US House passes Obama's key healthcare reform

[TomUS]

What's the party word?

Your party......

 

[dilute micro]

lol that was weak.

Not that I needed the help but I win for sure now.

 

[dilute micro]

Question for you Tom:

What, if any, policies does the democrat party have that you disagree with?

No 'bipartisan' examples, thanks.

 

[rikwakefield]

lol that was weak.

Not that I needed the help but I win for sure now.

You've misinterpreted Godwin's Law.

 

[TAE]

They will be 'helped' by some tax credits. In what way is that not forcing people who can't afford to buy private health insurance to buy BUPA (without offering any limits on what BUPA can then charge etc) then offering to lend them a little bit of the cost 'to help'? In what way is that 'extending coverage'?

I'd say it depends on how much help they actually get. If it takes them from "not being able to afford" to "being able to afford" then that's clearly a good thing. If not, then I agree with you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

lol that was weak.

Not that I needed the help but I win for sure now.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

lol that was weak.

Not that I needed the help but I win for sure now.

 

[dilute micro]

That kid needs to go to art class.

Is that heartless of me? Somebody had to say it.

 

[TomUS]

Question for you Tom:

What, if any, policies does the democrat party have that you disagree with?

No 'bipartisan' examples, thanks.

Most favor amnesty for illegal aliens. I disagree.

Obama/Biden oppose the right of gays to marry. I disagree.

Question for you:
What's your solution to the problem of the millions of Americans that lack health insurance?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That kid needs to go to art class.

Is that heartless of me? Somebody had to say it.

He's probably got palsy from not having medical care, you fiend.

 

[dilute micro]

Question for you:
What's your solution to the problem of the millions of Americans that lack health insurance?

There isn't an easy answer. Health care is way more expensive than it should be for the people that do have it. Not a problem you just raise taxes or create new ones.

 

[TomUS]

There isn't an easy answer. Health care is way more expensive than it should be for the people that do have it. Not a problem you just raise taxes or create new ones.

Didn't answer the question. What's your solution? Do nothing & continue to allow about 40,000 Americans/yr to die for lack of health insurance?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There isn't an easy answer. Health care is way more expensive than it should be for the people that do have it. Not a problem you just raise taxes or create new ones.

Thus, you gave no answer wrt your ideas.

 

[dilute micro]

Didn't answer the question. What's your solution? Do nothing & continue to allow about 40,000 Americans/yr to die for lack of health insurance?

I have to nitpick with the 40k study. I don't know why only a small percentage of people think critically on stuff like this. To say that many people die because of no health care is saying positively that health care would have saved them. Obviously there are going to be cases that even with the best care the people would die anyway. All that can said is that that number probably rates in the thousands. And naturally there are questions on the rest of it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917


I never claimed to have a solution for uninsured people. But not any and every problem can't be 'fixed' by the government and still maintain a constitutional democratic republic. And that is ignoring the fact that even when government does get involved they don't always accomplish the task.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I never claimed to have a solution for uninsured people. But not any and every problem can't be 'fixed' by the government and still maintain a constitutional democratic republic. .

You'd think the wealthiest country on earth, containing many intelligent and talented people, could devise a way to deliver health care to its citizens without having to transform itself into Nazi Germany.

 

[TomUS]

I have to nitpick with the 40k study. I don't know why only a small percentage of people think critically on stuff like this. To say that many people die because of no health care is saying positively that health care would have saved them. Obviously there are going to be cases that even with the best care the people would die anyway. All that can said is that that number probably rates in the thousands. And naturally there are questions on the rest of it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917


I never claimed to have a solution for uninsured people. But not any and every problem can't be 'fixed' by the government and still maintain a constitutional democratic republic. And that is ignoring the fact that even when government does get involved they don't always accomplish the task.

You're full of criticisms of any proposed solution but offer none of your own. IOW, let em die, no big deal. For the gov to do anything to make sure people have health ins threatens a constitutional democratic republic. Sounds like the selfish, Republican/tea party attitude. We now know what your values are.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You'd think the wealthiest country on earth, containing many intelligent and talented people, could devise a way to deliver health care to its citizens without having to transform itself into Nazi Germany.

