The Health Care Bill Passes!

[Wannabe Yogi]

Just a interesting poll

Americans seem to support the Health care bill 49% to 40%


By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage

 

[Mister_T]

I dunno Spinks, should we stop at health care? Why not give everyone a car and a house while we are at it too.

Rick, you're talking like we're giving everyone a free prime rib dinner every night. :no:

People really shouldn't have to, but the difference between owning a car or house (not a life saving necessity) and having healthcare ( is a life saving necessity) has been explained quite a few times. If people don't understand the difference by now, I'm not sure what to tell them.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Healthcare is basic infastructure in every other developed nation except here in the U.S. I have yet to understand why that is, as well as hearing any resonable explanation as to why it shouldn't be part of our basic infastructure. What makes healthcare different from police and fire department that makes it not a basic necessity of society? Why shouldn't everyone, rich, poor, black, white be "entitled" to life saving servies?

They are, except that there's a ton of red tape, there are so many hoops patients and families have to jump through, and people go bankrupt when they try to shoulder the fiscal responsibility of these services.

You and I and many others on this forum have had to endure through personal experience the problems of U.S. health care. :hug:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The passing of the health care bill wasn't the real issue IMO. The real issue is what fixes will voted on. That has the ability to make or break our pending health care system.
But now that the issue isn't on passing it, hopefully the legislation can focus on making it work for the better. But something tells me all the ******** politics will hinder any real positive fixes to the bill.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

thank you for making the statement i knew someone would. no they (police and firefighters) are not socialist programs. except for medicare, thats socialist.


its amazing to me that people dont seem to understand what the real definition of socialism is, then make a claim that police, etc are all social programs. They are not, they are basic infrastructure. People enjoy their benefits regardless of whether they are rich or poor, black or white, etc.

Social programs are programs of entitlements. If you are rich, you do not enjoy benefits from those programs. You are not allowed to enjoy them because you are the one paying for it. Some may say "aha! good for them! stick it to em!"

Socialism Definition: noun - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

You see, a social program is one in which the goods or labor is owned collectively by all citizens of a country, i.e., state ownership, and their services are rendered to everyone. Police and Fire department fall under this category. It is true that rich people have to pay a larger percentage towards this service, but it is owned collectively nonetheless. Social programs are NOT programs of entitlement, they are merely programs in which everyone is allowed to partake.

Also, rich people can and do utilize the services of the fire departments and police. They may not enjoy it, but it is available to them nonetheless.

 

[Rio Sabinas]

Sunstone,
I have not met anyone yet who knows all this Health Care Bill contains.
It appears we'll have to wait & see....what I mean is, if you don't know all that's in it,
how can you judge good or bad?
I think (to me) there are some good things in this bill. I also think there are some
things I wish were not in the bill. I'm witholding judgment till I see how it plays out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Healthcare is basic infastructure in every other developed nation except here in the U.S. I have yet to understand why that is, as well as hearing any resonable explanation as to why it shouldn't be part of our basic infastructure. What makes healthcare different from police and fire department that makes it not a basic necessity of society? Why shouldn't everyone, rich, poor, black, white be "entitled" to life saving servies?

I find the parallels between healthcare and firefighting to be especially interesting.

Originally, firefighters were paid for by insurance companies. When you got your insurance policy, you'd get a medallion that you'd nail to the front of your house. If your house did catch fire, when the fire brigade arrived, they'd look to see what medallion you had. If you had the "wrong" one or none at all, they'd just let your house burn.

Just as people eventually saw the value of extending the benefit of fire protection to everyone equally, I think people will see the value of extending the benefit of health care to everyone equally as well.

 

[Walkntune]

Sunstone,
I have not met anyone yet who knows all this Health Care Bill contains.
It appears we'll have to wait & see....what I mean is, if you don't know all that's in it,
how can you judge good or bad?
I think (to me) there are some good things in this bill. I also think there are some
things I wish were not in the bill. I'm witholding judgment till I see how it plays out.

The fact that it's voted in without knowing all that's in it, does that not speak in and of itself?
Is there a reason it takes affect in 2014 , I am sure after second term election?

 

[Mr Cheese]

I find the parallels between healthcare and firefighting to be especially interesting.

Originally, firefighters were paid for by insurance companies. When you got your insurance policy, you'd get a medallion that you'd nail to the front of your house. If your house did catch fire, when the fire brigade arrived, they'd look to see what medallion you had. If you had the "wrong" one or none at all, they'd just let your house burn.

