Healthcare Bill

[JaggerPlate]

John McCain: There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Haha, butthurt republicans are now planning to act like 8 year old kids who had their toy taken away from them.

Pff wtf man??? He got tort reform and competition across state lines in there, what is this seasoned senator and US war hero ******* bitching about???

Pfff lammmeeee. Needs a little more Si se Puede in his life if you ask me!!



/sarcasm

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Well I have read it, and as I said before, it's not quite 2000 pages of reading. It's more like 900-1000, and while I could potentially see it being reduced to 800 or so by taking out some stuff, you really can't make it much smaller if you are going to tackle something as complex as healthcare. I know some people on the right want easily understandable bills that Sarah Palin can write on her palm, but it's not going to work with a system as convoluted as healthcare. Or you leave big holes in coverage (*cough* donut hole *cough*) or miss things completely.

On the other hand, the people on the left who are defending every part of the bill should read some parts which are designed clearly to buy off votes. Not that this makes it any different than any other bill, but it's there and it does make it more beaurocratic than it needs to be.

LOL, I'm not asking that it's watered down to a Sarah Palin level ... but I agree with your second paragraph.

 

[Lokhtar]

Here's my issue ... you're essentially riding on the idea that people like the perks of the legislation, but have some knee jerk reaction and automatically dismiss the bill as a whole. I can see that. Here is my issue ...

You say things like 'when the benefits start rolling in.' I feel this is unfair, and the reason why is because the short term isn't going to be like the long term. I think the benefits are going to be viewed way quicker than the cost, strain, etc catches up, and this is going to create a false sense of 'yes we can,' before 2014 when everything really gears up. My guess is that this will will seem great for the first few years, but not so much as time goes on and on.

It may or may not, but that's not the point. What they won't like are the mandate and the taxes (rich only). But guess what? They'll still like the fact that their kid now has insurance and he wouldn't if this bill was repealed. SO they may repeal the taxes (e.g, more deficits), or the mandate (no more private insurance), but they won't repeal the entitlements.

So in terms of policy, e.g, getting everyone covered, the bill won't be repealed as it's going to remain popular. By 2014, when the mandate kicks in, too many people will be reliant on the benefits that this gives for them to give up the benefit. So they may find a way around the mandate, but they won't find a way around the benefits.

Am I making sense or am I rambling on?

 

[JaggerPlate]

It may or may not, but that's not the point. What they won't like are the mandate and the taxes (rich only). But guess what? They'll still like the fact that their kid now has insurance and he wouldn't if this bill was repealed. SO they may repeal the taxes (e.g, more deficits), or the mandate (no more private insurance), but they won't repeal the entitlements.

So in terms of policy, e.g, getting everyone covered, the bill won't be repealed as it's going to remain popular. By 2014, when the mandate kicks in, too many people will be reliant on the benefits that this gives for them to give up the benefit. So they may find a way around the mandate, but they won't find a way around the benefits.

Am I making sense or am I rambling on?

No it makes sense ... it's just that you're arguing against something that I'm only assuming is going to happen, so there's no real way to 'end it,' you know??

 

[Techno]

Now Im going to HAVE to convince my wealthy grandparents to pay for school.

 

[Lokhtar]

The benefits:

This year (within six months):

1. If you're born with a condition (such as sickle cell), insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage.
2. If you are not married, you can stay under your parents healthcare plan until the age of 26.
3. If you are elderly, the prescription doughnut hole will begin to be fixed.
4. If you have a condition and you cannot get insurance, there will be high risk insurance pools subsidized by the government where you will be able to purchase insurance.
5. If you're a small business, you will receive tax credits to help with the cost of insuring your employees.

Next year:

1. Insurance companies required to spend a minimum of 80% of their revenue on medical costs (the rest for administration, profit, etc)
2. If you have medicare, preventative care will be free

2014:

1. Insurers cannot deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition.
2. You can purchase your coverage through a health-exchange that will be set up, and high risk insurance pools will be disbanded (since now all insurers are required to insure you)

When buying insurance, people will receive subsidies on a sliding scale so that they don't pay the full cost themselves.

How it's paid for:

The money will come from the following places: increase by about 1% percent the medicare tax on individuals earning $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more. Note that it's a 1% overall increase, meaning the tax will go up from 2% of payroll to 3%, which is a 33% increase in the tax itself. These people will also see a tax increase in other areas, like capital gains, etc. Bush tax cuts will also expire, adding additional revenue. People making less will not see an increase. There are further taxes, some on the insurance companies itself, some on the really high end insurance plans that some people enjoy, some on the pharma industry, tax on dividends would increase, and actually a new tax is enacted on indoor tanning (10% more at the tanning salon if you want to look like Snookie from Jersey Shore). I can go into more detail on those if anyone wishes.

The point of the mandate to purchase insurance is to protect the insurance companies, so you don't go without insurance until you're sick, then buy an insurance policy since you can't be denied, and then get off it again. If the mandate is repealed, the insurance companies are in trouble and we'll likely have a public plan (ironic from the perspective from the republicans who want to challenge the mandate). The hope of those who craft the legislation is to make the health insurance cost almost as much as the penalty, therefore there'd be little reason not to get a private insurance. That's the hope at least.

