[Opinion]US healthcare bill
-
@ben ritter said:
It is not the US government's role to make sure that everyone has health insurance. As for comments I've heard about military costs, it may be high, but at least that is where the US gov't. should be spending it's resources.
Ben
Ben, Ben, Ben, .......... the US government already spends 49% of GDP on the Military Industrial Complex, each year. And your worried about a little bit ofSocial Democracy? Its laughable! You are no longer a nation of a few million people, where "Once upon a time" the the prevailing attitude may have been "F**K my Neighbor, I'm only here to look out for myself and my family". If you have not noticed, its that attitude that GW used to get the US into deep trouble with its War in Iraq. Squandering Trillions of your future tax dollars, for a war that has killed more than 1 million Iraqi's. Who happen to be human beings just like you and me. Where was the rage against the Iraq war? The rest of the world already has socialized medical care, and has had for decades. If its not the role for Governments to provide health insurance, then who's job is it to help you survive, when you get sick. Trust me we will all get sick, sometime in your lives.
-
Tomot, every article I researched places the US Government's defense spending at below 10% of the GDP. Even the most militant patriot would balk at the percentage you listed. As for outrage over the Iraq war, there were/are plenty of Americans against it and who protested.
-
Americans are free to choose a health system they want. The European model, whatever you want to call it, has main benefits over the traditional American system:
- it costs less. Americans spend a larger portion of their GNP on healthcare than Europeans do.
- it gives better results. Europeans are generally healthier. I don't know the real reason, maybe it depends on the relatively large proportion of Americans that are without healthcare.
The European system is not the same everywhere. There are national and regional differences, with the French being generally the most envied. Our Finnish system is rated somewhere in the middle caste, but I really cannot find fault with the care I and my family have received when in need of it.
Anssi
-
I envy y'all system.
It's a shame that a country like ours cannot do the most fundamental of things, protect our health yet feel that protecting our lives from WMD's that do not exist is more important.
-
@daniel said:
Tomot, every article I researched places the US Government's defense spending at below 10% of the GDP. Even the most militant patriot would balk at the percentage you listed. As for outrage over the Iraq war, there were/are plenty of Americans against it and who protested.
Thanks for calling that to my attention. I was taking that info from a pie chart, not unlike the attached one, which is not as severe. I suppose one can skew a pie chart to engage any intended group.
However comparing a pie chart to the us debt clock ........YIKES!
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock
(www.usdebtclock.org)
-
Frankly, I'm glad to see it get to this point. There are still a number of problems, and those problems will need to be worked out, but it's doable... Perhaps we'll see some of the military budget being wasted in Irag transferred to this program (after our pull out) to help the citizens who generate the revenues that fuel the "war machine" in the first place...
I'm more chagrined about the GOP and their "we're not going to co-operate on further legislation this year" foolishness. We have a LOT of things that still need to be fixed in this country, like illegal immigration for example, and this kind of rhetoric is just plain stupid. Akin to "I'm taking my ball and going home" immaturity that I would expect from a spoiled child.
A prime example of how they (the GOP) consider the "party" more important than the populace.
Next November will be interesting...
Cheers.
-
There are a couple things that truly torque me off about this health care bill.
the first, (and i'm not sure if this ahas changed..probably not) is that members of Congress were exempt from the actions of the bill.
the second... there is a reason not everyone has health insurance. an example.. my mother doesn't for the simple fact that she cannot afford it. Nor can her (now ex) husband, who runs his own successful cable contracting company. both of them need it because of their health, but there is nothing they can do to afford it. Forcing t down their throats, and expecting them to pay for it is a load of crap. There is a country (switzerland I believe, could be wrong) that makes it mandatory for everyone to have a certain level of health care, but they (the government) pay for it, and if people want a higher level, they can pay for it.Based on the way i've seen our (the US) government work, this system will fail, and fail hard. and the reasons all come down to one word: greed.
While I didn't vote for Obama, I did try to give him a chance. But one thing has become clear to me. This health care thing has nothing to do with improving the country, but with checking off something that was on his personal agenda.
