it will be a 6-3 decision in favor of constitutionality,” said Fried, who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

A high court ruling that overturned the mandate, Fried said, “would be viewed as a highly partisan, highly political act.” (see: States still implementing reform)

Other legal experts said all eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, the most likely swing vote if it really is a 5 to 4 decision. But the constitutionality of the individual mandate — the requirement for everyone to get health insurance starting in 2014 — is a complicated question that might not get decided along predictable ideological lines.

Conservative legal scholars say it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where the Roberts court declares that the Obama administration has taken the Commerce Clause too far. (see: Senate GOPers sign on to repeal)

“They don’t have to make a stretch to do that. They can just say, `We’ve let the Commerce Clause stretch way beyond its text, and we’re not going to go any further,” said Dave Kopel, an adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law at the University of Denver.

Because the stakes are so high, “this is a very difficult case for the Supreme Court as an institution,” said Turley. “You have a slight majority of the states opposing it. You have a national law that’s affecting hundreds of billions of dollars of services. This is the type of case that justices do not relish.”

But Barnett thinks the issues are too important for the Supreme Court to avoid now. “This is a constitutional question that everyone in the country is talking about,” he said. “I would think they would feel morally obligated to take this on.”

Unlike Judge Henry Hudson’s December ruling in a separate lawsuit filed by the state of Virginia — which struck down the individual mandate but left the rest of the law alone — Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the mandate is so central to the rest of the law that it can’t be overturned by itself.

“This Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed,” the judge wrote.

“There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone.”

Vinson’s ruling was the strongest legal blow to the law yet. But it wasn’t a total surprise to anyone who has followed his legal questions or his politics closely.

The judge, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, dropped plenty of clues of a conservative ideology into his ruling, including a nod to the tea protests against the British and quoting a segment on Reason TV called, “Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful.”

Now, the lawsuit filed by 26 states moves into more mixed ideological territory. The appeal will go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered middle-of-the-road and “within the mainstream of the federal circuits,” according to Michael Carvin, a constitutional law expert at the law firm Jones Day. It would be heard by a three-judge panel, and then probably by the full appeals court.

Trying to figure out the prospects in the appeals court would be “a sucker’s game” because it depends on which three judges get appointed to the panel and how they, and the rest of the court, might view both the mandate and the rest of the law, Carvin said.

“There are two decisions the appellate panel will have to make. One: Is the mandate unconstitutional? Two: What do we do with the rest of the law?” Carvin said. “You can agree with this judge on the first question without agreeing with him on the second.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to decide those questions too — probably by the closest of margins. And whichever way the court goes, it can be almost sure that a substantial portion of the country — those who support the law or those who want to fight it to the bitter end — will not accept the decision.

“Until a judge appointed by a Democratic president strikes it down, or a judge appointed by a Republican president upholds it, nobody’s views about this are going to change,” said Mark Tushnet, a law professor at Harvard University.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48563.html
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Drunken Idaho
Posts: 1197
Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Drunken Idaho » 01 Feb 2011 14:23

Not gonna lie, I'm through defending this guy and his bullshit legislation. Of course mandating the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional. It's also a crappy solution to a big problem (IE "Congratulations! You now HAVE to buy health insurance! You'll be covered now!"). Has any other country ever done anything remotely like this with their healthcare? I don't think so. What we're seeing here is a WEAK fucking president who tried too hard over and over again to compromise with an opposing party that bitch-slapped him every time he tried. Now, he has alienated his progressive base, and the right still hates him. Anyone who STILL thinks Obama is a socialist at this point is truly insane.

You know what wouldn't have been unconstitutional? A Public Option! You know why? Because it's a fucking OPTION! Whether you call it that, single-payer, or medicare buy-in, it's the obvious solution for any goddamned civilized country to provide for its citizens. The US is still the only industrialized country without it, and there are still millions that aren't covered. This is what happens when ALL of your politicians are bought by the Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobby, and those same entities drive a year-long campaign of gross MISINFORMATION about a bill that could have really helped. "But it's not about healthcare, it's about a government takeoverrr, derpy-fucking-derp!!" How many times did we hear the idiots towing that same line? What the fuck does it even mean? It's nothing more than propaganda to preserve the status quo. The same stautus quo that keeps the rich richer.