We'll see what happens in ten years .

I hope this helped.

 

[StormingWynn]

Get real people. What do you have up your ass to hate Universal Healthcare so much? Have you seen the rankings? We have the same quality healthcare as Cuba. They spend $500 on a surgery and we spend $100,000. What's wrong with people wanting to spend more for less? That's what I don't get.

 

[7starmantis]

It may or may not, but that's not the point. What they won't like are the mandate and the taxes (rich only). But guess what? They'll still like the fact that their kid now has insurance and he wouldn't if this bill was repealed. SO they may repeal the taxes (e.g, more deficits), or the mandate (no more private insurance), but they won't repeal the entitlements.

So in terms of policy, e.g, getting everyone covered, the bill won't be repealed as it's going to remain popular. By 2014, when the mandate kicks in, too many people will be reliant on the benefits that this gives for them to give up the benefit. So they may find a way around the mandate, but they won't find a way around the benefits.

Am I making sense or am I rambling on?

Dont you hate those people that say they are done responding and then keep responding? lol I had a long wait for something and of course I clicked on this thread. lol

Lok, I agree with you in principle. I think its very hard to take away the "free lunch" if you will. However, if its true that people ("rich") dont mind paying a little more in order to help others out (as has been touted many time on SDN and all over) then I dont think its unreasonable to believe people can objectively weigh the economic affects of some of these things and be willing to change them. Plus if we look at he precedent set by this bill the "will of the people" may not be that powerful anyway. The truth is there are many issues that affect people paying for healthcare. There could be other changes (other aspects of our economy, taxes, etc) that could help to ease some of the burden and allow people to be willing to address entitlements and their effects.

I dont put it past people to be objective about healthcare and economics in the same argument. There are many ways to let states rights evolve and address some of these issues in a way that might appease some republicans.

 

[Lokhtar]

I dont think its unreasonable to believe people can objectively weigh the economic affects of some of these things and be willing to change them. Plus if we look at he precedent set by this bill the "will of the people" may not be that powerful anyway.

Well, the will of the people only matters in November, as we saw with the previous administration and we'll see again here. Poll numbers in between fluctuate like Gary Busey's blood alcohol level.

In any case, this is conjecture, so you might be right. But my point would only be that if this were true, Medicare would have been repealed a long time ago, instead of being 3000% more costly than when it was funded. Right now, far from being repealed, it's not even a legitimate discussion to repeal it. In fact, one of the major accusations that Republicans made was that this legislation would defund medicare too much.

So I'll just say, we'll see, and leave it at that. I will be shocked beyond belief if people started voting like you claim though. Assuming this legislation is bad economics. If people started thinking like that, I daresay our military budget would be reduced from $700 billion/year to $300 billion/year, which would pay for this $90 billion/year bill, double doctors salary, give everyone a $1000 tax break and we'd still come out ahead.

I don't think people work like that .

 

[tncekm]

Get real people. What do you have up your ass to hate Universal Healthcare so much? Have you seen the rankings? We have the same quality healthcare as Cuba. They spend $500 on a surgery and we spend $100,000. What's wrong with people wanting to spend more for less? That's what I don't get.

No, you bafoon, we DON'T have the same quality of healthcare as Cuba. Some international body gave our health care system the same "ranking" as Cuba, and that's primarily because we have so many uninsured. When it comes to outcomes of healthcare treatment, the US is second to none and that is precisely why people flock from all over the world to have their healthcare needs met here in the states.

Our "outcomes" will become relatively depressed under this socialist system because socialism, almost necessarily, ******s innovation. Innovation is a response to consumer need, but when the government becomes the consumer and they are trying to limit costs, they limit innovation.


Whatever, socialist healthcare is our reality now. I'm just glad I'm going to be a physician so my family and I will be taken care of.

 

[ihatewaiting]

Wow. It looks like some people should have spent less time posting about healthcare reform online and more time doing something about it in real life... maybe then they would have gotten the outcome that they wanted.

 

[Drad18]

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist

57 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.



45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"


38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing
many of the things that Hitler did


24 percent of republicans believe Obama is the antichrist





Sure not ALL republicans believe this but when a large percentage of these people constitute the republican party you really have to question THE UTTER RIDICULOUSNESS of these people. I am at a loss of words!!!!

The harris poll is a legit respectable poll. It is not just republicans either, dont get me wrong but the majority of americans who believe these things are republicans. Sure some dems and others fall in it too.

For all those still questioning the validity of evolution, this is the defining point proving indeed humans evolved from APES

 

[StormingWynn]

No, you bafoon, we DON'T have the same quality of healthcare as Cuba. Some international body gave our health care system the same "ranking" as Cuba, and that's primarily because we have so many uninsured. When it comes to outcomes of healthcare treatment, the US is second to none and that is precisely why people flock from all over the world to have their healthcare needs met here in the states.

