Obama healthcare... whats the fuss?

[lp_junkie]

wtf, is wikipedia down for everyone else? I can get to the main page, but articles don't work. I found something about it, from what I understand, it seems like shady way to get around the constitution. like most other legislation these days. really does suck though.

 

 

Nah, Big Brother is busy rewriting all of it so that you think what you are told to think. Facts and information just confuse people.:poke:

[AnderMocs]

Nah, Big Brother is busy rewriting all of it so that you think what you are told to think. Facts and information just confuse people.:poke:

like all posts on wikipedia, it'll be replaced in 5 minutes

[Phil O'Keefe]

I will say that some go to Washington with good intentions, but the culture of corruption that pervades politics either beats them into submission or get's them defeated in the next election. Politics should not be a career, it should be a low paid public servant position, a Congressmen should not get paid more than the infantryman who actually risks his life to meet the goals set forth by our government and "secure the blessing of liberty for the people". The tail of the dragon should never make more than the teeth. For politicians you should serve your term and constituents and then pass the torch, not create a family dynasty.

 

 

Ooh-RAH! :phil:

[Fender&EHX4ever]

Political thread is political - But I'll let it ride for a while IF everyone tones down the "the other side are idiots! " type remarks. IMHO, health care reform is something both sides largely agree is desperately needed. The left likes to say the right is "against it", while the right likes to characterize the left as "taking the first step towards communism". Neither is fair - nor accurate IMO. I do see some potential problems with the current bill, and I don't think many people find it "ideal" - on either "side". First of all, there will be constitutional issues that come up - I predict this is headed right to the SCOTUS due to the debate over the commerce clause vs the state's rights and individual mandates. It will be argued on 1st, 9th and 10th Amendment grounds. Never before has the government required you to purchase something specific as a condition of living . What if someone is opposed to "medical treatment" on religious grounds? There are some out there who are... I'm not one of them, but should the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists of the US have to pay for something they are religiously opposed to using? I have not seen that brought up in the press yet, but I can't imagine it won't come up in the courts eventually. I think there are definitely some GOOD things in the bill. For example, it's a travesty when insurance companies (and I am not, nor have I EVER been a big fan of the insurance industry) take your money for years, and as soon as you file a claim for something, they cancel your policy - or jack your rates up to the moon. That's being addressed. Pre-existing conditions will no longer be grounds to deny someone coverage - again, a very good thing. But some things were not addressed at all. And I suspect they specifically were not because of the bias of the politicians on BOTH sides. The Republicans like to talk a good game and say there should be "tort reform", and I agree - there SHOULD be. Lawyers make a killing on class action lawsuits and the victims - the people they're representing - get a pittance, and the rest of us pay higher costs in terms of insurance and health coverage. But when push comes to shove, neither side is going to pass that, because the vast majority of them are lawyers themselves - an obvious conflict of interest; but you'll never see any of them recuse themselves from a vote on the issue due to having a vested interest in the matter. They had a good point about insurance across state lines too IMHO - if you want lower prices, increase competition. Seems to make sense to me, and I have no idea why they didn't put that into the final bill. Probably due to insurance company lobbying. I REALLY hated all the "deals" they were trying to cut over this. If one State gets a break on something, they'll go after it on Constitutional grounds - you can't pass a Federal law that gives preference to one state over the others. It was a bad idea, and reall bad PR on the Dems side to even suggest or attempt it, even though as I understand it, all of those "deals" are supposed to be gone in the final law. Costs and deficit spending are two of my biggest concerns with this whole thing. We really did need to do something to try to curb the insanity of ever increasing health care costs, and I don't think this bill is going to fully address that issue. Plus, it's possibly going to result in increased costs for business owners and individuals. Only time will tell how that all turns out - but I don't think it's going to be as rosy as the Democrats would like us to believe... and probably not as horrible as the Republicans want us to believe. I think it's great and noble that we're going to try to do something to get the uninsured covered, but I don't think this bill went far enough - and in other ways, it went too far. YMMV on all of this, and it probably does, and I respect that. But unless you've read the entire bill, please don't try to tell me you have all the answers and a full understanding of the whole thing. I for one freely admit I do not.

I missed this post first time around. I 100% agree that the biggest healthcare problem is curbing the unjustified cost. It has run amok. I posted my tirade about it in some other thread, but I truly wish that Obama's plan had a system in place to keep companies from charging $87 for a splint, $2000 for a stent, etc. Or to give hospitals incentives to not buy from these companies. But I'm just glad that we're moving forward at all, and I hope in time we can tweak the program to make it more efficient.

[SlowStick]

 

, in my opinion.

