oh dear lord this is crap. i really hope i never have occasion to say i told you so.

Well, listen to what they guys in this thread are saying. They do want a socialized system, and they do want to emulate the other western nations.

There are guys crying communism, which no one here is saying they want.

I love when I get to find out that someone in this community sucks.

I have an aching feeling you won't answer the questions I posed a little earlier.

Antony: ????

I agree w/ A & B. I don't believe that I said anything that's contrary to either of those statements. I never stated that there were 2 wrongs to begin w/. Forcing the minority to follow the rules of the majority is quite possibly a necessary evil that's associated w/ our form of government. I never stated that only Republicans oppose this healthcare legislation. However, all of them did. 34 Democrats opposed the legislation as well. I would guess that several of them are worried about losing their seats in November, although they probably don't have to worry about that too much in many cases because the country is pretty evenly divided on the subject & their constituents that disagree w/ them probably didn't vote for them the previous time(s) anyway. I suspect that a few more objected because of the deep pockets of lobbyists & the remainder probably did so for ideological reasons (I know at least one Democrat didn't originally want to sign because he's anti-abortion).

I never said that everyone against the healthcare legislation was a bible thumper or Conservative Republican but those groups do indeed make up quite a bit of the opposition.



My side isn't represented in this country.

It's really a lot easier to just wait for Jon`C to find this thread and say it better than I ever could.


Don't worry, I don't think you suck. You seem pretty normal and likable.

Don't forget to add infant & maternal mortality to that list. It's becoming quite scary to have a child in some places in this country (e.g. California).

Paging Jon'c for a debate on morality and ideology, Aisle 3.

At this point I believe the general feeling is that it's either this "foot in the door" and some cautious optimism that something will get done with that or an indefinite wait probably being no less than a decade.

Morality of ideology?

We have two systems with quantifiable outcomes. It really doesn't need to be a philosophical debate.



Alright, fair enough. You could always say "I don't know the answers to those questions".



I said:


You said:


I thought that you are implying that because "team A" does it, it's OK or expected that "team B" does it as well. That's the only thing I was talking about. I mean, that's it really.

Also, who is "your side".

Or I could start season 4 of The Sopranos, which I'm sure is a better use of my time than carrying on with you.

On a side note, you're not intelligently articulating your position either.

And, And ideology.

Enlightened Absolutism/Despotism would be great if we could figure out how to make a great leader immortal. Let's just say that I have a really big problem w/ capitalism & letting the masses decide anything.

baby killer!

That's cool dude.



I don't trust anyone with that sort of power. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't like Warhammer 40K that much

That would actually be an interesting subject, how would you go about choosing someone like that?

See. I can do that too. Shut up. I'm going to watch The Sopranos now.

That's the 2nd most difficult part (right after trying to make her/him immortal).

Guys we are so ****ed. I'm gonna get drunk and paint my nails.

From: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-vote-results-bill-passes-Obama-to-sign-it-into-law


This is bad.


This is good!

$940,000,000,000. Where the **** do we have all that money? Tell me, where on this planet do we have $940,000,000,000 that we can spend so easily? Print more? Apparently no one has ever heard of inflation. I can't wait for China to say these six words to us. "Ok. Time to pay your debt."

I will agree whole heartedly that the practice of "preexisting conditions" is an absolute terrible thing and I'm glad this is gone. This should have been done decades ago.

Apparently the bill is supposed to save us money in the long term.

At least that's what one subcommittee came up with. There are some provisions to cut certain costs, so it's not complete bloat.

Also: taxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtaxtax

See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031102042.html

Wasn't the bill they were trying to pass late last year deficit neutral?

Also, I don't think the Christian Science Monitor is a good source for healthcare information of any kind.

I'm down w/ gettin' drunk. All I have is this French pear liquor that tastes like moonshine but it'll get the job done. Apparently it's 2AM but my system clock says 10PM. I'm confused.

Cheers. Let's drink to our health!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

Don't mind the title, it's a respectable news source.

No he wasn't, get your head out of your ass.

The bill seems to be the wrong approach to a necessary cause. It's already too expensive and doesn't really appear to be able to actually help the people it had intended to help.

What bill that Congress has passed that isn't ridiculously expensive?

Emon can take care of himself just fine. Stick your nose somewhere else.

Then again, I guess it fits your name.



I missed this in my kicking and screaming.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

What's wrong with CA?

Oh, I'm sure. I just had a problem with you spouting nonsense, that's all.

So do I, that's why I don't like you bringing it up when Emon had apparently let it slide.

Man, people sure do love to make other people give them stuff.

I'm sick of this nonsense, for years now. Lets get this clear, The Sopranos sucked.