Our "outcomes" will become relatively depressed under this socialist system because socialism, almost necessarily, ******s innovation. Innovation is a response to consumer need, but when the government becomes the consumer and they are trying to limit costs, they limit innovation.


Whatever, socialist healthcare is our reality now. I'm just glad I'm going to be a physician so my family and I will be taken care of.

LOL, wow. You're special. I believe they took other things into account when they made the rankings.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

49% favor passage of the bill, 40% opposed it's passage.

Just 2 weeks ago, it was 45% that favor it, and 48% that opposed it.

And the tide begins to turn!

 

[JaggerPlate]

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist

57 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.



45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was “not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president”


38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is “doing
many of the things that Hitler did


24 percent of republicans believe Obama is the antichrist





Sure not ALL republicans believe this but when a large percentage of these people constitute the republican party you really have to question THE UTTER RIDICULOUSNESS of these people. I am at a loss of words!!!!

The harris poll is a legit respectable poll. It is not just republicans either, dont get me wrong but the majority of americans who believe these things are republicans. Sure some dems and others fall in it too.

For all those still questioning the validity of evolution, this is the defining point proving indeed humans evolved from APES

So ... a random polling place asked Republicans questions not related in the slightest to healthcare, you've made assumptions based on these biased questions, and you're now extrapolating this argument to assume that because these Republicans think X they are foolish, therefore, their opposition to healthcare is also foolish, and Dems are correct.

Man ... someone should come up with a name for that kind of argument. It's foolproof.

 

[Drad18]

So ... a random polling place asked Republicans questions not related in the slightest to healthcare, you've made assumptions based on these biased questions, and you're now extrapolating this argument to assume that because these Republicans think X they are foolish, therefore, their opposition to healthcare is also foolish, and Dems are correct.

Man ... someone should come up with a name for that kind of argument. It's foolproof.

Not saying Dems are correct by this poll.

What I am saying is that if the foundation of the republican party can be brainwashed to believe these things GOD KNOWS WHAT THEY WILL BELIEVE...... INCLUDING HEALTHCARE!!!


If you can't make a correlation to healthcare I am sorry for you.
But thanks for the typical response.

And really you have never heard of the Harris Poll? Not so random!!

 

[JaggerPlate]

Not saying Dems are correct by this poll. What I am saying is that the foundation of the republican party can be brainwashed to believe these things GOD KNOWS WHAT THEY WILL BELIEVE INCLUDING HEALTHCARE!!!


If you can't make a correlation to healthcare I am sorry for you.
But thanks for the typical response.

I need to stop wasting moment of my life responding to you. If you honestly can't see why this is the textbook definition of an Ad hominem and that the methodology of this survey is completely flawed (you're going to tell me that asking people if they think Obama is the antichrist doesn't create bias from the beginning), then you're a complete ****ing *****. Beyond the point of drinking the kooliaid, or being Obama's Monica Lewinsky ... you're just an idiot.

 

[Drad18]

I need to stop wasting moment of my life responding to you. If you honestly can't see why this is the textbook definition of an Ad hominem and that the methodology of this survey is completely flawed (you're going to tell me that asking people if they think Obama is the antichrist doesn't create bias from the beginning), then you're a complete ****ing *****. Beyond the point of drinking the kooliaid, or being Obama's Monica Lewinsky ... you're just an idiot.

I am not making this stuff up. They ask the same questions to both republicans and democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It isn't a little strange that you get these hight percentages from the republicans? REALLY ?




Oh wait, but I am talking to the same guy who was creating panic Sunday night when the bill passed, misstating left and right and then left and right and then left and right one more time information about the reform.


Just go back and look for your self! But it is easy to just dismiss the poll as biased and not fair....I would too if I claimed to be a republican.

 

[Lokhtar]

Just want to point out that even if the numbers in the USA today poll are wrong, and the old polls were right, they are a bit misleading.

While the public opposes (or opposed) the bill 59% to 39%, let's look at the reasons:

13% oppose it because it is not liberal enough. These people are not the tea party angst bloc that Republicans can tap into. 39% think it's just right, and 43% oppose it. So you really have 52% who favor some major health reform that's at least this much..... 52%-43% in favor is starkly different from 59%-43% against.

The point is the anger lies in the 39%. How many of the 39% are swing voters (i.e, people who wouldn't vote Republican anyway?) I don't know. We'll find out. As I said, I'd be surprised if the support of the bill doesn't go up at least 10% by November.

 

[KoopaT89]

I am not making this stuff up. They ask the same questions to both republicans and democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It isn't a little strange that you get these hight percentages from the republicans? REALLY ?




Oh wait, but I am talking to the same guy who was creating panic Sunday night when the bill passed, misstating left and right and then left and right and then left and right one more time information about the reform.


Just go back and look for your self! But it is easy to just dismiss the poll as biased and not fair....I would too if I claimed to be a republican.

Troll.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Troll.