I think I've mentioned before that I used to sell Health Insurance to other Canadians over the phone. I worked for at least three different insurance companies doing this during my time working at a call centre. So I don't buy FOR A SECOND that a public option would seriously hurt any of those big companies, not that I'd give a fuck if they did, considering that we're talking about HUMAN FUCKING LIVES. Let those companies burn, for all I care... But they wouldn't burn, as I've experienced first-hand.
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza

User avatar
Omphalos
Inglorious Bastard
Posts: 6613
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 11:07
Location: The Mighty Central Valley of California
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Omphalos » 01 Feb 2011 14:42

Dude, like, why are you so mad? Is this really worth getting so fired up about?

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 01 Feb 2011 14:51

I think we should focus on getting everybody a JOB before anything else.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Drunken Idaho
Posts: 1197
Joined: 15 Sep 2008 23:56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Drunken Idaho » 01 Feb 2011 14:57

Omphalos wrote:Dude, like, why are you so mad? Is this really worth getting so fired up about?


It gets me mad because I followed the whole debate from the beginning, and watched a president who ran on the most progressive platform in history pussy out on a chance to do what he promised. Remember, he campaigned on working towards a public option, which after the first draft of the bill he turned his back on it.

Is 30-million unprotected Americans worth getting fired-up about? I think so, yes.
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 01 Feb 2011 15:02

They say it's 59 million now. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/ ... 5U20101110

But that's beside the point.

We need to fix the reason it's so expensive, not have the government pay for it.

Just like modern medicine, we're trying to treat the symptom instead of looking for a cure.
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
DuneFishUK
Posts: 1987
Joined: 25 May 2008 14:14
Location: Cool Britannia
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby DuneFishUK » 01 Feb 2011 15:31

Drunken Idaho wrote:Not gonna lie, I'm through defending this guy and his bullshit legislation. Of course mandating the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional. It's also a crappy solution to a big problem (IE "Congratulations! You now HAVE to buy health insurance! You'll be covered now!"). Has any other country ever done anything remotely like this with their healthcare?


Germany?

AFAIK there citizens are required to purchase insurance (just like drivers are required to take out car insurance) but the poorest people get it paid for by the tax payer.

There's no such thing as a perfect system, but now I think I've finally worked out what the core idea at the bottom of this pile of shouty bollockshite that the socialist nazi government is going to close all the hospitals and impregnate liberal immigrants... Its probably one of the better ideas.

User avatar
Hunchback Jack
Posts: 1982
Joined: 30 May 2008 15:02
Location: California, USA

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Hunchback Jack » 01 Feb 2011 16:23

I think we should just not have health care at all. Let Darwin sort 'em out.

HBJ
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
- Carl Sagan

I'm still very proud of The Quarry but … let's face it; in the end the real best way to sign off would have been with a great big rollicking Culture novel.
- Iain Banks

User avatar
Freakzilla
Lead Singer and Driver of the Winnebego
Posts: 18121
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 01:27
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Freakzilla » 01 Feb 2011 16:26

Free for all!
Image
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus.
~Pink Snowman

User avatar
Omphalos
Inglorious Bastard
Posts: 6613
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 11:07
Location: The Mighty Central Valley of California
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby Omphalos » 01 Feb 2011 16:30

If we let everyone die when GAWD want's em, then we really can be fruitful and mulitply!

User avatar
SandChigger
KJASF Ground Zero
Posts: 14490
Joined: 08 Feb 2008 22:29
Location: "Whatcha having, shoog? Hurry up and order now, I ain't got all day!"
Contact:

Re: Healthcare Reform: The Rejection

Postby SandChigger » 01 Feb 2011 19:07

(I knew I would find stupid in this thread, but I looked anyway. Stupid me. :roll: )


Return to “˱”