Kennedy Health Care Reform Bill.

[Izor]

I think me going paragraph by paragraph on the first page is enough. i didnt know it was 7 fucking pages when I started or I wouldnt have even bothered. I think its safe to say that I read the damn article, but its still garbage. The premise of the health care reform now plea is that the current system is fucked up and thats what they were really trying to shove down our throats. This is inaccurate, and polls of most americans will show they dont want reform. Like I said its just fearmongering the same as Bush with the Iraq war.

The media is slamming us with 'the cost of healthcare is going to double in 7 years' when of course that is true...inflation is bound to take place with all the money weve just printed from nowhere with no control on stopping it. They repeatedly tell you the healthcare system is broken. I personally dont know anyone that cant get healthcare the way it is now. Who is being affected the lower class? They're lower class, they are unskilled workers that are easily replaced by other unskilled workers. As cold as it seems, I dont really give a shit. When you're not bringing any skills to the table, employers shouldnt have to make sure you're covered medically. if you want health insurance, get a skillset that can land you a job where you get those types of benefits. Is it that hard?

[Eric is God]

Who is being affected the lower class? They're lower class, they are unskilled workers that are easily replaced by other unskilled workers. As cold as it seems, I dont really give a shit. When you're not bringing any skills to the table, employers shouldnt have to make sure you're covered medically. if you want health insurance, get a skillset that can land you a job where you get those types of benefits. Is it that hard?

I consider myself a conservative when it comes to economics, but I realize there is a huge net gain to society in providing everyone with access to good health care, especially in preventative areas.

What I find so amusing about the economic side of these arguments is that people like you don't call out for cuts to seniors' coverage. You think low skilled workers aren't worth covering because they don't provide much to society and are easily replaced? Seniors provide almost no economic value to society yet they receive the best coverage and require the most care. Why shouldn't seniors be expected to have saved up during their prime years in order to pay for their own medical care during retirement?

If you are going to follow a train a logic, be prepared to go all the way with it or you're just a hypocrite.

[kthx]

The seniors that were skilled workers still have health coverage because they had jobs that paid well when they were younger, the seniors who didn't have skilled jobs don't. It doesn't change anything by using that kind of logic.

[Epinephrine]

Medicare? Medicaid?

[Epinephrine]

I consider myself a conservative when it comes to economics, but I realize there is a huge net gain to society in providing everyone with access to good health care, especially in preventative areas.

What I find so amusing about the economic side of these arguments is that people like you don't call out for cuts to seniors' coverage. You think low skilled workers aren't worth covering because they don't provide much to society and are easily replaced? Seniors provide almost no economic value to society yet they receive the best coverage and require the most care. Why shouldn't seniors be expected to have saved up during their prime years in order to pay for their own medical care during retirement?

If you are going to follow a train a logic, be prepared to go all the way with it or you're just a hypocrite.

Because Eric, at it's core the vast majority of these arguments (extremists like Jerome aside) is based on the simple fact that people who won't want universal healthcare at their core don't give a shit about people 'lower' than they are. It's this inherent ability to feel smug and 'better' than other people which is the main thing blocking reform.

It's not just a rich vs poor thing, it's also a health vs unhealthy thing. People who are rich AND relatively healthy (i.e. no expensive to care for congenital or non-self-inflicted chronic diseases) are probably the worst lot.

[Vatican Assassin]

Because Eric, at it's core the vast majority of these arguments (extremists like Jerome aside) is based on the simple fact that people who won't want universal healthcare at their core don't give a shit about people 'lower' than they are. It's this inherent ability to feel smug and 'better' than other people which is the main thing blocking reform.

It's not just a rich vs poor thing, it's also a health vs unhealthy thing. People who are rich AND relatively healthy (i.e. no expensive to care for congenital or non-self-inflicted chronic diseases) are probably the worst lot.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with our hatred of the poor, it has something to do with the fact that Medicare is fucking bankrupt, our gov't is fucking bankrupt, and if we try to make huge reforms and cover everyone like Jesus says we should then we will ALL BE POOR. I know it's a nice thought to pay for everyone's health care, but it certainly helps to be able to pay for it, too.

[genocidal]

No, it's easier if you just hate the poor.

[kthx]

I am glad you understand so well how every American who doesn't want the government sticking their nose in our system of healthcare feels about poor people.

