Obama Care Could Be Deadly

They should have done a little research from the beginning and thrown that out there, that they were taking another look at that old legislation. Then they could have framed it as an original Republican idea, because as it was, no Republican was going to vote for it simply because it was the idea of the Democrats. They're betting it fails, so they can point fingers later, if it's successful, well I'm sure they'll find a way to take (more) credit.
 
[quote name='Msut77']This is a large part of the reason why I say Republicans wouldn't have voted for squat no matter what they were "given".[/QUOTE]
My wife works in health care and this is the worst piece of legislation that has ever been forced down anyone's throat. If you believe that European style health care is better for all of us go to Europe and check it out. My wife being Greek watched a health care system let her mother die because they no longer saw her as a viable source of income. She happened to live in Athens Greece do you really want that for yourself and people you care about? I don't so keep your Obama care but leave my insurance alone.
 
[quote name='archangelreb']My wife works in health care and this is the worst piece of legislation that has ever been forced down anyone's throat. If you believe that European style health care is better for all of us go to Europe and check it out. My wife being Greek watched a health care system let her mother die because they no longer saw her as a viable source of income. She happened to live in Athens Greece do you really want that for yourself and people you care about? I don't so keep your Obama care but leave my insurance alone.[/QUOTE]

Until you're 65, right?

EDIT: A few questions?

1. How old was your mother-in-law?
2. How much did your mother-in-law pay in taxes annually?
3. How much money did she die with?
 
Anyone from Canada back me up here if I'm way out of line.

The Canadian system seems to work pretty well. You're covered if something happens, but if you elect to pay into additional private insurance with your employer then you get preferred treatment.

However, the CDN system wouldn't work in the US simply due to scalability. We have 10x the population in only slightly larger land mass yet we have about 1/5th of the natural resources.

Why does this need to happen anyways? We've got charity hospitals that scam insurance and over bill the people who can pay, so that they can provide care to those who can't pay. Doesn't Obamacare basically make that an open reality instead of a shady rumor, through the power of legislation?

We have pretty decent healthcare in the US. Sure, it's expensive, but it's also quality. Again, why does this have to be a huge issue, especially when it would seem that much of the population isn't too excited about the notion?
 
It's a huge issue because some people still don't have any health care. A lot of people, in fact. That's a problem.

Anyone who seriously thinks health care reform is a non-issue isn't really looking at the picture right. There IS a problem. It needs a solution. We DON'T have great health care in the states. We excel at preventative medicine, but at nothing else. This is also a problem.

"Charity" hospitals are not a solution. Even if you're poor, you shouldn't need to settle for sub-standard care offered at these God-forsaken establishments. The availability of these charity hospitals is very slim, too, so there are still people who have no means of health care.


And on Greece, don't take their health care and try to apply it as all of Europe's or as Obama's plan. Greece is struggling right now in all respects, and their health care isn't to blame. It's actually a reasonable system, that is, unfortunately, on par with ours. Not what we're going for at all... All Greece does is swap private insurance for government insurance without doing anything about the corruption, malpractice, and denial of coverage. That's by no means what "European" insurance is.

French (lol), English, and Canadian insurance is more what we're going for. Increased waiting times, maybe less control over your doctor, but at the very least you're going to get treated.
 
[quote name='nasum']Anyone from Canada back me up here if I'm way out of line.

The Canadian system seems to work pretty well. You're covered if something happens, but if you elect to pay into additional private insurance with your employer then you get preferred treatment.

However, the CDN system wouldn't work in the US simply due to scalability. We have 10x the population in only slightly larger land mass yet we have about 1/5th of the natural resources.

Why does this need to happen anyways? We've got charity hospitals that scam insurance and over bill the people who can pay, so that they can provide care to those who can't pay. Doesn't Obamacare basically make that an open reality instead of a shady rumor, through the power of legislation?

We have pretty decent healthcare in the US. Sure, it's expensive, but it's also quality. Again, why does this have to be a huge issue, especially when it would seem that much of the population isn't too excited about the notion?[/QUOTE]So to sum it up, we have great health care if you can afford it. Never mind those who can't afford it, or those who can't even get insured. fuck them, we got ours right?
 