Clearly. I shouldn't have fed him, but it's difficult when he's trying to paint me as something I'm not and 'school' me with 'unbiased' studies that asked people if Obama was the antichrist, and if his activities were equal to that of Hitler's. As Americans, we should all be pretty disgusted by that, and ignore anyone who peddles that trash.

Aka ... Drad, we're done discussing.

 

[Babnik]

Guys, we should not get caught up in little details about this bill.
But what should worry us most is the big picture:

Just like anything else the government does, it is always WAY more expensive in real life than it is on paper. Furthermore, the government isnt using money that they have for this, they take out loan after loan from China. Running a national budget is no different then running a household budget in essence, if you spend too much, and not earn enough you will go bankrupt! Simple.

If this spending continues, In 10 years the government is going to be paying 800,000,000,000 a year just in interest!!!! Do you realize how robust the economy has to be to support that kind of payment?? Defiantly not robust enough with all this government takeover. So basically, all these socialist-like policies being implemented will bankrupt the US beyond repair, and the dollar will crash.

At that point your MD wont matter, and money will be worthless. What will matter is a good spot around the garbage can fire to stay warm. Way to drive this country off a cliff. but hey, at least its for the people!

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

No, you bafoon, we DON'T have the same quality of healthcare as Cuba. Some international body gave our health care system the same "ranking" as Cuba, and that's primarily because we have so many uninsured. When it comes to outcomes of healthcare treatment, the US is second to none and that is precisely why people flock from all over the world to have their healthcare needs met here in the states.

Not true. While for some instances we have better outcomes for than other countries, (counting only the insured) in other cases we don't. One of the paradoxical causes of this, is that among the well-insured in this country we actually use too much health care and it's reducing our outcomes in some areas. The problems in American health care stem from either too little health care (uninsured) or too much health care (mostly the well-insured). When we get it right, however, we get the best health care in the world and it's not that expensive, like at the Mayo Clinic. The rest of the country doesn't do as well. We have so much variability.

 

[Drad18]

Clearly. I shouldn't have fed him, but it's difficult when he's trying to paint me as something I'm not and 'school' me with 'unbiased' studies that asked people if Obama was the antichrist, and if his activities were equal to that of Hitler's. As Americans, we should all be pretty disgusted by that, and ignore anyone who peddles that trash.

Aka ... Drad, we're done discussing.

Ok Jagger you need to do some research on the harris poll and what the agency is because clearly you have no clue.

I am not attacking you but rather stating the results of a legit poll.

Sure the questions may be scary, but they have to be asked when you have republicans like RUSH LiMBAUGH preaching this!!!!!



What is scarier is how they answer the questions!




This is reality that you are trying to ignore!




So lets end the discussion so you can ignore it further

 

[KoopaT89]

Ok Jagger you need to do some research on the harris poll and what the agency is because clearly you have no clue.

I am not attacking you but rather stating the results of a legit poll.

Sure the questions may be scary, but they have to be asked when you have republicans like RUSH LiMBAUGH preaching this!!!!!



What is scarier is how they answer the questions!




This is reality that you are trying to ignore!




So lets end the discussion so you can ignore it further

Does using red ink and using your enter key a lot make you feel your point is coming across any better?



Go troll elsewhere

 

[JaggerPlate]

 

[Drad18]

Does using red ink and using your enter key a lot make you feel your point is coming across any better?



Go troll elsewhere

How am I trolling again? By stating a legit poll? Just because it is crazy what the poll says = me trolling? Gotcha



ARE YOU BREATHING?


I am at the point where I am leaving for my own sanity.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

Yo drad, chill man. I'm on your side philosophically in this debate, and you're starting to get to me, can't imagine what my good friend jagger is feeling. It's cool, the poll is a bit surprising, but you shouldn't use those findings as a base to call republicans totally outta their mind, especially by preempting the entire debate with that accusation.

I've come to the conclusion (a long time ago actually) that this entire debate cannot be resolved, since ultimately, so much of the disagreement stems from very fundamental differences in how we (democrats and republicans) perceive our society. Republicans believe that you yourself will make your destiny, while Democrats believe that those who are having a tough time making ends meet should receive some help. Republicans believe in the free market and small government, while Democrats believe that there are just some things in our society that it is up to the government to handle. Health care, is one just thing.

The reason I am a democrat is because, from my life personally, I feel that the playing fields are not even for everyone. I lived in the projects of the Bronx, and in Boston for a long time in my life. Being in the city, my surroundings affected me, and for one reason or another, I just wasn't reaching my potential. I don't know whether it was my own making, or influences around me, but I just wasn't taking school seriously or life, for that matter. Long story short, I moved down to Hoover, Alabama, and saw that it was one of the most beautiful places I've ever seen, and you can't ask for a better public school and place to grow up "properly." Essentially, it was a much better-geared place to let yourself not get distracted or get into anything "bad" and more easily do what society considers good (general enough for ya?). All of a sudden, I started working hard, getting good grades, volunteering, and looking back, couldn't believe how I was wasting my time just hanging out downtown doing really nothing day in and day out. I began to look to my future to really try and make something of myself. Today I'm in medical school.