You are somewhat right, a lot of people made bad decisions in life to get where they are, someone got arrested for DWI, or possession or distribution of crack or cocaine has a felony on their record and probably won't be able to get a good job. Is it my fault that they ruined their life, no, should I pay for it because they messed up, no. Do I feel that some people are lower than me, yes I do but generally the ones who made bad decisions to get where they are.

I dropped out of high school, and had a possession of marijuana change when I was 18, and look at me, I decided to not give up all hope in life, I didn't decide that someone else should be taking care of me, I went out and got a job, when I went in for the interview I told the manager up front "hey look I do have this charge on my record, and all I have is a GED not a High School Diploma" and guess what, I told them that I made some stupid mistakes when I was a kid and hey here I am three years later (at the time) and will pass a drug test, and I went and got my GED. Believe it or not even in huge companies (Nestle here) if you actually discuss certain things with a manager you can still get a job even with a poor record. The thing is some people do the things above or worse and decide to NOT fix their problems, and decide to just live in poverty, and not be members of society that deserve the benefits that a majority of Americans have to work for. Why is it that someone who decided to do absolutely nothing in their life for whatever reason should have these benefits?

Whats next, I can't afford Organic food (I can but I am just saying) and people who work can afford it, and they have a better quality of life, I deserve organic food.

Hey that guy went to college and got a degree and makes a lot of money, I deserve some of that money even though I didn't earn it.

Hey I decided not to pay my bills and now I don't have electricity or running water, but that guy payed his bills and has them, I could get sick without electricity or running water, I want some of his electricity and running water.

Do you think the benefits of working hard to get where you are should be given out to everyone who didn't work as hard as you did? I personally don't and so when I say lower class citizens I mean people who choose to not do well in life because they are rolling around in self pity, are too lazy, or just don't give a shit what their quality of life is. Either way don't expect me to pay for it.

Now for the actual bill itself, you do realize that it penalizes people who don't have health insurance, so if someone loses their job, they are forced to get on the government plan or pay a fee to the government for not being covered. Do you think everyone NEEDS to have health insurance, there are plenty of people who take good care of themselves and choose to not have it, now they are going to be forced to find one. Do you think that is a good idea, do you think people should be taxed and fined because of the life they choose to live? And I am sure since you are so well versed on American politics and the moral compass of Americans that MOST of the people without health insurance are people who choose not to have it because they have the money to go see a doctor once a year for a checkup without paying 2000-3000 dollars a year for insurance. I don't even go to doctors because I am never sick, I am healthy, I still have health insurance through my job and have used it one time, ONE time in three years to get some antibiotics.

You see this isn't a debate just about people looking down on lower class citizens but retaining the freedom to choose whether or whether not you need health insurance. If the government should do anything they should just reform the way insurance agencies run so that health insurance premiums can only go up a certain % every year. Also instead of being FORCED to have health insurance they should just do something along the lines of what they have been doing for a few years now with the FSA accounts (flex spending accounts). You can actually decide to put X amount of dollars a month pre-tax (like a 401k) into an account that you can use at doctors offices, pharmacies, and to buy OTC medicine, it is a system that lets people decide how much money they think they will need during the course of a year to handle all their medical expenses. It isn't hard to understand that in America people enjoy the freedoms and liberties we were promised, and letting people take responsibility for their own actions by having programs like the FSA is a good solution to the problems, not gumming up the works by tossing in a bureaucratic bar into the wheels of the health care system.

[Eric is God]

Because Eric, at it's core the vast majority of these arguments (extremists like Jerome aside) is based on the simple fact that people who won't want universal healthcare at their core don't give a shit about people 'lower' than they are. It's this inherent ability to feel smug and 'better' than other people which is the main thing blocking reform.

It's not just a rich vs poor thing, it's also a health vs unhealthy thing. People who are rich AND relatively healthy (i.e. no expensive to care for congenital or non-self-inflicted chronic diseases) are probably the worst lot.

I still can't comprehend how this many people (who are fairly well educated) can be this obstinate Epi. You know me better than almost anyone on here and I'm an extremely smug individual, hell my first sentence proves it, who makes an upper-middle class salary but I can see the merits in providing universal health care. Do I think the Canadian system is ideal? God no. I'd rather have a two tiered system in Canada as long as it's implemented in a way that does not further erode the quality of public health care. Knowing that our government could never accomplish such a feat (efficient and government are mutually exclusive concepts), I'd still choose universal health care over the American system even if it's not in my best interests. I don't believe in God, karma and I'm extremely selfish, but I'm in favor of anything that moves society towards peak efficiency.