[quote name='Clak']So to sum it up, we have great health care if you can afford it. Never mind those who can't afford it, or those who can't even get insured. fuck them, we got ours right?[/QUOTE]
Yep. Or you can do what I do to try to get needed medication, loan your body to companies like Roche for medical testing.
 
Guh.

beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.
Click to expand...

Just what we needed - more overly complicated tax laws.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Yep. Or you can do what I do to try to get needed medication, loan your body to companies like Roche for medical testing.[/QUOTE]

The vibe I get from thrust and co. is that they would willingly sacrifice their own health and the health of their families to the glory of the market.
 
We need a survey of people for/against national health care, included would be a question about current insurance status, whether you have any or not. I'd really like to see the results. Who knows, my suspicions about the people who are against it might be proven wrong, would be interesting either way.
 
[quote name='Clak']We need a survey of people for/against national health care, included would be a question about current insurance status, whether you have any or not. I'd really like to see the results. Who knows, my suspicions about the people who are against it might be proven wrong, would be interesting either way.[/QUOTE]

My guess would be that it would be mixed.

You'd have the relatively well off who are insured and are against universal health care for ideological reasons.

And you'd have the poor, social conservatives who are uninsured but still opposed to universal health care for ideological reasons even though it would help them greatly.

I say that based just on limited anecdotal evidence from knowing people from both categories who oppose universal health care and big government in general.
 
People against the HCRA tend to score higher on levels of 'racial animosity' compared to those who supported it. Just saw such a study reported on a liberal blog yesterday, but I'm too busy to find the actual citation.
 
Doesn't surprise me as I've personally heard racial animosity among some rural poor (family and acquaintances back in WV) in terms of not wanting to pay for welfare (insert racial slur)'s health care.
 
It's amazing how short sighted ideology will completely blind people to a bigger picture. Thought like that will stop someone from being in favor of something that may actually benefit someone they care about, it could be that they know plenty of people without insurance, but oh no we can't be supportin' those welfare mommas.
 
It's ideology and also misinformation, since the majority of TANF recipients are white, and legislation proposed and passed by Clinton put term limits on welfare - not that the law did anything to stop people's *perception* of the legnth of welfare abuse and the color of welfare abuse.

another moment where perceptions feed politics, and reality is immaterial. rational beings indeed.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's amazing how short sighted ideology will completely blind people to a bigger picture. Thought like that will stop someone from being in favor of something that may actually benefit someone they care about, it could be that they know plenty of people without insurance, but oh no we can't be supportin' those welfare mommas.[/QUOTE]

I'm kind of mixed on it. I have no patience for the racism and welfare stereotypes etc. of course.

But to some degree I can respect someone who's uninsured opposing universal health care even though it would benefit them directly as they oppose big government and think they just need to work harder to get a job with insurance etc. That at least shows they have strong principles IMO.

I disagree with them 100%, but I can respect people who have strong principles and stick to them even when changing would benefit themselves.
 
I'd respect someone who's against doing something to benefit themselves at the expense of others (though being against something that you think would benefit everybody would be kind of odd), but I haven't seen that as an actual stance. People aren't against it because they think it would help them, they're against it because they think it won't, that it will be worse for them and/or everybody.
 
I'm talking personally about people who have said to me, to paraphrase: "I know it would help me personally--at least in the short term until I get a job with benefits--but I don't think it's good for the country (or I don't support government handouts)."

Again, I disagree, but I can respect that viewpoint and sticking to one's principles.
 
I'll respect it, sure, but only if they actually know what they're talking about. I live in Montana, and we're the North's little piece of the South. I've seen some rednecks say they don't agree with government handouts, or that they don't think it's good for the country, but beyond that they can't say much else. A simple "Why?" leaves them dumbfounded.

Now, I still respect them as people, but I'm not going to take their opinions into account solely because they can't even make up a rationale.
 
Agreed. I really only truly respect principles based on informed opinions, which often isn't the case. Even on here as the "How do you stay informed?" thread I posted showed as many listed very few sources or said they hate the news etc.

