next »

[googoogjoob]

I dislike the bill, because it isn't socialized near enough -- the plan still requires you to rely upon private companies, albeit regulated ones. A proper health care reform would be pure socialized medical aid, but that likely won't happen soon if ever.

I second all of this.

Treating health care as a commodity to be bought and sold and profited off of is really fucked up. (Same goes for food, water, shelter, etc but they are not immediately relevant.)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

those saying that this will reduce uninsured to 0 are incorrect; the estimates are that it will only reduce uninsured from the current 30 million to 17 million. the main reason for that is that all it does for the people who can't afford insurance is fine them if they don't buy it. which -- will make some people buy it, but the people who can't afford it at all (the very poor, the homeless, etc.) won't be any better off, since the problem in the first place was that they couldn't afford it. fining someone for not being able to afford something in an attempt to get them to buy it seems ridiculous to me. that said, 17 million uninsured is better than 30 million uninsured, i guess.

also, this isn't a health care bill (the topic title is wrong), it's a health insurance bill; different things. the bill has almost no changes to health care per se, it's only changes to health insurance.

(as for my opinion on the bill, i wouldn't want to take the topic off-topic, but i'm against all government as has been discussed before in other threads, so of course i'd be against this bill, and every other bill. but as bills go it still seems weird to me to fine someone for not being able to afford something)

[pgil]

but the people who can't afford it at all (the very poor, the homeless, etc.) won't be any better off, since the problem in the first place was that they couldn't afford it.

People near or below the poverty level are eligible for subsidies to pay for insurance. The bill also extends medicaid, which provides coverage for low-income people.

[Brother Android]

I don't give much of a damn either way about this bill, or much of anything the government tries to do, but I think that some of you are being immensely self-righteous. But hey, that's politics, innit?

[s0]

Norway has had free healthcare for ages and just happens to have one of the highest standards of living in the whole world, so there goes your "it's too expensive" bullshit.

those saying that this will reduce uninsured to 0 are incorrect; the estimates are that it will only reduce uninsured from the current 30 million to 17 million. the main reason for that is that all it does for the people who can't afford insurance is fine them if they don't buy it. which -- will make some people buy it, but the people who can't afford it at all (the very poor, the homeless, etc.) won't be any better off, since the problem in the first place was that they couldn't afford it. fining someone for not being able to afford something in an attempt to get them to buy it seems ridiculous to me. that said, 17 million uninsured is better than 30 million uninsured, i guess.

Apparently bullying people into buying stuff is the American idea of the government taking responsibility.

[Dacke]

I don't give much of a damn either way about this bill, or much of anything the government tries to do, but I think that some of you are being immensely self-righteous. But hey, that's politics, innit?

It's about caring for people in need. If there ever is a time to be self-righteous about anything, this would be it.

[JMickle]

vegan • socialist • atheist • humanist • liberal • republican
programmer • feminist • animal rights activist • pacifist • teetotaler

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

People near or below the poverty level are eligible for subsidies to pay for insurance. The bill also extends medicaid, which provides coverage for low-income people.

tax subsidies. which only really apply to people who work and do taxes, no? i'd be somewhat surprised if those subsidies applied to the homeless for instance.

[Dacke]

vegan • socialist • atheist • humanist • liberal • republican
programmer • feminist • animal rights activist • pacifist • teetotaler

Yeah, those things too.
Anything in there that caught your eye or that seems unclear?
Some words (like "republican") mean different things in different countries (in my case it's mostly about removing the monarchy from Sweden).

Most of those things are based around me trying my very best to figure out how I should be as a person. What actions I can take, to make the world a better place in the future. It's very much work in progress, but I'm doing my best  

Edit:
I changed "a working process" to "work in progress". Gigantic double-typo, changing the meaning of the entire paragraph

[pgil]

People near or below the poverty level are eligible for subsidies to pay for insurance. The bill also extends medicaid, which provides coverage for low-income people.

tax subsidies. which only really apply to people who work and do taxes, no? i'd be somewhat surprised if those subsidies applied to the homeless for instance.

Yeah, I'll admit I wasn't thinking about homeless people

[Cthulhu32]

Here's an interesting graph from National Geographic, the only flaw is that Mexico actually uses US health insurers at a very high discount :D

[Dacke]

Very nice graph!
It took me a few minutes to figure it out, but the facts are fascinating.
(First I assumed that the X-axis was time, while it in fact is nothing. There are just two towers with connected pairs of data.)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

to me what that graph seems to be saying is that there is absolutely no connection between money spent on health care per person and life expectancy, and only a slight positive correlation between visits to doctor per year and life expectancy.

[Dacke]

to me what that graph seems to be saying is that there is absolutely no connection between money spent on health care per person and life expectancy, and only a slight positive correlation between visits to doctor per year and life expectancy.

Wait, what?

The countries spending the least are the only ones below 78 in age. The countries spending more are generally getting better results.

But I think that such a causal connection can be assumed to exist. More healthcare -> better health, if everything else is the same.

The graph is about the efficiency of the health care systems in different countries, as far as I understand.

[gimymblert]

Obviously there is parameters left uncovered in the graph to explain it all. It's more an emphasis on the ineficiency of the us health system compare to other country (expensive without result).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

the US and denmark are just above 78 and both spend a lot (the US spends the most). it's true that the lowest 5 are the same for both sides, but that's probably due to other factors, such as those countries being impoverished countries rather than developed countries (and in many cases lacking basic infrastructure). if you exclude the bottom five, there's no correlation.

[Dacke]

So you are saying that modern medicine doesn't work? Because if it did, surely giving people more access to medical treatments would make them live longer?

An interpretation that makes much more sense to me is:
There is a diversity in how well resources are spent in different countries.

[Squiggly_P]

I don't really like the bill, but for no real reason other than the fact that they're focusing on building a bridge over one pit while we're currently plummeting into a totally different pit. The debate over this bill is just going to continue on and on. It's passed, but it's going to be challenged as unconstitutional and thus prolong the battle even further.

The economy, meanwhile, has been in the process of collapsing for quite a while and aside from bailing out some banks and companies, nothing has been done. The banks are going to start falling down again soon as more and more people default on more and more loans because there are no jobs in this country. There are no jobs in this country because the corporations have every incentive to outsource those jobs to other countries where they can pay the employees much less and not have to worry about where they can dump all those toxic chemicals. You can dump them pretty much anywhere, so long as you're not in the US.

You want to fix this country properly, you have to give corporations incentives to create jobs here or you have to remove their incentives for creating jobs elsewhere.

If this bill can lower the amount the US spends per person as well as raise life expectancy, then that's great, but who's gonna keep that savings? Not us. This bill is already costing me more. My health insurance went up $70 per paycheck because of this bullshit. I'm poor enough as it is.

[Mipe]

Sorry, but Capitalism dictates that jobs be created where there is the cheapest work force. That is China. By the way, have you paid your debts to China off yet?

Viva la Capitalism! 

[nihilocrat]

I think that it's too goddamn expensive.

Putting bullets into peoples' heads, and rewarding the people who do it with free healthcare and free college is too expensive. What would you rather buy, a spacious house for a single family (or two, if you choose ones in a place with low real estate values) or a single AMRAAM missile (see the "unit cost")?

The US healthcare system, where you can work a decent job and get "good" insurance that forces you to still pay full price for any specialist work (read: actually being sick) is just ridiculous. I think the current bill is too watered down but at least it's throwing a bone to people and putting laws in place to stop stuff that's really just plain criminal (pre-existing conditions).

If you don't like the way things are going, vote with your feet.