PDA

View Full Version : Senate Passes Healthcare Bill


EmeraldFields
24-12-09, 15:39
WASHINGTON Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history.

"We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said shortly after the Senate acted.

"This will be the most important piece of social legislation since Social Security passed in the 1930s," said Obama, standing with Vice President Joe Biden in the State Room of the White House.

The 60-39 vote on a cold winter morning capped months of arduous negotiations and 24 days of floor debate. It also followed a succession of failures by past congresses to get to this point. Biden presided as 58 Democrats and two independents voted "yes." Republicans unanimously voted "no."

An exhausted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., initially cast a "no" vote by mistake, then quickly corrected himself as fellow senators burst out laughing.

The tally far exceeded the simple majority required for passage.

The Senate's bill must still be merged with legislation passed by the House before Obama could sign a final bill in the new year. There are significant differences between the two measures but Democrats say they've come too far now to fail.

Both bills would extend health insurance to more than 30 million more Americans. Obama said the legislation "includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable."

Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who made health care reform his life's work, watched the vote from the gallery. So did Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., the longest-serving House member and a champion of universal health care his entire career.

"This morning isn't the end of the process, it's merely the beginning. We'll continue to build on this success to improve our health system even more," Reid said before the vote. "But that process cannot begin unless we start today ... there may not be a next time."

At a news conference a few moments later, Reid said the vote "brings us one step closer to making Ted Kennedy's dream a reality."

The Nevadan said that "every step of this long process has been an enormous undertaking."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, said he "very happy to see people getting health care they could not get."

It was the Senate's first Christmas Eve vote since 1895, when the matter at hand was a military affairs bill concerning employment of former Confederate officers, according to the Senate Historical Office.

After the vote Obama offered congratulations in phone calls to Vicki Kennedy and Reid, Baucus and other senators, including 92-year-old Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who was brought to the Senate in a wheelchair.

The House passed its own measure in November. The White House and Congress have now come further toward the goal of a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's health care system than any of their predecessors.

The legislation would ban the insurance industry from denying benefits or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the bill will reduce deficits by $130 billion over the next 10 years, an estimate that assumes lawmakers carry through on hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to insurance companies and doctors, hospitals and others who treat Medicare patients.

For the first time, the government would require nearly every American to carry insurance, and subsidies would be provided to help low-income people to do so. Employers would be induced to cover their employees through a combination of tax credits and penalties. The legislation costs nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and is paid for by a combination of taxes, fees and cuts to Medicare.

Republicans were withering in their criticism of what they deemed a budget-busting government takeover. If the measure were worthwhile, contended Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., "they wouldn't be rushing it through Congress on Christmas Eve."

House Minority Leader John Boehner assailed the bill moments after passage.

"Not even Ebenezer Scrooge himself could devise a scheme as cruel and greedy as Democrats' government takeover of health care," the Ohio Republican said in a statement.

"Sen. Reid's health care bill increases premiums for families and small businesses, raises taxes during a recession, cuts seniors' Medicare benefits, adds to our skyrocketing debt, and puts bureaucrats in charge of decisions that should be made by patients and doctors," he said.

The occasion was moving for Sen. Paul Kirk, D-Mass., appointed to fill Kennedy's seat after his death in August.

"He's having a merry Christmas in heaven," Kirk told reporters after the tally. He said he was "humbled to be here with the honor of casting essentially his vote."

Said Dingell: "This is for me, this is for my dad, this is for the country."

Reid nailed the last votes down in a rush of dealmaking in the last week that is now coming under attack because of special provisions obtained by a number of senators. In Nebraska, home to conservative Democrat Ben Nelson, the Democrats' crucial 60th vote, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of a planned Medicaid expansion in perpetuity, the only state getting that deal.

Negotiations between the House and Senate to reconcile differences between the two bills are expected to begin as soon as next week. The House bill has stricter limits on abortion than the Senate, and unlike the House, the Senate measure omits a government-run insurance option, which liberals favored to apply pressure on private insurers but Democratic moderates opposed as an unwarranted federal intrusion. Obama has signaled he will sign a bill even if it lacks that provision.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

I know I'm happy!:D

And Nebraska got a deal out of it too. :whi:

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 15:41
Shame

Capt. Murphy
24-12-09, 15:46
I'm only along for this ride... Called life. *sigh*

Whatever.

Mr.Burns
24-12-09, 15:47
Whooopdie fudging do. Pushed it through too quickly I think. Just my two cents.

Eddie Haskell
24-12-09, 15:49
Unless and until profit is totally eradicated from the health care of human beings on this planet, not much will really change.

irjudd
24-12-09, 15:56
Excellent.

Excellent because I agree that these are the right choices? No. Excellent because the current healthcare system in the US is the joke of the World, and some options must be explored.

Draco
24-12-09, 16:04
Unless and until profit is totally eradicated from the health care of human beings on this planet, not much will really change.

Oh yes, because eliminating profits works oh so well.

Excellent.

Excellent because I agree that these are the right choices? No. Excellent because the current healthcare system in the US is the joke of the World, and some options must be explored.

The world needs a new joke book then.

SamReeves
24-12-09, 16:15
A healthcare reformpork barrel spendingbill.

Whoopee, what a piece of dogcrap.

interstellardave
24-12-09, 16:19
Fitting that it is compared to Social Security... :whi:

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 16:24
I fail to see anything wrong with it.

Mr.Burns
24-12-09, 16:27
I fail to see anything wrong with it.


