isaiah40 wrote:For those of you who really care about this socialized healthcare, here is the bill in it's entirety.
2000 pages?! Sorry, I don't have the time for that. Have any of the politicians even read through that monolith?
Nope, nobody has read it,(in fact the democrats made news making fun of republicans for trying to read it)
Only one thing is for sure. even though nobody knows what is in it, Liberals call it a victory. NO MATTER how good or bad it is.......
Nope, I didn't read it all either, although I did look up those parts I saw on those news channels on what was in the bill. For instance, tanning salons WILL get charged an extra 10% tax just because they are a tanning salon. I can't remember what else, probably because I don't want to remember. I guess we are going to have to push our state representatives for nullification of this. We nullified the Real ID Act of 2005 when about half the states told the feds we are not going to do it.
Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
You know what, I'm starting to like you and think you might be much more moderate then I first thought. I'm sure you will take your chance to beat me down...
More moderate? Maybe, I guess that depends on your previous perception of me. I am for minimalist government and extremely low taxes so in most people's eyes that hardly makes me a moderate.
I am very against pollution, but not things like CO2 more like things like arsenic (sp?), PCB's, mercury, sulfur, cyanide (yes it has industrial uses where it is emitted into the environment particularly related to mining) ect. My problem with the "global warming" cult is that it drowns most other talk of reducing what I see as more serious pollutants and the way the "solution" is being implemented seems more like a wealth redistribution program than a pollution reduction program.
rockfist wrote:I am very against pollution, but not things like CO2 more like things like arsenic (sp?), PCB's, mercury, sulfur, cyanide (yes it has industrial uses where it is emitted into the environment particularly related to mining) ect. My problem with the "global warming" cult is that it drowns most other talk of reducing what I see as more serious pollutants and the way the "solution" is being implemented seems more like a wealth redistribution program than a pollution reduction program.
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
Okay how's this? Starting in 2013 no citizen of the United States will not be allowed to purchase ANY private health insurance!
Neoteny wrote:I am interested in learning about where in the bill this is written.
Nobody has come out and said anything definitive yet...(strange?) but it seems to me this bill is a major step in the direction of eliminating/taking over health insurance companies
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
Okay how's this? Starting in 2013 no citizen of the United States will not be allowed to purchase ANY private health insurance!
But what about in the bill where it says everybody gets a tax cut and a horsie? Didn't you like that part?
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
Okay how's this? Starting in 2013 no citizen of the United States will not be allowed to purchase ANY private health insurance!
In Britain we have a long established National Health Service AND a thriving private health industry, strange how all you purveyors of doom continuously ignore this fact.
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
Okay how's this? Starting in 2013 no citizen of the United States will not be allowed to purchase ANY private health insurance!
In Britain we have a long established National Health Service AND a thriving private health industry, strange how all you purveyors of doom continuously ignore this fact.
Sure they can co-exist peacefully, but many in the United States wonder if the government will want to muscle out the competition since it's capable of doing so and the incentives seem good. Having so many people directly dependent on your services can serve as a great way to guarantee future votes.
rockfist wrote:More moderate? Maybe, I guess that depends on your previous perception of me. I am for minimalist government and extremely low taxes so in most people's eyes that hardly makes me a moderate.
More moderate in that you are not another Scotty or Gabon, you can actually see the other side of the arguament and agree with it from time to time.
On healthcare, under neither of the bills is there a "takeover" of healthcare, thats just pure scaremongering.
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
Okay how's this? Starting in 2013 no citizen of the United States will not be allowed to purchase ANY private health insurance!
In Britain we have a long established National Health Service AND a thriving private health industry, strange how all you purveyors of doom continuously ignore this fact.
Sure they can co-exist peacefully, but many in the United States wonder if the government will want to muscle out the competition since it's capable of doing so and the incentives seem good.
Because almost all politicians aren't paid off by insurance-lobbyists?
You're saying that a country where politicians bend over backwards for the money from the insurance-companies is somehow more likely to install the government as sole healthcare provider then a country where that isn't the case?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
rockfist wrote:Look I am against almost all taxes in general but tanning salons are about pure vanity and do increase the amount of skin cancer in the world. There are hundreds of better reasons to not like this bill than taxing tanning salons.
Okay how's this? Starting in 2013 no citizen of the United States will not be allowed to purchase ANY private health insurance!
In Britain we have a long established National Health Service AND a thriving private health industry, strange how all you purveyors of doom continuously ignore this fact.
Sure they can co-exist peacefully, but many in the United States wonder if the government will want to muscle out the competition since it's capable of doing so and the incentives seem good.