Of course this isn't how most democrats came to be democrats, and I'm not sure if I even know if I stated correctly what all a democrat believes - but from my experiences, I can just relate to their ideology more than I can for republicans. I think the reason there are more "non-caucasian" people are democrats, is because, for a lot of them, the playing fields really aren't even. There tends to be more democrats in inner-cities, rather than nice suburban neighborhoods, because there too, schools and surroundings and everything are disproportionately against your favor - (I know I'm generalizing here a lot, but this is just my 2 cents on how I look at things).

Bottom line though, this debate here at SDN won't change anyone's minds, but I'm just trying to justify some of the things I believe in. You can't say republicans are immoral for not being able to support the 32 million Americans without coverage - it's just in their inherent philosophy to be more fiscally responsible than socially adherent to all. Not their fault, us democrats just feel it's worth the expense because we believe, a lot of things are unfair and it's okay to have my pay cut a bit if it'll help 32 million people get coverage.

 

[Drad18]

Yo drad, chill man. I'm on your side philosophically in this debate, and you're starting to get to me, can't imagine what my good friend jagger is feeling. It's cool, the poll is a bit surprising, but you shouldn't use those findings as a base to call republicans totally outta their mind, especially by preempting the entire debate with that accusation.

You are misinterpreting me.

I as mentioned am not labeling all republicans as out of their mind. Rather those who answered the [harris poll so shockingly who by majority claim to be republican. Numbers are numbers.

You misinterpret me again by stating I preempt the entire debate on the poll results. Please show me where I say that and prove me wrong. Rather that if republicans can be brainwashed to believe Obama is like Hitler or is Muslim than they sure can be brainwashed about a simple bill. Thus adding to all this hysteria about the bill that is simply false.


Its unfortunate but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

 

[csmittyB]

.... I started working hard, getting good grades, volunteering, and looking back, couldn't believe how I was wasting my time just hanging out downtown doing really nothing day in and day out. I began to look to my future to really try and make something of myself. Today I'm in medical school...

You mean you didn't sit around waiting for/demanding a handout from people who have been successful??? What a strange concept in todays America. Work hard? Make something of yourself? Be a success?

 

[Dr Oops]

You are misinterpreting me.

I as mentioned am not labeling all republicans as out of their mind. Rather those who answered the [harris poll so shockingly who by majority claim to be republican. Numbers are numbers.

You misinterpret me again by stating I preempt the entire debate on the poll results. Please show me where I say that and prove me wrong. Rather that if republicans can be brainwashed to believe Obama is like Hitler or is Muslim than they sure can be brainwashed about a simple bill. Thus adding to all this hysteria about the bill that is simply false.


Its unfortunate but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

no ones misinterpreting you, youve had about 2 posts where you actually contributed something the other 20 were calling repubs the scum of the earth.

 

[Drad18]

no ones misinterpreting you, youve had about 2 posts where you actually contributed something the other 20 were calling repubs the scum of the earth.

Please grow up. I WAS being misinterpreted. Dont tell me what my beliefs are. Thank you. Show me one post I made claiming ALL republicans are the scum of the earth.

When I speak negatively of republicans it is in regards to those who 1) answer by majority saying Obama is like Hitler,is a Muslim, is a Socialist etc. 2) Those who constantly misinterpret and ignorantly say the health reform is something it is not without even doing research on it. 3) Those who hold money in higher standards than human life.


Please do not tell me you agree with point 1 2 or 3. If so please explain why you think I am wrong.


And again please do not misinterpret me.


Thats like me stating random false comments about you. How would you like that. All my post are listed so please show me where I include ALL republican in my comments.


What xxnemesis is correct about, is that you cannot change anyones mind here! So thats why I give up.

 

[7starmantis]

When I speak negatively of republicans it is in regards to those who 1) answer by majority saying Obama is like Hitler,is a Muslim, is a Socialist etc. 2) Those who constantly misinterpret and ignorantly say the health reform is something it is not without even doing research on it. 3) Those who hold money in higher standards than human life.

Just curious. Can you list one republican elected officials (federal level) that do not fit in one of those categories?

 

[casualremark]

...I've come to the conclusion (a long time ago actually) that this entire debate cannot be resolved, since ultimately, so much of the disagreement stems from very fundamental differences in how we (democrats and republicans) perceive our society. Republicans believe that you yourself will make your destiny, while Democrats believe that those who are having a tough time making ends meet should receive some help. Republicans believe in the free market and small government, while Democrats believe that there are just some things in our society that it is up to the government to handle. Health care, is one just thing.

Ahem. I didn't even have to read your next sentence to know you're a democrat based on your implication that Republicans don't believe those who are having a tough time making ends meet should receive some help, or that support for a free market and small government is refusal to accept that there are some things in our society that are best left to a [representative] government to handle. Talk about misrepresentation...