 

 

yes the gov should provide society to function. it does not include national social welfare programs. that is the point i was making. if you start to give health care then where do you draw the line.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the USA's non-social healthcare is ranked 37th, while every country above it has a socialized program?

 

Link / source of the statistical ranking please?

[Jeremy Skrenes]

I've got 3 words for the naysayers: NATIONAL SALES TAX. It's coming. You thought your state tax is bad. Buying across state lines wont work with this one. I dare you to say "Nay". Go on, it'll be fun.

 

 

Actually, I am in FAVOR of a National Sales Tax. As long as it is a tax REPLACEMENT. Get rid of my income tax, inheritance, gift tax, and put a national retail sales tax on new goods. Buy a used home: no tax. Buy a used car: no tax. Earn a bunch of money off of the stock market: no tax. But we won't get it with the current administration. If we do have it though, it would free up our economy and create a situation where we would hardly need all these entitlement programs.

 

Also, with our current government, most republicans included, I don't trust them. So this takeover is taking control of our current health care system from one bloated overpowerful bureaucracy and giving it to another.

[ben_allison]

yes the gov should provide society to function. it does not include national social welfare programs. that is the point i was making. if you start to give health care then where do you draw the line.

 

 

You draw a line which includes the best interests of the people you are responsible for.

 

Anyway, I'd like it if you'd respond to my last message.

[AnderMocs]

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the USA's non-social healthcare is ranked 37th, while every country above it has a socialized program? Link / source of the statistical ranking please?

 

The World Health Organzations ranking of worlds health systems.

 

1 France

2 Italy

3 San Marino

4 Andorra

5 Malta

6 Singapore

7 Spain

8 Oman

9 Austria

10 Japan

11 Norway

12 Portugal

13 Monaco

14 Greece

15 Iceland

16 Luxembourg

17 Netherlands

18 United Kingdom

19 Ireland

20 Switzerland

21 Belgium

22 Colombia

23 Sweden

24 Cyprus

25 Germany

26 Saudi Arabia

27 United Arab Emirates

28 Israel

29 Morocco

30 Canada

31 Finland

32 Australia

33 Chile

34 Denmark

35 Dominica

36 Costa Rica

37 United States of America

38 Slovenia

 

I'd like to know why we are just over SLOVENIA.

[lp_junkie]

Now who keeps statistics on personal freedoms, and opportunities?

The thing most Euros or anyone else doesn't comprehend, is the sheer size of the United States. I can drive for hours in any direction and still be in Texas.
Most of those countries listed we have counties bigger than them.

[ben_allison]

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the USA's non-social healthcare is ranked 37th, while every country above it has a socialized program? Link / source of the statistical ranking please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO's_ranking_of_health_care_systems

This is a synopsis. All the data is available on the WHO site if you dig around for it.

[ben_allison]

Now who keeps statistics on personal freedoms, and opportunities? The thing most Euros or anyone else doesn't comprehend, is the sheer size of the United States. I can drive for hours in any direction and still be in Texas. Most of those countries listed we have counties bigger than them.

 

 

But it's a per capita thing.

 

You raise more capital with more constituents. It kinda grows proportionately... and if anything, revenue would increase exponentially... meaning, there's more to go around.

[BassPlayerJosh]

You're saying healthcare, where all contribute so no one looses out, is WRONG? Dude, go back and read Acts 2. Even the model of the church is a socialist one. Everyone helps, so people are taken care of. You feel that these "entitlements" INCLUDE library books and fixing potholes, but NOT making sure an impoverished baby with a heart murmur gets looked after? Where is Christ in that, my friend? And I suppose it is mere coincidence that the USA's non-social healthcare is ranked 37th, while every country above it has a socialized program? Must be coincidence.

 

 

The model of the church is a voluntary one. Big difference imo.Tithes aren't taxes. They are given by people who care. The government run program is entirely different, comparing them is dangerous. Christ is in the church, not the government.

 

While the Christian is called to social justice this was not meant to be achieved through government. The church leaders in the new testament were not political activists, they were socio-religious activists. They strove to model the church into what Christ wanted it to be, a community of believers who all provided for the common good of one another for the benefit of the church. Did it turn out that way, no. Sadly politics corrupted the early church. But that doesn't mean the modern church should have a different approach to the care of people.

[ben_allison]

 

While the Christian is called to social justice this was not meant to be achieved through government.

 

 

My main point, again, was to show an inconsistency in SlowSticks world view. That's all. I'm not suggesting health care is a "Christian" issue. Rather, that the Christian MUST see provision for his neighbour as essential. The vehicle for this provision, in our context, is through government. It has the resources and infrastructure to pull this off.

[lp_junkie]

But it's a per capita thing. You raise more capital with more constituents. It kinda grows proportionately... and if anything, revenue would increase exponentially... meaning, there's more to go around.

