in other news, gun stores report record high sales

I like it. The healthcare part. Now wait to hear why this will be the undoing of the USA from everyone.

My dad is making sure I know that in November there will be an uprising. An uprising of Republican politicians. But they won't be allowed to vote this bill out. And we won't be allowed to start businesses anymore, or pick a place to live, or choose where to go to school, or what to eat, or where to poop.

basically the gubmint just took over america

HEALTHCARE? Are you kidding? With healthcare we're all ****ED! It's just the start of a communist/socialist/nazi/muslim/unamerican takeover of this country!

The commies have won.

but but but you can't just give healthcare to poor people, and sick people; they are that way because of their own laziness! would JESUS care for the poor and the sick? of course not, that's just unamerican

i love how the House thinks that the Senate has to agree to the revisions

A. No one understands a damn thing about this bill. Yet it passed anyway.
B. It stands to cost us severe amounts of money, when we're already crashing as a market and economy.
C. People who have healthcare already may not even be able to afford it afterwards, thanks to B.
D. There's no guarantee poor people will get anything at all out of this bill. Making it all the more pointless.


Seriously, does ANYONE know what EVERYTHING this bill did? I mean entirely. All of it. Not just parts, I mean the whole mess.

Yeah I haven't had healthcare for 3 months and it's already gone up.

Virginia already passed a law banning several (if not all) aspects of the federal health care legislation. I also recently read that there were ~39 states considering suing the federal government if the bill is signed.

Amerika, **** Yeah!

oh **** guys our government passed a bill through a constitutional manner we better sue them for not being republican

People have to be happy with every bit of legislation?

Do you guys see nothing negative with the bill? Almost every action has pros and cons, but I guess to know the cons you'd have to know what the bill actually does. I'm going to wager a reasonable guess that those of you supporting it blithely have not read it in any detail.

You can't win a lawsuit because you are unhappy with the results.

Of course it has negatives. By far, the worst one is the amount of *****ing the right wing is doing.

Ideally, this bill will cause private insurance companies to tank, paving the way for single payer health care.

I haven't read the bill yet, but I'd be ecstatic if private insurance companies tanked. They have absolutely no right to be in business. Their entire market is artificial and unnecessary.

I don't, and I highly doubt you know, the legality of this bill.

As in, are you trying to tell me the supreme court have never labeled anything unconstitutional?

Basically, if you think something is wrong, why not bring up litigation? Especially something as far reaching as this.



To some people single player is a ghastly idea.

The basic thing is that you are trying to force your principles on those who do not share them. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

The Conservatives/Republicans don't seem to mind when they're doing it to everyone else (abortion, creationism in schools, etc.).

When two sets of principles are mutually exclusive one set is by default 'forced upon' the other if it is chosen

i.e. as long as there is not single player health care the principles of those for competitive health care are forced upon those who are for single payer health care, and vice-versa

They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Also, one is action, one is inaction.

Let me put it bluntly: those who want the single player system aren't the ones paying for it. We all know this, but I feel it needs to be stated to put this into perspective.

Why do 27 year olds need to stay on their parents insurance? Seriously.

Are you suggesting only lower class or impoverished people want unified health care? I'm middle class, HAVE HEALTH CARE ALREADY and I still think it's terrible.

There are an infinite amount of responses to why that statement is idiotic. I'll let you come up with them on your own, as you're a smart guy, just high on a perceived victory.

Stop jumping to conclusions you insufferable git.

Why do you guys always need to take up some perceived high horse.

It's not a binary option where:

1 = rich are heavily taxed to pay for the poor
2 = rich are not heavily taxed, poor suffer

I'm just saying single player healthcare is not the best option for everyone. That's all.

I want the majority of people to like the single payer plan. Then we can pass that into law, using our constitution (thats the thing republicans don't like).

I didn't, I asked a question. Stop being so obtuse. Why are you coming into this thread, figuratively stomping your feet and screaming and insulting all of us?


There is never a best option for everyone. Single player healthcare is probably the best option for most people, however.

You're implying Emon, as everyone in these debates imply.

The implication, as has been made here, and everywhere, is that if you aren't for universal socialized healthcare, you're for the kicking of homeless orphans. You also have a fancy top hat and monocle, and wipe with crisp $100 bills OR are a slack jawed, bible thumping neanderthal.

