next »

[george]

I agree with Kramlack, you have to feint for the eyes before you kick your opponent in the nuts. This is only the beginning.

[Curseman]

Does it still have the part in it where the government fines you if you don't buy health insurance for yourself?

[Skofo]

I'm only a couple hours from Chicago, being in Michigan, so if my parents let me I'll totally go.

And you're complaining about money‽

[moi]

BABY KILLERS!

[William Broom]

If you think this bill is a bad thing, you're not a very good person and need to reevaluate your ideas of worth and what's important in life. PF is right -- it's been toned down massively (in the name of corporate interests), and it's a travesty.

Pardon me, but I'm still trying to get this right. The bill was altered to compromise with Republican representatives who didn't want it passed, right? But the Republican party is supposed to be anti-big business as well as anti-big gov't. So the alterations were to make the system less dependent on the gov't and more on the big businesses. Is that right?

If the Republicans opposed it unanimously anyway, then what was the point of toning it down?

[Cthulhu32]

Bood_war: which provisions in the health care bill are you opposed to is my question? (You started the topic, so please spend 5 mins on google )


One of the big reasons the health care bill did not pass with 60 votes originally is because some independents are counted as democratic, but a few of them were already sided with the health insurance companies about a government run health care policy. So even with the majority, it would have never passed as it was.

I generally hate politics and I firmly believe they are a slimey business, but I'm glad the left is growing a set of balls, even if they are the most conservative left to come into the white house in decades. Also there is already a fine for not having insurance, see: auto insurance. So it shouldn't come as such a shocker that this policy is being put into place.

[Rob Lach]

Sigh... no public option. I can already foresee insurance company lackeys trying to find as many loopholes as they can and it'll end up costing the same.

[Bood_war]

I'm only a couple hours from Chicago, being in Michigan, so if my parents let me I'll totally go.

And you're complaining about money‽

What part of Michigan do you not understand?

Cthulu32:Tomorrow I will, I promise. I'm way too sleep deprived right now to write anything coherent.

[Valter]

Cthulu32: It's not government-run health care! It's just a public option, with the private industry still allowed to function (although admittedly with some changes).

America's finest news sources all contributed to successfully removing any understanding of the bill from, well, anybody. On the other hand, the politicians seemed to their damned best to make the fucking thing unreadable in the first place.  

I would feel better if the left weren't being at least as idiotic about this as the right is. Sometimes I get the feeling that Obama's the only one putting serious effort into all of this.

Still, I think this is a step in the right direction, considering that America has basically the shittiest health care worldwide right now.

[Zaphos]

This article seems helpful: Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill

[Curseman]

Also there is already a fine for not having insurance, see: auto insurance. So it shouldn't come as such a shocker that this policy is being put into place.

That's completely different.  You need liability insurance so if you injure someone else or damage their property, they can get compensated for it.  The compulsory insurance coming with the health care bill isn't for the protection of others, it's just big brother deciding he knows how you should spend your money better than you do.

There's no good reason for it.  It's only being done so the government can take more of your money and so they can claim that their bill increases the number of people who have health insurance.

[Valter]

The compulsory insurance coming with the health care bill isn't for the protection of others, it's just big brother deciding he knows how you should spend your money better than you do.

There's no good reason for it.  It's only being done so the government can take more of your money and so they can claim that their bill increases the number of people who have health insurance.

What compulsory insurance?

[Zaphos]

Presumably this:

Individual Mandate:

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

 I think it is reasonable though -- the bill also says insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on a pre-existing starting in 2014, and you can't really do that without this ... otherwise people would just wait till they're sick to get health insurance, which would make the system not work?  In general it's a problem for the 'health insurance' model of health care if people can only join in when they finally need it ... you want a lot of healthy people paying in to the system.

[Gainsworthy]

If you think this bill is a bad thing, you're not a very good person and need to reevaluate your ideas of worth and what's important in life. PF is right -- it's been toned down massively (in the name of corporate interests), and it's a travesty.

Pardon me, but I'm still trying to get this right. The bill was altered to compromise with Republican representatives who didn't want it passed, right? But the Republican party is supposed to be anti-big business as well as anti-big gov't. So the alterations were to make the system less dependent on the gov't and more on the big businesses. Is that right?

If the Republicans opposed it unanimously anyway, then what was the point of toning it down?

I've got a funny feeling it was more to appease conservative members of the Democrat party. A whole bunch of them voted against it, so I hear. Pretty small margin.

Then again, I also live in Australia, so I'm just going on what I've read.


ALSO: Speaking of being an Australian, can someone explain specifically (and in some detail) why so many people are against* the whole nationalised healthcare thing? The only negative I can see is that the non-poor would have to pay a couple of percent more in tax. In order to help themselves AND those less fortunate. The system works pretty well here. It couldn't be simply a case of greed.


*Again, reporting from the news we get here. All the anti-health guys are quoted as saying is "America isn't a socialist/communist/fascist nation" and "Nationalised Healthcare is bad because Nationalised Healthcare is bad because it's bad". Again, there's gotta be more to this.

[Mipe]

The most important thing is that everyone will have at least basic health coverage; they won't be denied and left to die in gutter anymore. The fact that private insurance companies will benefit from this the most is the lesser evil here.

So what if all Americans will HAVE to pay for health coverage even when not sick - the rest of world already does so. Get with the times, you slackers.

[Valter]

ALSO: Speaking of being an Australian, can someone explain specifically (and in some detail) why so many people are against* the whole nationalised healthcare thing?

Fox News. Period.

Plus, remember that what you hear about us wacky Americans... you get primarily from the news. The same news that is pushing their edge on things in the first place. I promise we're not actually all that stupid.

[Movius]

all good, except if you're a filthy foreigner.

or need an abortion.

or can afford your own insurance.

edit: Also if anyone tells you this is in anyway similar to Medicare in Australia beyond the fact that THE MAN is involved. You should laugh in their face.

[Dacke]

I'm really happy to see that USA is making a small turn towards a better world. 

Naturally all Americans aren't complete boobies (nationality ≠ personality). But it still remains a fact that the majority of people over there are uneducated, politically confused suckers. Giving Bush the presidency not once, but twice. That's a track record USA will have a hard time making up for.

But again, this truly is a step in the right direction.

[Valter]

it still remains a fact that the majority of people over there are uneducated, politically confused suckers. Giving Bush the presidency not once, but twice. That's a track record USA will have a hard time making up for.

But... Obama! Forgive us! Please! 

[Dacke]

But... Obama! Forgive us! Please! 

Sorry dude.
The majority didn't vote for Obama because it was right. It had more to do with marketing and hype.





It was just lucky for the rest of us that the hype surrounded the right candidate.
Where "the rest of us" includes you Valter, as I do not think you belong to the uneducated moronic masses .

I also don't really look down on all those uneducated people (even if it sounds like it). It's the lack of socialization that is to blame, as a proper education is something that everyone should be guaranteed. The lack of socialization in the first place is the work of evil individuals.

But, hey, perhaps we are just now seeing the first step towards fixing that!