Bottom line though, this debate here at SDN won't change anyone's minds, but I'm just trying to justify some of the things I believe in. You can't say republicans are immoral for not being able to support the 32 million Americans without coverage - it's just in their inherent philosophy to be more fiscally responsible than socially adherent to all. Not their fault, us democrats just feel it's worth the expense because we believe, a lot of things are unfair and it's okay to have my pay cut a bit if it'll help 32 million people get coverage.

Or...perhaps republicans' idea of being "socially adherent" is realizing fiscal irresponsibility and logical fallacy in public policy can be every bit as deadly as cancer.

 

[JaggerPlate]

you mean you didn't sit around waiting for/demanding a handout from people who have been successful??? what a strange concept in todays america. Work hard? Make something of yourself? Be a success?

lol

 

[JaggerPlate]

Yo drad, chill man. I'm on your side philosophically in this debate, and you're starting to get to me, can't imagine what my good friend jagger is feeling.

Haha, it's no problem from my end man ... I'd rather be on the 'team' opposing the crazy, ranting, guy with his pants around his ankles and a tin foil helmet on his head, than backing his play


In all seriousness though ... I do respect where your ideology comes from, and I do understand what you see as a positive in this bill ... just don't share the same outlook though, you know???

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

you mean you didn't sit around waiting for/demanding a handout from people who have been successful??? what a strange concept in todays america. Work hard? Make something of yourself? Be a success?

Well, if we just look at the sheer MATH of our society, it's just impossible for everyone to succeed. It's almost like a pyramid... or maybe a weird distorted 3-D rhombus, lol... where the vast majority of people fall in the middle class, while few people are in the top and a decent in the very bottom. The past 10 years, our economy has grown, and the richer have gotten increasingly richer, while the middle class actually saw a decrease in the amount of capital being brought home, to no fault of their own. How hard a person works is becoming increasingly irrelevant to how much the person makes. And because our society just conforms to this structure where a majority isn't able to succeed to affluence, it just makes sense to me to help them out a bit.

Comparing our system to those of other industrialized countries, it'd be like us looking at a country where children didn't have to go to school from K through 12, and a bunch of them just never were part of such a critical system that we have here. Government offered health care is about as obvious to those outside the US as public schools is to us inside. Of course private schools are an option, just like private insurers would always stay an option.

By the way, jaggerplate, you're not going to med school in Stony Brook Class of 2014 by any chance right? If so, I'll start being nicer to you or you'll hate me in real life =P

Also, this place is so nice and happy and helpful when I was trying to get into medical school, asking for MCAT help and interview tips, etc. Yikes, the second it gets personal, watch out!

 

[7starmantis]

Well, if we just look at the sheer MATH of our society, it's just impossible for everyone to succeed. It's almost like a pyramid... or maybe a weird distorted 3-D rhombus, lol... where the vast majority of people fall in the middle class, while few people are in the top and a decent in the very bottom. The past 10 years, our economy has grown, and the richer have gotten increasingly richer, while the middle class actually saw a decrease in the amount of capital being brought home, to no fault of their own. How hard a person works is becoming increasingly irrelevant to how much the person makes. And because our society just conforms to this structure where a majority isn't able to succeed to affluence, it just makes sense to me to help them out a bit.

I'm just not sure I buy the premise here, this class argument. Why is it impossible for "everyone to succeed"? I mean certainly it depends on your definition of success, but I'm not sure I'm following here. I think the idea that how hard a person works is becoming irrelevant is also false. the idea that "the rich get richer and the middle class get poorer" is often talked about but I've yet to see any real compelling argument that shows it to be the universal reality.

Also, I'm not sure how this bill got tied to helping the "middle class" out. The middle class will be hurt more by some of the taxes than anyone else. If I subscribed to your ideology I would think it would make more sense to help the very poor out rather than aim for the middle class. How exactly is our society conforming to the idea that the majority isn't able to succeed? I started two businesses on my own (before I had a degree I might add) worked them to successful ventures and sold them. The amount of work I did was directly proportional to my success and I came from very humble beginnings, and was able to succeed. I'm not trying to say one story disproves a theory, but I dont see evidence of your "rhombus" theory.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

Also, I'm not sure how this bill got tied to helping the "middle class" out. The middle class will be hurt more by some of the taxes than anyone else. If I subscribed to your ideology I would think it would make more sense to help the very poor out rather than aim for the middle class.

The very poor get help through medicaid, and the rich obviously don't need the help. It's the middle class that's struggling, and this bill helps them get health insurance, by 1) having the government offer subsidies for families making $88k a year 2) allowing children to stay on their parents health insurance till 26 (this helps everyone, but the majority of everyone is the middle class) 3) helping small businesses get tax credits and engaging in a massive national pool to get better deals on coverage.

What taxes exactly are you referring to that the middle class will get hit by? The taxes come from singles making $200,000 (which I suppose could be upper-middle class but this division doesn't need the help I'm talking about), or couples that make $250,000. There's also taxes on high-end plans, on insurance companies, etc. etc.