 

 

That's the fallacy, most of the wealth in America is centered on 3% of the population. There is no more revenue to be generated, so our government operates on a deficit.

 

Any private business that ran things the way our government does would go out of business, and have a string of lawsuits, people would be out for blood.

[c0rs0]

There are over 2000 verses in the Bible commanding us to care for the needs of the sick and the poor. It doesn't say "but you can't do it through the democratic process."

[c0rs0]

If we can make laws based on "thou shall not kill/steal" because God commands it, then we can make laws based on caring for the sick, old, and poor.

[big_cat]

There are over 2000 verses in the Bible commanding us to care for the needs of the sick and the poor. It doesn't say "but you can't do it through the democratic process."

 

 

and only a few passing mentions of homosexuality. which one gets more attention?

[ben_allison]

It doesn't say "but you can't do it through the democratic process."

Seriously.

[c0rs0]

Not to mention that the same section that forbids homosexuality forbids shaving and haircuts.

[ibentmywookie]

 

I will say that some go to Washington with good intentions, but the culture of corruption that pervades politics either beats them into submission or get's them defeated in the next election. Politics should not be a career, it should be a low paid public servant position, a Congressmen should not get paid more than the infantryman who actually risks his life to meet the goals set forth by our government and "secure the blessing of liberty for the people". The tail of the dragon should never make more than the teeth. For politicians you should serve your term and constituents and then pass the torch, not create a family dynasty.

 

 

Plato's Republic

[BassPlayerJosh]

Sure. And not killing your neighbour is voluntary as well. Everything is essentially voluntary. Still, the work of the Spirit would move you to a place where you would see charity as being mandatory.

 

 

For sure. I think charity is awesome, I love getting out into my community and helping people meet their needs in ways that I can facilitate. I would however never attempt to force charity on anyone who did not want to participate as that is theft and a direct violation of the spirit of "charity." And I would use this to answer c0rs0 as well.

 

There are to my knowledge no verses of Jesus taking from the rich to help the poor. He definitely suggests it to them, but he doesn't force them. Christians should take the same route. The country is more then capable of providing for people's health if it so chooses, the government is the only institution that is capable of forcing people who don't choose. Forcing it on people might accomplish the end result, but in no way fixes the problem. That is the complete ambivalence of the average person to the condition of his neighbor.

 

It is a sad condition for sure, one everyone myself included is guilty of from time to time. Does that mean we should mandate caring through political legislation. I would say no as that is not really caring. The aim of the bill is noble for sure, but I think the way it is carried out strip it of it's nobility. The way an end is achieved is as important as the end in this case.

 

I hope that helped to explain my view as Christian on why I do not support government mandated health care.

[lp_junkie]

If we can make laws based on "thou shall not kill/steal" because God commands it, then we can make laws based on caring for the sick, old, and poor.

 

 

Again there is a separation of Church and State, just because you believe in the Bible and Christ doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

You can do anything you want in life, provided that you are willing to take responsibility for and suffer the consequences of your poor choices/actions.

 

Nowhere does it say that you are guaranteed anything, only that you have the opportunity to make things happen depending on what you put into it. What you do with your opportunity should not impact others.

[Jules-RM]

I just wanted people to say "Nay" because it's a fun word. NAYYYY NAYYY NAYYY. I sound like a goat!

[ben_allison]

 

It is a sad condition for sure, one everyone myself included is guilty of from time to time. Does that mean we should mandate caring through political legislation. I would say no as that is not really caring. The aim of the bill is noble for sure, but I think the way it is carried out strip it of it's nobility. The way an end is achieved is as important as the end in this case.

 

 

I think things get confused when we frame thing as "caring." Even "charity." That's not what this is. This is not charity.

 

Again, you pay taxes that help build roads in other counties that you won't use. You pay taxes that help rehab people with drug addictions so they can get back on their feet. You pay taxes that keep a police force in place to protect the population. None of that is charity. It's part of living in a society. We share expenses so the populace has fundamental needs met, and rights preserved.

 

Clearly, since you still live in the USA, you don't have a problem being taxed and having your money go into a pot, to pay for things that you will personally NEVER use.

 

But when it comes to medical aid, you feel it's unjustified because it should somehow be voluntary, accompanied by overtures of charitable willingness by all. As if WANTING to get people the double-bypass they need makes it more noble, or even valid.

 

It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, you really feel compelled that your being that a school three counties over needs a new jungle gym, and so you'll continue to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but you'll be miffed if some of that money could resuscitate an infant, or give a working single mother the emergency breast cancer operation that will get her home to her kids? I'm sorry but it's just not a consistent point of view.