You *assumed* that by even asking that question, and I'm tired of everyone having blinders on, think there are only two possible avenues for healthcare reform.



This is the blinders you guys have on. I'm going to say that in the long run, it isn't. Why? From a very simple perspective that the government already does a poor job on healthcare, as far as medicare/aid has went.

It would turn into a long debate that boils down to the question of big or small government.

I hate smokers! I also hate smoking bans in places of business.

I want my patients to eat healthy! I also don't like soda taxes.

It's a general theme I run with.

How is single payer and competitive health care not mutually exclusive? They are mutually exclusive by definition.

Technically speaking the fact that a principle is being "forced" onto people that disagree with it applies regardless of whether or not it is already the status quo (the fact that it is the status quo does not necessarily make it less wrong for it to be forced upon those who disagree with it; similarly, the fact that something requires action for it to become the status quo does not make it more wrong for it to be forced upon those who disagree with it)

For the record I don't know enough about the merits and shortcomings of single payer vs. competitive to have an opinion; I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I think you give me too much credit. I have no idea why my statement is idiotic. You made a statement claiming that we're forcing our "principles on those who do not share them." I was simply attempting to point out that the other side consistently attempts to do the same thing, as is the case w/ trying to change the language involving abortion in the bill & w/ supporting the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in school (there are several politicians of high esteem on the right that don't even believe in Evolution). The majority is pretty much always doing this on various issues.

I'm actually quite surprised that they were able to pass this w/ lobbyist pockets being so deep. I really wish they'd seriously take on campaign finance reform. Maybe we can cram that down some throats next? I may not agree w/ everything that I've read about the bill but there are certain areas that I would definitely consider to be a victory. For instance, it's simply not smart business to accept patients w/ pre-existing conditions.

Single Payer. This is not a videogame menu.

whoops :embarassed:

edit -- what happened to the embarassed smiley

yeah if you want single player healthcare go play trauma center

Well, two players is awesome as well, at least on the Wii.

i don't wanna die, man

Welcome to the late 19th century America.

a.) Two wrongs don't make a right.
b.) Not everyone who is against heavy healthcare legislation is a republican.

Your statement assumes that those against healthcare are all bible thumping conservative republicans who are heavy on the social regulation. You assume incorrectly.

Otherwise, why even say that statement? What's your point?

"They guys are jerks, so we can be too?"

Really Mentat, educate me if there is any higher purpose to that statement which actually supports your side.

We're not quite there yet, man. I wish, but we're not.

**** this bill, I already got mine!

I'm curious as to why you guys, and you in particular, are so focused on this route of healthcare reform?

What leads you to think that this will result in a better quality, no quantity, of life for the average person? Like actual facts, not what you "feel".

Not vague life expectancy data which is functionally worthless when you consider what are the major causes of death in the US.

Not the statistic that there were uninsured, but that the quality of healthcare they will now receive will actually benefit them again, as far as quality of life is concerned.

Not the statistics of the ills of solely the insurance companies, but a realistic comparison on current first world government run systems to private insurers in terms of patient outcome.

I'll make this short and simple for you guys, who bellow at the top of your lungs about the disparities in healthcare: there isn't much difference in outcome between our patients, and patients in Sweden.

That data, showing significantly better outcomes for patients in socialized countries, if it were available, would be latched on to already by anyone here. Instead, they rely on "life expectancy" because that's all you guys have: a parameter that will be ultimately be unaffected by this regulation.

Edit: The reason I harp on quality of life versus quantity is that with modern technology people can be kept alive in misery; this is not a "benefit" to the patient, as they are basically not functional anymore. If a healthcare system had healthy people die at 70, but another they died at 75 with five years in a nursing home doped out on morphine, I'd consider them equivalent systems.

I don't know much at all about the bill, but I've been skeptical of national healthcare all along. I'm actually one of the folks that would stand to benefit the most from it, but I've never really seen national healthcare as a good idea. But again, I don't understand many of the details.

That being said, it is funny to hear right wingers go absolutely nuts about this country's impending turn to socialism and the lefties' near manic obsession with how this is going to save the world.