And your story is inspiring, and I'm not arguing that not everyone can make it. But, whatever these forces may be, it just so happens that a vast majority of people aren't successful and just need some help. This is a philosophical divide we have, and one we cannot bridge.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

I'm just not sure I buy the premise here, this class argument. Why is it impossible for "everyone to succeed"? I mean certainly it depends on your definition of success, but I'm not sure I'm following here. I think the idea that how hard a person works is becoming irrelevant is also false. the idea that "the rich get richer and the middle class get poorer" is often talked about but I've yet to see any real compelling argument that shows it to be the universal reality.

There is a really sweet metric (because of the name) called the Robin Hood Index. It's a measure of how much of their money the richer 50% of a country would have to give the poorer 50% in order for there to be perfect financial equity. For the US, that percent has been increasing with time.

• 1929: 45.0 (estimated)
• 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
• 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
• 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
• 1970: 39.4
• 1980: 40.3
• 1990: 42.8
• 2000: 46.2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#cite_note-7
• 2005: 46.9
• 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
• 2007: 46.3
• 2008: 46.6

So as you can see, it's not a perfectly exact science, but it's been trending upwards since WWII. There are other measures of the purchasing power of the US middle class, which I had read indicate that purchasing power has actually been going down (inflation beating rise in income), but I can't quote those for you.

 

[csmittyB]

Well, if we just look at the sheer MATH of our society, it's just impossible for everyone to succeed. It's almost like a pyramid... or maybe a weird distorted 3-D rhombus, lol... where the vast majority of people fall in the middle class, while few people are in the top and a decent in the very bottom. The past 10 years, our economy has grown, and the richer have gotten increasingly richer, while the middle class actually saw a decrease in the amount of capital being brought home, to no fault of their own. How hard a person works is becoming increasingly irrelevant to how much the person makes. And because our society just conforms to this structure where a majority isn't able to succeed to affluence, it just makes sense to me to help them out a bit.

Personally, I'd say our society is more like a bell curve (oh, that wonderful shape just never goes away).

You are right that not everyone can 'succeed'. But that is life. It is not fair. Should we then lower the bar to make it fair...

I don't have a problem with you wanting to help them financially. I respect that. I have a problem when you want to force people to help.

 

[UTMBstudent]

I'm just not sure I buy the premise here, this class argument. Why is it impossible for "everyone to succeed"?

This should be obvious that not everyone can succeed. We will always need janitors, construction workers, food workers, retail salespeople, and many others in our society. Those represent millions of people.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

This should be obvious that not everyone can succeed. We will always need janitors, construction workers, food workers, retail salespeople, and many others in our society. Those represent millions of people.

Exactly, there will always just be a massive amount of people who just can't rise up and be fully self-sufficient. I can understand how we don't need to help them get nice things, or even mediocre things, but health insurance I think is an exception and something, by our very humanity, we should extend our hand to. You disagree and say no one should be forced to help? Well unfortunately, our world is not very kind, and the amount of help given can never match the amount of help needed.

Looking at one of the most central tenants to our constitution, I do believe that the founding fathers WOULD have wanted to make health care a right and not a privilege. By their very words, we are all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What could they mean by life, other than "good health" which comes through in contemporary times as health insurance.

Back when the nation was founded, medicine was almost a pseudo-science, with bloodletting as the "go-to" fix for all diseases. They had no microscopes, no idea of microorganisms and diseases, and no conception of physiology and how complicated it really is.

The reason I bring that up is, essentially medicine (if you can call it that) was cheap and affordable to everyone, and the mere idea that health care costs would be or could be so constricting to our daily lives probably didn't even occur to our founding fathers. At most, they laid down the central tenant that we all have the right to life, and today, that means we should all have health insurance.

 

[7starmantis]

There is a really sweet metric (because of the name) called the Robin Hood Index. It's a measure of how much of their money the richer 50% of a country would have to give the poorer 50% in order for there to be perfect financial equity.

Here in lies the divide. I dont believe "perfect financial equity" could (or more importantly should) exist. The idea that we have to have perfect equity is riddled with problems. Why must there be this equity? Its a loosing battle to try and force life to be fair....its just simply not. our founding fathers knew this and its not a bad or morally corrupt ideology. Helping those who fall on hard times is important and I applaud those who do it. However, using the federal government to force people to help is not right in my opinion.

I mean while Al Sharpton would agree with you I just simply do not. At its true, a divide we cannot change especially here on SDN.

This should be obvious that not everyone can succeed. We will always need janitors, construction workers, food workers, retail salespeople, and many others in our society. Those represent millions of people.

I guess you are saying janitors, construction workers, food workers, retail salespersons, and many others in our society are less than successful? Again, forcing your definition of success on people causes many problems. I think there are many successful janitors, and construction workers. I really hope your post came across wrong here because it sounds elitist, highly elitist.

 

[UTMBstudent]

I guess you are saying janitors, construction workers, food workers, retail salespersons, and many others in our society are less than successful? Again, forcing your definition of success on people causes many problems.