That said, even for uninformed principles, I at least give a bit more credence to people with strong ones. If one changes their beliefs/values on something just because it would suddenly benefit them.

i.e. who do you respect more--the person who remains anti-universal health care after losing their job and benefits, or the person that suddenly starts supporting it when they now need the "handout"? Or the person who's strongly pro-life until they have an unwanted pregancy? Or is pro-gun control until their a crime victim? Or anti-death penalty until a loved one is murdered? etc. etc. etc.

Principles are only principles if you stick by them through thick and thin is my only point I guess. If you can change them when you're faced with adversity, then you never did the necessary pondering and putting yourself in other's shoes to have had "firm" principles in the first place.

But of course you hit the nail on the head, in that the majority have not done enough thinking/researching/empathizing etc. to have firm principles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The government isn't getting any smaller. Why not get some benefit from it?

Let's make our people healthier and stronger. At least our people will be ready for whatever country comes in after our government implodes.

If anything happened now, most of our country would be too lazy and apathetic to do more than wait for American Idol and Survivor to come on in the fall.
 
As much as I support universal health care, I have no delusions that it will make people less lazy or apathetic!

People will be a bit healthier, and live longer etc., but be just as lazy and apathetic. Just now they get access to treatment for the damage they do to their bodies by being lazy, eating junk, smoking etc.
 
Do you think it will make us even less responsible? Would we take more risks collectively?

I was also thinking about one other negative for this version of health reform. There really isn't anything in there for education. Someone is going to have to fund alot more medical and nursing schools or we'll be dreadfully short in the next few decades.
 
I don't think it would make society more or less responsible or more or less risk taking etc.

I've not seen any evidence that people with insurance are more or less responsible, lazy, eat better/worse etc. than those without.

Giving everyone access to health care would be a huge social improvement--but just in terms of being healthier, catching diseases earlier, getting proper treatment etc. I don't see how it would lead to any major cultural changes though.

I mean people that are lazy, eat crappy and thus are obese know it's not healthy. Having a doctor tell them they lead an unhealthy lifestyle isn't going to change that. I see plenty of obese people in the waiting rooms when I go to the doctor.

And you're right on the need to deal with getting more doctors and nurses. As we've discussed earlier in the thread, there really needs to be something like student loan forgiveness for doctors who go into primary care rather than specialties etc. to increase the size of the workforce.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm kind of mixed on it. I have no patience for the racism and welfare stereotypes etc. of course.

But to some degree I can respect someone who's uninsured opposing universal health care even though it would benefit them directly as they oppose big government and think they just need to work harder to get a job with insurance etc. That at least shows they have strong principles IMO.

I disagree with them 100%, but I can respect people who have strong principles and stick to them even when changing would benefit themselves.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean themselves necessarily, but like I said someone they know and and even care about. They could know someone who needs cancer treatment, but because their own principles prevent them from agreeing with something like national health care, the person they know goes without treatment. Sticking to your principles is one thing, but when people in this country are dieing because they can't get treatment for health problems and your principles are standing in the way, damn your principles.
 
That's why I vehemently disagree with their principles.

But at the same time, as I said, I have more respect for people who stick by their principles even when changing the tune they've been singing all their life would suddenly benefit them or their loved ones etc. than people who only change their tune when they need help etc.

Basically, I don't have much respect for people who think people should suffer and die if they don't have health care vs. having universal health care. But I have more respect for them than the ideologues who are opposed to it, but would happily take free insurance and other handouts if needed. Like which ever of our resident cons on here (thrust maybe?) who rail against all social support programs, but once admitted they took food stamps and/or welfare at some point in their adult life etc.

If you're going to have the shitty view that people shouldn't get any type of social support, then stick to it and don't take it when you or your loved ones suddenly could benefit from it.
 
[quote name='Clak']We need a survey of people for/against national health care, included would be a question about current insurance status, whether you have any or not. I'd really like to see the results. Who knows, my suspicions about the people who are against it might be proven wrong, would be interesting either way.[/QUOTE]

Last time there was a survey on this, the left said it was wrong because the participants just weren't informed enough. So in other words Americans just dont know whats good for them.
 