Just as people eventually saw the value of extending the benefit of fire protection to everyone equally, I think people will see the value of extending the benefit of health care to everyone equally as well.

wow

 

[Mr Cheese]

The fact that it's voted in without knowing all that's in it, does that not speak in and of itself?
Is there a reason it takes affect in 2014 , I am sure after second term election?

uh, I doubt the politicians are totally unaware of whats in it....



maybe some may have read it...maybe lol

 

[Walkntune]

uh, I doubt the politicians are totally unaware of whats in it....



maybe some may have read it...maybe lol

On a guess how many do you think actually read and understand what is in certain bills before they vote and how many rely on there aids to to give a vote that lines up with there party?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

On a guess how many do you think actually read and understand what is in certain bills before they vote and how many rely on there aids to to give a vote that lines up with there party?

That's a good question, Walker. I'd be willing to bet that it's a relatively small percentage of congressmen that know the full contents of most bills that they vote on. Just guessing, but it's probably less than 15%.

You have to remember, not all of our congressmen are truly bright people. Some of them are downright dolts that just happen to come from a stronghold for one party or the other. Some are there because of their ability to raise money (think Tom DeLay), and some are nothing more than tools put there by massive corporate backing.

People like Bill Bradley (now retired) don't come on trees.

In response to your observation that many congressmen voted on the bill without knowing what is in it is simply part of the process in this day and age. For good or ill, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are far more interested in how a vote on a piece of legislation will impact their chances of being re-elected than how it iwll help or hurt the nation.

 

[Mr Cheese]

That's a good question, Walker. I'd be willing to bet that it's a relatively small percentage of congressmen that know the full contents of most bills that they vote on. Just guessing, but it's probably less than 15%.

You have to remember, not all of our congressmen are truly bright people. Some of them are downright dolts that just happen to come from a stronghold for one party or the other. Some are there because of their ability to raise money (think Tom DeLay), and some are nothing more than tools put there by massive corporate backing.

People like Bill Bradley (now retired) don't come on trees.

In response to your observation that many congressmen voted on the bill without knowing what is in it is simply part of the process in this day and age. For good or ill, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are far more interested in how a vote on a piece of legislation will impact their chances of being re-elected than how it iwll help or hurt the nation.

yes, career politicians....the modern day death of actual politics

 

[Alceste]

socialism is a means whereby the politicians are able to buy votes. they put a system of entitlements in place, and then scream that the wealthy people want to "take that away" from you! what you wanna do, kill all the old people, you heartless bastige?

i mean, come on, all you are doing is taking money from a small minority who can afford it anyways....this is the mantra of socialism. tell me where the socialist chants we need more police or firemen? or more highways?..they don;t because those programs are infrastructure. not entitlements. you cannot buy votes from the poor by promising you will give them more cops!

I think you need to look up "socialism."

 

[Walkntune]

That's a good question, Walker. I'd be willing to bet that it's a relatively small percentage of congressmen that know the full contents of most bills that they vote on. Just guessing, but it's probably less than 15%.

You have to remember, not all of our congressmen are truly bright people. Some of them are downright dolts that just happen to come from a stronghold for one party or the other. Some are there because of their ability to raise money (think Tom DeLay), and some are nothing more than tools put there by massive corporate backing.

People like Bill Bradley (now retired) don't come on trees.

In response to your observation that many congressmen voted on the bill without knowing what is in it is simply part of the process in this day and age. For good or ill, there are people on both sides of the aisle that are far more interested in how a vote on a piece of legislation will impact their chances of being re-elected than how it iwll help or hurt the nation.

Your probably pretty correct and i do not take a stance as democratic or republican. I am actually greatful we have both because I feel it keeps a balance in the corruption along with maybe some of the integrity that may find it's way in there once in awhile.
If I thought the health bill was just about providing health benefits for those who are unfortunate I would be for it(actually in all honesty I would be one to benefit) but somehow I feel lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies and the food and drug administration have certain agendas in mind.If you have paid attention to television the last few decades you would have noticed how everything has turned into a disease and there is a drug sold for every disease. They try to tell people who are feeling the blues that maybe they are depressed and come buy there drugs. A person who is down can easily fall into a depression especially with this kind of encouragement.
Once a person is trapped into believing they are depressed it is almost impossible to overcome because the belief system plays such a role in these kinds of diseases.
Once the government controls healthcare I believe we will be more under control to use drugs they want pushed instead of having more of a choice of how to deal with certain medical issues.The government may be providing for the poor but they will be gaining power over how we deal with health issues and that's some major ground for the government to take from us.What happens to those who believe in natural healthcare and believe in preventive medicines instead medicines that just treat symptoms.
Medicine has killed my mother and father as I watched them have to take one drug for the effect of another until they were on about twenty different medicines.
Do you think the government is going to try and control medicines or are they going to be pushed by lobbyist to push as much drugs as possible all in the name of the almighty dollar?