So, to you, being successful simply means having any sort of job with any level of income?

 

[OCDMed]

As a Canadian, I find this thread quite hilarious with all the apocalyptic undertones.

Even with the reforms, the American system isn't even remotely close to a public healthcare system you see in other developed countries. It's nothing but insurance reform.

It's quite amusing hearing Republicans lambasting our "evil" socialist healthcare system in Canada. Canadians don't even realize it's a socialist policy or concept until they hear Americans labeling it as such. It is just considered the norm up here, and labeling it as socialism will just garner you puzzled looks from the average Canadian.

Welcome Comrades

 

[JaggerPlate]

1. By the way, jaggerplate, you're not going to med school in Stony Brook Class of 2014 by any chance right? If so, I'll start being nicer to you or you'll hate me in real life =P

2. Also, this place is so nice and happy and helpful when I was trying to get into medical school, asking for MCAT help and interview tips, etc. Yikes, the second it gets personal, watch out!

1. Nope

2. This place is a great source of information, but a. it's a huge, huge time drain if you get involved with the discussion aspect at all and b. pre-meds looove to argue (guilty), and this just drags you down.

 

[7starmantis]

Exactly, there will always just be a massive amount of people who just can't rise up and be fully self-sufficient. I can understand how we don't need to help them get nice things, or even mediocre things, but health insurance I think is an exception and something, by our very humanity, we should extend our hand to. You disagree and say no one should be forced to help? Well unfortunately, our world is not very kind, and the amount of help given can never match the amount of help needed.

I dont buy this. I think there are plenty of people who are willing to help and I think using the government to give incentives for helping is a great motivator. Its a philosophical difference. I believe in incentives and help while you believe in forcing people to do it. If your last statement is true than this bill also falls short?

Looking at one of the most central tenants to our constitution, I do believe that the founding fathers WOULD have wanted to make health care a right and not a privilege. By their very words, we are all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What could they mean by life, other than "good health" which comes through in contemporary times as health insurance.

Back when the nation was founded, medicine was almost a pseudo-science, with bloodletting as the "go-to" fix for all diseases. They had no microscopes, no idea of microorganisms and diseases, and no conception of physiology and how complicated it really is.

The reason I bring that up is, essentially medicine (if you can call it that) was cheap and affordable to everyone, and the mere idea that health care costs would be or could be so constricting to our daily lives probably didn't even occur to our founding fathers. At most, they laid down the central tenant that we all have the right to life, and today, that means we should all have health insurance.

We can't simply shape the constitution based on what we each believe they "would have" done. There are many ways to help the less fortunate apart from using the federal government and taxes. Just a difference of beliefs.

Oh and there absolutely was microscopes when the United states was founded, not sure if you thought that one through. Also, medicine was paid for by chickens, eggs, bread, etc. Arguable that was much more "expensive" back then than our money is now.

Another serious problem our philosophies have is the definition of the word "right". Having a "right" to something doesn't mean you shall have it provided to you. I have a right to bear arms, that doesn't mean the government is bound to purchase me guns does it?

 

[Tutmos]

Here in lies the divide. I dont believe "perfect financial equity" could (or more importantly should) exist. The idea that we have to have perfect equity is riddled with problems. Why must there be this equity? Its a loosing battle to try and force life to be fair....its just simply not. our founding fathers knew this and its not a bad or morally corrupt ideology. Helping those who fall on hard times is important and I applaud those who do it. However, using the federal government to force people to help is not right in my opinion.

I mean while Al Sharpton would agree with you I just simply do not. At its true, a divide we cannot change especially here on SDN.



I guess you are saying janitors, construction workers, food workers, retail salespersons, and many others in our society are less than successful? Again, forcing your definition of success on people causes many problems. I think there are many successful janitors, and construction workers. I really hope your post came across wrong here because it sounds elitist, highly elitist.

It's all a bunch of trash that people like to spew when they don't earn anything but once they do they quickly change their tune. In about 10 years Nemesis will laugh at the things he's saying right now. Prior to getting into med school none of them would have given up their GPA, the thing they worked so hard for, like older people work so hard for money, to benefit someone that wasn't as smart or just didn't want to work very hard and party. Why do they deserve to have a high GPA while someone with a hard life had to make do with a substandard one? How dare you graduate with honors when the frat kid that was smashed every night scrapes by with a 2.0.

This is all just class warfare. There's nothing special or altruistic about it. People want what someone else has, it's called theft normally but if the government sanctions it you better put your hands up.

 

[7starmantis]

So, to you, being successful simply means having any sort of job with any level of income?

That is absolutely not what we were discussing or what I said. However, I think it is very possible to be successful being both a janitor or a construction worker. But certainly not a retail salesperson!

Let me rephrase your response in the same manner you did mine for effect.
So, to you, being successful means having a predetermined level of income and specific items and services? Having health insurance means one is successful?

We are loosing the truth of our posts by trying to get a win here. Its obvious neither of us are saying either of these things, but I do feel success is measured differently than you do apparently.