Factually that was true, because they were asked about the bill, then told what was in it, then asked again. Results went up, which implies they did not know what was in it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Factually that was true, because they were asked about the bill, then told what was in it, then asked again. Results went up, which implies they did not know what was in it.[/QUOTE]

Thats like those infomercials where they walk up to someone and say "hey would you like to try so and so product?" the person is kind of iffy, so they say "hey did you know it cures cancer" and the person lights up and says "SURE ill try so and so product"
 
If I read the Newsweek article correctly, they're saying that most people disagree with Obama's plan, but agree with the key points of the plan.

I find that to be true, and reasonable

Also, lolsalon
 
Yeah I think someone made the analogy, it's like saying 'I love chocolate and i love peanut butter but I HATE Reese's peanut butter cups.'

If you find something in that salon article to be factually inaccurate, or disagree with the assertions, lemme know.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah I think someone made the analogy, it's like saying 'I love chocolate and i love peanut butter but I HATE Reese's peanut butter cups.'

If you find something in that salon article to be factually inaccurate, or disagree with the assertions, lemme know.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, I'm not bashing the salon article. I just find it hilarious how Salon is now so popular that it finds its way in to political debates. It really used to be a PoS.

Still, I find the article mneh. It seems to detail how the bill has been bastardized over the course. It has been; there's no denying that. I'm an extremist and a fan of socialist medicine; but not of what the bill has turned in to.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Thats like those infomercials where they walk up to someone and say "hey would you like to try so and so product?" the person is kind of iffy, so they say "hey did you know it cures cancer" and the person lights up and says "SURE ill try so and so product"[/QUOTE]

Increased access to healthcare may not cure cancer, but it does cure lots of other things.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Until you're 65, right?

EDIT: A few questions?

1. How old was your mother-in-law?
2. How much did your mother-in-law pay in taxes annually?
3. How much money did she die with?[/QUOTE]


1. she was 70
2. what does this have to do with anything
3. what does this have to do with anything


And with the Obama Care plan I may be able to retire at 75
 
[quote name='archangelreb']1. she was 70
2. what does this have to do with anything
3. what does this have to do with anything


And with the Obama Care plan I may be able to retire at 75[/QUOTE]

1. I wanted to make sure there was "a little tread on the tires". There was this article by a Dutchman decrying socialized medicine because his grandfather of 90+ lost his hearing and gave up on life because of it.

2. You mentioned the government stopped treating her because they couldn't make any money off of her. Greece has a huge amount of corruption and tax evasion. If she wasn't paying any taxes to begin with, your argument is invalid. If she was paying taxes and her medical condition reduced her ability to generate income and taxes, you might have something.

3. Ultimately, everybody is responsible for themselves. If she had a million dollars or local equivalent laying around and the government refused treatment, she could have paid for it out of pocket. If she had nothing to her name and the government refused treatment, she is damn near in the same boat as any broke American without medical insurance under the age of 65.

...

Regarding your inability to retire until 75, stop blaming other people for your inability to save money. Unless you're living on ramen and water in a studio apartment and walking to 70 hours of jobs every week, you've placed something over savings.
 
[quote name='archangelreb'] 1. she was 70
2. what does this have to do with anything
3. what does this have to do with anything


And with the Obama Care plan I may be able to retire at 75[/QUOTE]

You'll be doing that anyway, bipartisan support for raising the retirement age y'know.
 
The NEWSWEEK Poll asked respondents about eight health-care-reform provisions that Obama and many Democrats in Congress have generally supported. It found that the majority of Americans supported five of those provisions, three by particularly large margins. Eighty-one percent agreed with the creation of a new insurance marketplace, the exchange, for individual subscribers to compare plans and buy insurance at a competitive rate. Seventy-six percent thought health insurers should be required to cover anyone who applies, including those with preexisting conditions; and 75 percent agreed with requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with incentives for small-business owners to do so.

Not all Democrat positions received such high marks. Imposing a fine on individuals who do not buy health insurance was the least popular provision, supported by only 28 percent and opposed by 62 percent. Fifty-five percent opposed the so-called Cadillac tax on the most expensive health-insurance plans.
Click to expand...

How about its like this?
Do you like reeses peanut butter cups? Nope
Do you like peanut butter? yeah!
Do you like chocolate? nope!

So why dont you like reeses peanut butter cups?