I knew it would pass, however I am torn. I think my reasons though are pretty reasonable though. My criticisms definitely are more logistical than emotional. I'm glad people have health care now though!

1. CM is right. No one knows what this bill has in it. God knows what provisions are in it. I hope someone soon kind of goes through the bill page by page.

2. Obama straight up lied when he said it wouldn't raise pre-existing insurance rates, because well, they already have. I am also slightly doubting the Executive Order regarding limiting the funding for abortions. It seems like it was a perfect way for Obama to get votes, but allows him the ability to literally tomorrow cross that out. Don't think it should've been an executive order. IMO shoulda been part of the bill, and then up to the states to decide whether to agree or not.

3. All of you commenting on the budget are wrong. Flat out wrong. You know why? Because these estimates are based on models of significant assumptions about GDP and growth. The funniest thing about this bill is what the Congressional Budget Office CONTINUALLY has said in its papers. You can't say right now it'll be budget neutral. You can't say that it'll actually cut costs. At most right now, all evidence points to cost INCREASES unless the economy acts directly according to the stupid actions that the Obama administration has predicted (which as we have seen so far, have been dreadfully dreadfully dreadfully wrong. See: Stimulus + Unemployment models! Unemployment will plateau at 8% with our stimulus hur hur hur. Boy they got that one right :rolleyes:)



That kind of goes along with the first one in that the models for the budgetary impact of this law are just models, and pretty terrible ones at that, but it is all we have. And the fact that we are trusting our cost cutting measures to yet another government agency is, at the very least, disheartening and slightly disturbing giving the trend we see in government agencies. The fact that we are really putting faith in our government to implement fully and correctly hundreds of pages of legislation is scary.

4. I believe that there are actually some strict constitutional arguments against this health care bill that people were getting into, but not quite articulating well. Never in the history of America has there been a law that has forced people to engage in private transactions with economic agents. There are serious beliefs that this violates all sorts of things in the "Commerce" clause of the Constitution. As one of blog writers put it "Cash for Clunkers is one thing. Making EVERYONE buy a Chevy is another"

That being said, I really cannot offer any opinion right now on it. And I'm pretty sure here no one can. It's going to be something that we are simply going to have to watch and observe. Never before has a country LIKE US engaged in a health care system like this, so this is all truly experimental. Everyone here likes to say "EVERY OTHER COUNTRY DOES IT HUR!" but there is a strict misunderstanding of American culture that will play a huge impact on new health care. Just because it works in a country with 4 million people, does not mean it will work in a country with 300 million with arguably a much higher consumption culture, especially when things appear "free". Just look at things like road congestion, the principles still apply. Our consumption culture can mean drastic things for economic growth, which this health bill's success is based on.

UK has 61 million.

??

Greenboy, perhaps I shouldn't of used specifically the numerical example. I meant more than just numbers. The UK has grown up with the NHS as part of its culture. They've grown up with NHS. We have not. There are significantly different attitudes about the provision of free services to United States citizens than UK citizens, ESPECIALLY when a lot of people are suddenly given a golden ticket.

If you are disagreeing with this, then you are basically saying that what works in countries MUST work in other countries automatically, because all people will act the same, which is premature and irrational. Well if "xxx economic model" works in the US, well then it OBVIOUSLY must work in Russia or Haiti or India! That's never true, because you are ignoring the human factor, the institutional factor, the culture factor, and the contextual and historical factor. There is a lot more than just #s. Frankly, it's those factors that lead me to worry about the bill in question. Not for what it does, but for how it will be implemented and how it will be used.

Don't try to say the UK and the US are similar. I've now lived in the UK for almost 8 months, and if anyone tried to tell me that the US and the UK are the same, I'd laugh in their face.

Well, I'd say that if our system doesnt work, we should try something else.

I could pretty happily emigrate though. Probably a better solution than expecting Americans to stop being so fat.

Also, someone can enlighten me on this. Did this provision do anything to help the almost guaranteed problem that we are about to face? How the hell are we going to support 32 million newly insured people without fixing one of the fundamental problems in the US health care industry, which is shortage of doctors. Without significant reform to our medical schools and licensing for professional caregivers, this will INEVITABLY lead to longer waits and such if we keep the amount of doctors the exact same. On the margin, those few doctors who are financially incentivized when they decide to become a doctor I could see not becoming one (note I said on the margin, not overall. Most doctors I know are in it for the humanitarian side of it, but I for one know that some are not and I've met them)



How is our provision stopping people from becoming obese (which is a definite health concern)? If anything the health care provision is a moral hazard problem that will incentivize people to continue being obese on the margin

being so fat, as in, not awesome

Sucks to work in the medical field now. Unless you like being in debt for the rest of your life.