I'm one of those that has lost all faith in our government accomplishing anything meaningful. When "Representing the People" becomse an entitlement career, where you are exempt from many of the laws you impose on others, pretty much don't have to worry about answering to your constituants, vote for your own pay raise, etc. its a sign that things need to change. On the same token, I do think the whole 'Tea-Party' movement is a Farce.In short, i think this Health care thing is a very bad idea, rushed through with little thought to the concequences, implimented by a government that is broken, and only concerned about themselves. Health care for eveyone is a good idea, but the plan that has been pushed through is not.
Thanks for giving me a place to rant on this
-
Well said Mike, I agree 100%. Why half of the Americans here feel that it is a smart move to put health care in the hands of the federal government is beyond me.
If the government was reduced down to one man on a job interview and you reviewed his job history, his success or failure rates of other companies he's run, did a background check, checked with his creditors and called his references and found a history of bankruptcies, unpaid loans, extreme debts, accusations of war crimes & fraud and all his neighbors say he's an agressive bully.....would you then hire him to oversee the health and well being of your children?
-
@unknownuser said:
If the government was reduced down to one man on a job interview and you reviewed his job history, his success or failure rates of other companies he's run, did a background check, checked with his creditors and called his references and found a history of bankruptcies, unpaid loans, extreme debts, accusations of war crimes & fraud and all his neighbors say he's an agressive bully
Sounds like George Bush...and we hired him....twice.
-
@unknownuser said:
Based on the way i've seen our (the US) government work, this system will fail, and fail hard. and the reasons all come down to one word: greed.
And this differs from the kind of greed we see by having health care managed in the private sector by insurance companies? Those same insurance companies who are owned by stock holders who expect to see PROFIT from their investments?
A basic tenet of capitalism: Provide the least amount of service for the maximum amount of profit.
I wouldn't worry too much. We've had Social Security since 1935, and other than Bush's idea to place IT in the hands of the private business sector during his less than stellar terms in office, it's survived. Not only that, but because this is such a hot issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll be watch-dogged by everyone from the ACLU to the average Joe Citizen at Zander's Home Cookin' and Taxidermy Shop in rural <where ever>...
Cheers.
-
Jeff well said actually, this is exactly why I am for big government. We the citizens have a say to a greater extent with big government, we get to vote for who we want to control it, allocate the spending of our taxes. Small government relies on big business to police themselves, control assets and decide our future.
Look how well that has worked out... recession and war, a health system that is atrocious, a health care that is responsible for 78% bankruptcies in 2009.
I say let the government run it, they may not be perfect but at least they can be held accountable, at least their motives will be our health and not profit.
-
@idahoj said:
And this differs from the kind of greed we see by having health care managed in the private sector by insurance companies? Those same insurance companies who are owned by stock holders who expect to see PROFIT from their investments?
lol... very true... I guess despite the Wallstreet Shenanigans from not too long ago, i figured that the private company owners would still be more competant than Congress.
@solo said:
I say let the government run it, they may not be perfect but at least they can be held accountable, at least their motives will be our health and not profit.
If the government were truly accountable to the people, i would agree. but how many people actually vote and exercise that control over their government?
[offtopic,kinda]funny thing about he capitalism comments though, shouldn't the government have let AIG et al fail? instead of wasting trillions into that hole? [/offtopic]
-
I agree, they should have let AIG fail, there should not be a 'Too big to fail" ransom, it's time Obama addressed these reforms, and I believe this regulation will get partisan support.
@unknownuser said:
If the government were truly accountable to the people, i would agree. but how many people actually vote and exercise that control over their government?
I believe if the government was responsible for our health care then we would have a personal interest in their performance as an investor is financially interested in his invested big business's ability to generate profits.
-
@solo said:
I say let the government run it, they may not be perfect but at least they can be held accountable, at least their motives will be our health and not profit.
That's America! You always have to choose between the lesser of two evils!