I guess you guys are still operating under the theory that if one likes one part of a bill they must like the entire bill, or else they couldn't possibly like that one part.

I also didnt see a question in which the person was asked if they would like the government to invest another trillion dollars into it.

Now the increased poll numbers on particular parts of the bill would be worth mentioning if it wasnt like this infomercial:

Do you want to work from home?!?!?
Do you want to earn millions a year?!?!?
Do you want all your dreams to come true?!?!?!
Then just order this package and all your dreams and wishes will come true!!
 
[quote name='Knoell']How about its like this?
Do you like reeses peanut butter cups? Nope
Do you like peanut butter? yeah!
Do you like chocolate? nope!

So why dont you like reeses peanut butter cups?[/QUOTE]

where's that poll at?
 
[quote name='archangelreb']1. she was 70
2. what does this have to do with anything
3. what does this have to do with anything


And with the Obama Care plan I may be able to retire at 75[/QUOTE]

I was trying to think of a proper response to what you posted and this is the best I could come up with:

A) She was sick correct? With something major?

B) When one thinks of European healthcare systems Ellada is not usually the first that comes to mind.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You'll be doing that anyway, bipartisan support for raising the retirement age y'know.[/QUOTE]

If you're waiting on the government to provide a retirement for you, you're doing it wrong.

One should always be trying to reduce debt and have even a minor amount going towards savings and emergencies.

...

Before somebody points out my support of socialized medicine, I'm only in favor of it because it provides a better level of aggregate care.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Before somebody points out my support of socialized medicine, I'm only in favor of it because it provides a better level of aggregate care.[/QUOTE]
Same here.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you're waiting on the government to provide a retirement for you, you're doing it wrong.

One should always be trying to reduce debt and have even a minor amount going towards savings and emergencies.

...

Before somebody points out my support of socialized medicine, I'm only in favor of it because it provides a better level of aggregate care.[/QUOTE]

Regarding your inability to retire until 75, stop blaming other people for your inability to save money. Unless you're living on ramen and water in a studio apartment and walking to 70 hours of jobs every week, you've placed something over savings. __________



How about I cut to the chase. I have a 401 K plan and Roth Retirement account so please before you fire a comment like the one above please ask before you assume that I'm blaming anyone. I pay into a tax that was put in place called Social Security You might assume I have at least some right to that seeing as how I've paid into it for the last 25 years. To go back to the Greece part of this conversation. She has been gone for six years now and they weren't bankrupt then and i was using Greece as a model and I do have friends from the U.K. that say this is bad because they modeled it similar to Britain's Health care system. she worked a total of 26 years in Athens, I would assume they taxed her income and she worked another 34 in the US Which goes back to the point if you pay in you should be able to get some sort of benefits. Like I said my wife works in the health care profession, I'm assuming you do too since you seem to be an expert on the issue. She deals directly with the insurance companies. Lets see she says Medicare(Once again a government program) denies more claims in her line of the health care business than any Private companies. There are better ways of getting health care to people who need it. http://www.hermancain.com/news/press-opinion-041309.asp

Look at how it will affect businesses (remember they have to make money to be able to employ workers and this is just one example.)
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/07/ohio_hamburger_chain_says_insu.html


Just fyi nothing personal this is my opinion you can spin it any way you want to but there's nothing you can say to make me believe this bill is good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='archangelreb']She has been gone for six years now and they weren't bankrupt then and i was using Greece as a model and I do have friends from the U.K. that say this is bad because they modeled it similar to Britain's Health care system.[/QUOTE]

This is absolutely not true, because it's not in the bill. You're probably referring the the 'public option' or 'medicare for all' provision which is not in the actual bill that got passed. Do you know what is in the actual bill?

Those ideas from Herman Cain are Republican ideas. If they were so good and so effective, the Republicans had more than 10 years to try to pass that shit.
 
[quote name='archangelreb']I pay into a tax that was put in place called Social Security [/QUOTE]
What is this "Social Security" you speak of?
 
[quote name='archangelreb']Just fyi nothing personal this is my opinion you can spin it any way you want to but there's nothing you can say to make me believe this bill is good.[/QUOTE]

I could tell that from your first post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top