It does seem bizarre, looking on from somewhere with universal health care, that anybody would be opposed to such a concept.

The argument that it is against freedom is particularly bizarre. Surely freedom is enhanced by universal communally funded coverage, not curtailed.

 

[dilute micro]

You'd think the wealthiest country on earth, containing many intelligent and talented people, could devise a way to deliver health care to its citizens without having to transform itself into Nazi Germany.

You'd think that but...

you'd also think lawmakers would at least read a bill before voting on it. We know that's not always the case.

 

[dilute micro]

You're full of criticisms of any proposed solution but offer none of your own. IOW, let em die, no big deal. For the gov to do anything to make sure people have health ins threatens a constitutional democratic republic. Sounds like the selfish, Republican/tea party attitude. We now know what your values are.

The fox guarding the hen house isn't the best option even if there's no one else to guard it.

Destroying individual liberties isn't a threat. It's part of this bill. It forces people to buy.

Why doesn't it sound like the democrat or libertarian tea partiers?

 

[TomUS]

Destroying individual liberties isn't a threat. It's part of this bill. It forces people to buy.

In every advanced country in the world, people are forced to buy health insurance in some way & their democracy is doing fine. In the US people are forced to buy Medicare & Social Security by the Fed gov now. States force people to buy auto insurance to get a driver's license. Bottom line is, you don't care if people needlessly suffer & die. You don't consider how the individual liberties of the un-insured are violated.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Destroying individual liberties isn't a threat. It's part of this bill. It forces people to buy.

You are forced to pay income tax too. You're also forced to educate your children. There are certain minimum obligations that a democratic state is entitled to force its people to fulfill. You seem to want rights with no obligations. Odd.

Your defence of individual liberty is touching, but one person's liberty can be another's slavery. There is no such thing as absolute liberty – it is always a balance between freedom to act and freedom not to be acted upon. This is basic stuff, really.

 

[TAE]

What's your solution to the problem of the millions of Americans that lack health insurance?

There are plenty of solutions which have been working throughout western Europe for the last few decades.

Pick one and have fun getting elected.

 

[dilute micro]

You are forced to pay income tax too. You're also forced to educate your children. There are certain minimum obligations that a democratic state is entitled to force its people to fulfill. You seem to want rights with no obligations. Odd.

Your defence of individual liberty is touching, but one person's liberty can be another's slavery. There is no such thing as absolute liberty – it is always a balance between freedom to act and freedom not to be acted upon. This is basic stuff, really.

Basic stuff is one liberty denied after the next. They add up.

The income tax is just another departure from the constitution.

 

[Idris2002]

Basic stuff is one liberty denied after the next. They add up.

The income tax is just another departure from the constitution.

Like the Air Force, you mean?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Basic stuff is one liberty denied after the next. They add up.

The price you pay for being part of a society.

 

[dilute micro]

In every advanced country in the world, people are forced to buy health insurance in some way & their democracy is doing fine. In the US people are forced to buy Medicare & Social Security by the Fed gov now. States force people to buy auto insurance to get a driver's license. Bottom line is, you don't care if people needlessly suffer & die. You don't consider how the individual liberties of the un-insured are violated.

The US still tops in the liberty and 'everybody else does it' isn't going to keep us from falling into state control of whatever the state decides it needs to control.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Basic stuff is one liberty denied after the next. They add up.

The income tax is just another departure from the constitution.

Income tax is the dues you pay to be part of the tribe. If you don't want to be part of the tribe, go live somewhere else. This was all hashed out by Aristotle a couple of milenium ago. If you can't abide the price of citizenship, go be a citizen somewhere you like better. Simple as.

 

[ymu]

I hear Somalia's nice this time of year.

 

[dilute micro]

The price you pay for being part of a society.

No one knows what that price is.

 

[ymu]