Americans who are against universal health care mine as well be saying "I would not choose to pay an addition 1-2% in taxes to prevent all American casualties in Iraq". If you proposed that bill how many Americans would vote against it?

[Vatican Assassin]

Americans who are against universal health care mine as well be saying "I would not choose to pay an addition 1-2% in taxes to prevent all American casualties in Iraq". If you proposed that bill how many Americans would vote against it?

Is this the sort of reason us obstinate people are missing? You really think the health care proposals are as simple as adding 1-2% taxes?

[Eric is God]

Is this the sort of reason us obstinate people are missing? You really think the health care proposals are as simple as adding 1-2% taxes?

I threw a figure out there to make a point, which is this whole issue is about government spending (i.e money), not rights or socialism or whatever else people are bringing into this debate. Yes, there are other minor implications like the impact on employment in the health care and insurance industries, but the fundamental argument is whether you want the government to spend it's time and tax revenues on providing a public health care option over any number of other options such as bank bail outs, cash for clunker deals, occupations of foreign countries etc...

I'll even provide people who are against a public option with the best possible argument. Governments are bureaucracies, which by nature are bloated and inefficient. Therefore, it's best left to the private sector to provide all health insurance coverage. If anyone wants to argue from that point of view I'm all ears.

[Mattey]

Government is notorious for bureaucracies. Already starting off by saying 2 things stupid in the opening paragraph.

Insurance agencies are the most inefficient bureaucracy in America. If you had taken the time to read the entire article (WOW 7 WHOLE PAGES?!1?), you would have read that 31% or close to 350 BILLION dollars are spent on paperwork every year.

Right now, there are 13 different health insurance providers, that make hospitals and doctors go through 13 different procedures to get reimbursed. It is not only a time-waster, it is a huge, unnecessary administrative cost.

We pay close to twice as much per person for health care, and yet have the second highest infant mortality rate among industrialized nations (take THAT Latvia!). Why do you think this is?

Explain to me the advantages that for-profit insurers have over non-profit insurers. I have yet to read anything that addresses this.

[Mattey]

I don't need to read someone else criticizing my country when I do it enough already.

Maybe your feeble brain can't understand what I meant.. I read the article and it was poorly written.

Yeah, it's us who have the feeble brains...

Edit: And if you think that Rolling Stone is just a music magazine, you need to, you know, actually read it.

Oh and I just found a clip on jootube of the author talking. This is a lot shorter, so maybe Izor and Kthx can fit it into their busy schedules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVI0eAm2SVM

[the_paul]

Or maybe it has nothing to do with our hatred of the poor, it has something to do with the fact that Medicare is fucking bankrupt, our gov't is fucking bankrupt, and if we try to make huge reforms and cover everyone like Jesus says we should then we will ALL BE POOR. I know it's a nice thought to pay for everyone's health care, but it certainly helps to be able to pay for it, too.

Thank you, Vati!

And to Cops: I notice that you haven't complained too much about epi, what was it, "categorizing people like cattle"? But you can find way more opportunities than anyone cares to read to bitch about izor and kthx. If you're going to nag about a certain point, at least be consistent about it, or don't do it at all.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Insurance agencies are the most inefficient bureaucracy in America. If you had taken the time to read the entire article (WOW 7 WHOLE PAGES?!1?), you would have read that 31% or close to 350 BILLION dollars are spent on paperwork every year.

Right now, there are 13 different health insurance providers, that make hospitals and doctors go through 13 different procedures to get reimbursed. It is not only a time-waster, it is a huge, unnecessary administrative cost.

We pay close to twice as much per person for health care, and yet have the second highest infant mortality rate among industrialized nations (take THAT Latvia!). Why do you think this is?

Explain to me the advantages that for-profit insurers have over non-profit insurers. I have yet to read anything that addresses this.

this argument applies to a fictional world where 35% of medical costs don't go towards meeting regulations.

In this world, a doctor attempted to provide a service - unlimited checkups for sixty bucks a month - and he was shut down by the state. He hadn't applied for and paid his proper forms, you see.

In this world, lobbyists for HMO's - by their nature inefficient - were able to get themselves instituted in our lives, permanently, with regulation.

Go check out for yourself the books and books of regulations, and ask yourself where the confusion, costs and paperwork really come from. The only cure is, of course, more heaps of rules and re-structuring.