Because almost all politicians aren't paid off by insurance-lobbyists?
You're saying that a country where politicians bend over backwards for the money from the insurance-companies is somehow more likely to install the government as sole healthcare provider then a country where that isn't the case?
Well, you're assuming almost all politicians are paid off by insurance lobbyists, right? If that were the case, then doesn't it seem strange that this bill got passed with so many politicians supposedly in the health insurance companies' pockets?
I think you're overestimating the insurance lobby's influence on American politics.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, you're assuming almost all politicians are paid off by insurance lobbyists, right? If that were the case, then doesn't it seem strange that this bill got passed with so many politicians supposedly in the health insurance companies' pockets?
I think you're overestimating the insurance lobby's influence on American politics.
This bill was pretty much always going to be passed, the lobbyists did everything they could to water it down and get as much out of it as they could. The one in their pockets held out until they had enough of the bill in taters but not too far that they caused a revolt in the party.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, you're assuming almost all politicians are paid off by insurance lobbyists, right? If that were the case, then doesn't it seem strange that this bill got passed with so many politicians supposedly in the health insurance companies' pockets?
I think you're overestimating the insurance lobby's influence on American politics.
This bill was pretty much always going to be passed, the lobbyists did everything they could to water it down and get as much out of it as they could. The one in their pockets held out until they had enough of the bill in taters but not too far that they caused a revolt in the party.
Indeed. Of course the politicians need to pay attention to the people who can vote too. The reform was going to happen. Not simply because people wanted it, but also because the system was collapsing on itself.
So it had to happen, and the lobbyists insured it got watered down to an incredibly bad system that was somehow still better than the current one.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, you're assuming almost all politicians are paid off by insurance lobbyists, right? If that were the case, then doesn't it seem strange that this bill got passed with so many politicians supposedly in the health insurance companies' pockets?
I think you're overestimating the insurance lobby's influence on American politics.
This bill was pretty much always going to be passed, the lobbyists did everything they could to water it down and get as much out of it as they could. The one in their pockets held out until they had enough of the bill in taters but not too far that they caused a revolt in the party.
Indeed. Of course the politicians need to pay attention to the people who can vote too. The reform was going to happen. Not simply because people wanted it, but also because the system was collapsing on itself.
So it had to happen, and the lobbyists insured it got watered down to an incredibly bad system that was somehow still better than the current one.
I'm not sure I agree with what I take to be your central point, that HCR was some sort of eventuality. Sure, the system was bound to collapse soon enough, but that's hardly stopped us in the past. If you'd told me 5 years ago that my Christmas present in 2009 would be fairer health care policy, I would laugh at you.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Well, you're assuming almost all politicians are paid off by insurance lobbyists, right? If that were the case, then doesn't it seem strange that this bill got passed with so many politicians supposedly in the health insurance companies' pockets?
I think you're overestimating the insurance lobby's influence on American politics.
This bill was pretty much always going to be passed, the lobbyists did everything they could to water it down and get as much out of it as they could. The one in their pockets held out until they had enough of the bill in taters but not too far that they caused a revolt in the party.
Indeed. Of course the politicians need to pay attention to the people who can vote too. The reform was going to happen. Not simply because people wanted it, but also because the system was collapsing on itself.
So it had to happen, and the lobbyists insured it got watered down to an incredibly bad system that was somehow still better than the current one.
Carry on laughing, I'm not too sure just how much fairer this one is, certainly not as fair as it should be. I'm not sure I agree with what I take to be your central point, that HCR was some sort of eventuality. Sure, the system was bound to collapse soon enough, but that's hardly stopped us in the past. If you'd told me 5 years ago that my Christmas present in 2009 would be fairer health care policy, I would laugh at you.
Universal health care not only rations healthcare, but everything that could be bad for you.
...."The cost of treating the effects of excessive boozing has doubled in the past five years, research by the NHS Confederation and Royal College of Physicians revealed."
UK, expect alcohol to be less available and taxed more.
You really have no idea what you are talking about. Our healthcare is just as "rationed" as your healthcare and the fact that people in a bad state can turn up at A&E or ring 999 and get treatment without calling their insurers or making sure they have enough money in the bank speaks much better about the country.
How is alcohol going to be less available? You think they are going to impose quotas on it? You really are a moron.
Also if you read up more about the NHS (esp the white paper from around 2004) you would know about the huge increase in preventative treatments by the NHS. The costs to the NHS and the country if they do nothing will be heinously large compared to the costs in changing social attitudes and trying everything to make people more responsible in their attitude to their health.