 

[berrychrisc]

I am gonna take the typical conservative view on this one.

is it okay to take money from someone else at the point of a gun, and give it to a homeless person? whether it will help them or not, whether you believe it is the right thing to do or not, whether you are going to save their life or not, is it right for you to pull out a gun and point it at a stranger and take their money and give it to someone else?

I'm going to take the typical liberal view on this one.

Since that "stranger" has already taken a heck of a lot more money from me to buy bombs to drop on whatever country he feels like, I don't feel very guilty about him forking over some money so some people that he is paying minimum wage to can take their child to a doctor.

Taxes are the price you pay for civilisation, and every other Western democratic civilisation has figured out that it's not okay to let people die because they're poor. And as long as there are 51 liberals for every 50 conservatives, we will continue to drag America into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if necessary.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm going to take the typical liberal view on this one.

as long as there are 51 liberals for every 50 conservatives, we will continue to drag America into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if necessary.

Yes, it was our turn to scream. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Troublemane]

Wait, so providing protection for citizens is not socialist, but providing health care is? You're a smart guy, Troublemane; I can't figure out why you let yourself get bamboozled like this. You're obviously smart enough to figure out how stupid that logic is.



Thank you for being a shining example of that.

...well, if the guys in washington had the cojones to actually pass a law which changes the definition of what healthcare means, making it absolutely FREE to everyone in the country. Regardless of whether you live here or not, regardless of whether you pay taxes or not. Regardless of whether you are rich or poor.

You just walk in and say, hey, i need a checkup. The doc takes you in, gives you treatment, hands out your pills/or whatever, and you are on your way. FREE. For everyone. No questions asked. THEN, and only then will the comparison between a fire department, highway systems, etc. will be valid.

But no, they did not. They only made laws which said private citizens HAVE to purchase insurance (from a private insurer) and that if you can't afford it then the government wil help subsidize you. But if you don't do it, big brother will force you too by imposing fines.....I am not sure how homeless people are going to pay for insurance, or how they will pay the fines either. Or illegal immigrants. Or people who live out in the boonies, and have no access to hospitals.

No, the government in its infinite wisdom has cured us all, by passing a law which forces us to have insurance. Because, really, thats what matters. That people are insured. Insurance is everything? Right? I mean, we bailed out AIG because they were such a big insurer....wait....you dont think this may be a cheap attempt to get the money back from the bank bailouts, do you?:thud:


...anyhooz, nah the argument that this healthcare bill has any relationship between being for the public good, such as a fire department, military, or police, etc. is totally bogus. Ask the ya-hoos in washington why they EXEMPTED THEMSELVES from having to follow the provisions in the bill, and get to keep their sweet insurance, that we tax payers pay for? :yes: they wouldn't exempt themselves from being saved by a fireman...would they?

 

[Troublemane]

I'm going to take the typical liberal view on this one.

Since that "stranger" has already taken a heck of a lot more money from me to buy bombs to drop on whatever country he feels like, I don't feel very guilty about him forking over some money so some people that he is paying minimum wage to can take their child to a doctor.

Taxes are the price you pay for civilisation, and every other Western democratic civilisation has figured out that it's not okay to let people die because they're poor. And as long as there are 51 liberals for every 50 conservatives, we will continue to drag America into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if necessary.

drag us to hell, more like. when the bill for this comes in the mail, it will be your turn to start screaming.:run:

 

[Falvlun]

Honestly, I could care less about the additional money for health care. This is not about money for me. It is the principle of the thing. I will fight socialism with every breath I have.

Very interesting that you said that bolded part, because I just recently came to the conclusion that that is the real reason most people are opposed to this bill. "If the government has any involvement in health care, which is what health care reform is proposing, then this is a step towards socialism. Socialism is the worst possible thing ever, so therefore, health care reform is the worst possible thing ever."

But when you consider that your real reason for opposing something that could greatly alleviate the financial burden and stress of obtaining health care in this country, the real reason that you are opposing legislation that has a great possibility of saving lives, is that, in principle, you find socialism to be abhorrent, doesn't that mean that your principle is is pretty messed up?

Is it not possible that maybe, just maybe some forms of socialism (which, as has been pointed out, we already have and rely on) are a good and necessary balance upon the rather ruthless nature of capitalism? Is it possible that you should actually weigh the merits of governmental actions based upon what they will do, rather than which political ideology you think they come from?

If the principle "All socialism is bad" allows you to condemn an honest effort to fix health care in our country simply because it might lead to more socialism, then I think you might need to take a serious look at your principle, and decide whether it should be revised.