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty. Why a mandate? I mean what's next, the ban of salt so high blood pressure doesn't put excess burden on the Health Care budget? Oh wait - http://www.examiner.com/x-26942-NY-Restaurant-Examiner~y2010m3d20-A-ban-on-salt-in-New-York-City-restaurants-is-an-assault-on-restaurants
-
@unknownuser said:
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty.
Like the patriot act?
-
@unknownuser said:
funny thing about he capitalism comments though, shouldn't the government have let AIG et al fail? instead of wasting trillions into that hole?
IMO, under normal circumstances, I'd would have agreed. But the recession, coupled with the huge number of areas in which AIG, Citi, BoA, etc had a fiscal "presence" made it almost impossible to let them fail. GM was the same way. Allowing them to tank would have only worsened the recession by having a "rippling" negative effect on the numerous secondary industries that supply components, and transportation of those components for GM assembly for instance.
For "wasting trillions", personally, I don't think so. The economy is showing good signs of recovering (much earlier than I thought it would) and that money will be recovered eventually. Just today I read the Fed is going to be offering up it's 27% stake in Citi back onto the market this year. The project recoup will be around 8b$ or so.
Your question does make a good a good argument for more Federal oversight...
If the Fed had been watching AIG and the others, Citi, BOA, etc more closely, the situation may have never arisen in the first place. Instead, the "free market, hands off" attitude of the Bush Administration, along with their seemingly total preoccupation with the "War on Terror", allowed these financial giants to make some pretty risky decisions.
Couple that with Americans who thought they should own 4000 sq. ft. homes at ridiculously low sub-primes and you have the recipe for failure... The American Dream gone disastrously wrong...
@unknownuser said:
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty.
Adam, in what ways have your liberties been compromised?
Cheers.
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty.
Like the patriot act?
Solo
Just what part of the patriot Act is not in the RICO Act? Seems to me if it is good enough for criminals, it should be good enough for terrorist.
Ken
-
LOL, there is a major difference between them, Firstly one is for racketeering and involves local enforcement and warrants before measures like wire tapping, searches and incarceration, with a maximum of 72 hours before either charging or releasing.
The other is the Patriot act, which strips you of all rights on a just suspicion. Taking jurisdiction above all local and state laws, indefinite holding without charge, unprovoked search and seizures, cross the board surveillance.
-
Back to the health care bill, let me share this with you...
A couple of weeks ago, I went to an ER in California for a sudden onset of dizziness. I was in the ER for about 6 hours, almost totally under the watch and care of the ER nursing staff. It wasn't a busy ER and while I was there, only one other person was admitted.
They took blood, put a heart monitor on me, and pretty much just checked on me periodically. The physician on duty spend a total of maybe 5 minutes with me and informed me I had a viral infection in my inner ear after the blood workup was done.
I didn't even get a prescription for an antibiotic to fight the infection.
The bill: $11,900. The physicians bill, separate from the ER: $850.00
With this kind of "robbery" how can anything be worse?
-
@unknownuser said:
This is why i have to agree and hope that this attempt will at the least get us started in the right direction. I don't necessarily believe in all that is included - but something has to change.
That's pretty much how I feel as well. I don't think we'll get a "balanced" version of the law without bi-partisan involvement. That's why our government was setup the way it is...But, until both parties can put aside all this bickering and foolishness (read the any of the news feeds any day about the latest political fiascoes) I don't see it happening. "Party member" has become more important it seems than "citizen"...
People need to quit blaming President Obama for everything (he didn't write the health care law but some people seem to think he's entirely to blame for it) and start re-educating themselves as to how our government really works. It's a lot more resilient than folks think.
Really, we survived 8 years of Bush and Cheney didn't we?
Cheers.
[EDIT] I've been reading a number of news articles concerning the Health Care bill. It seems to me that now that it's been enacted into law, there has been a drop in the vitriol and nay-saying. People may be starting to understand that it's a framework to be built on and modified, not a "do all, be all" solution.
There's hope for us yet...
Advertisement