Very very very expensive and it requires something this government doesn't have: Money. And by money I mean a positive balance sheet, not just borrowing more money from other countries. Sooo...yea, needs work.

Lemmie
24-12-09, 16:30
From what I've heard, the Senate version of this bill isn't strong enough. :(

EmeraldFields
24-12-09, 16:32
From what I've heard, the Senate version of this bill isn't strong enough. :(

Yeah, no public option. :/

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 16:34
Very very very expensive and it requires something this government doesn't have: Money. And by money I mean a positive balance sheet, not just borrowing more money from other countries. Sooo...yea, needs work.

Expensive for who? Isn't it supposed to make health care approachable to everyone?

Draco
24-12-09, 16:35
Expensive for who? Isn't it supposed to make health care approachable to everyone?

And who do you think pays for it?

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 16:35
No wonder the US national debt is predicted to be $18 trillion in 10 years time.

Obama is an absolute tool. He has absolutely no sense of fiscal responsibility. Simply keeping the national debt from skyrocketing is more important than universal healthcare.

SamReeves
24-12-09, 16:38
LOL, nobody here gets it.

Want cheaper healthcare? EXPAND THE BOUNDRIES OF COMPETITION. The government has no business being a healthcare provider.

Hell I'd like to buy over California state lines and get a cheaper plan.

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 16:38
And who do you think pays for it?

So you would raher let people die and the ones who do have health care remain with their expensive one? For god's sake, I pay $1200 a month for that crap and I don't even need it and in many countries it's free.

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 16:40
So you would raher let people die and the ones who do have health care remain with their expensive one? For god's sake, I pay $1200 a month for that crap and I don't even need it and in many countries it's free.Why do supporters of UHC always use this guilt thing to try and persuade the opposition to support it?

SamReeves
24-12-09, 16:41
Why do supporters of UHC always use this guilt thing to try and persuade the opposition to support it?

Because that's the only way they can push their socialist agenda. Joseph Stalin did it through fear and guilt. Look what it got the Soviet Union! ;)

Mr.Burns
24-12-09, 16:42
Expensive for who? Isn't it supposed to make health care approachable to everyone?

It's predicted to reach nearly a trillion dollars of investment from the government. That's money we, the country and tax payers, don't have. In order to fund this, we'll have to borrow more money from other countries and as MT pointed out, our national debt is getting even bigger. It might be affordable in the short term for the population but down the road, it will cost everyone more, most likely in the form of more taxes. I agree something needs to be done but this is too damn expensive and it's being rushed through, which is moronic.

And national healthcare is not free. Those countries tax heavily so the citizens can get the care they need. Nothing is free.

Remember this saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch." someone always pays.

Draco
24-12-09, 16:43
So you would raher let people die and the ones who do have health care remain with their expensive one? For god's sake, I pay $1200 a month for that crap and I don't even need it and in many countries it's free.

Could you at least try to come up with a point that stands on its own? I don't do emotionalism politics.

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 16:44
Why do supporters of UHC always use this guilt thing to try and persuade the opposition to support it?

What are you talking about?


Well, from what I know, the bill was made to actually save money, not waste it, so I don't know where that came from.

Draco
24-12-09, 16:46
What are you talking about?


Well, from what I know, the bill was made to actually save money, not waste it, so I don't know where that came from.

Save money... lol.

I'd save a ton more money by keeping what I have.

Mr.Burns
24-12-09, 16:48
Basic economics L4E:

Your government has a population of 15 million. Your annual budget from taxes and fees and what not is $20 million. You want to develop a national health care system but it's going to cost 200 million. So what do you do? How do you afford this plan so that your citizens can get proper medical care?

interstellardave
24-12-09, 16:50
Basic economics L4E:

Your government has a population of 15 million. Your annual budget from taxes and fees and what not is $20 million. You want to develop a national health care system but it's going to cost 200 million. So what do you do? How do you afford this plan so that your citizens can get proper medical care?

Enslave future generations in payment of the ever-growing debt... or fight a war with whomever wants to try to collect on the debt once it's defaulted on (which is, tragically, the only option, IMO).

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 16:52
So, now my question is: what do you think Obama wants to do with pursuing this bill?

I mean, if he's aware of these problems like so many of you are, why does he still want it to happen?

And yes, reading the bill and all the explanations behing it, they clearly state we will save a lot of money in the future from it.

LaraLuvrrr
24-12-09, 16:52
I dont know what to think. On one hand Im like yay change. On the other hand I dont know **** about whats in that bill. I guess I should read up on it when I have time...

Tommy123
24-12-09, 16:56
I dont know what to think. On one hand Im like yay change. On the other hand I dont know **** about whats in that bill. I guess I should read up on it when I have time...

same here, but you never know whats going to happen with obama

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 16:56
What are you talking about?As Draco pointed out, emotionalism. Proponents of UHC are often quick to point out "how many people will die" if it doesn't get passed. They subtly hold opponents of UHC responsible for the supposed deaths that will result from the continuation of the current American healthcare system.

Mr.Burns
24-12-09, 16:59
So, now my question is: what do you think Obama wants to do with pursuing this bill?

I mean, if he's aware of these problems like so many of you are, why does he still want it to happen?

And yes, reading the bill and all the explanations behing it, they clearly state we will save a lot of money in the future from it.

In some ways we might. But in terms of the debt the nation is already in, it's not helping it at all. This is the fun part about economics. It's all theoretical. Nothing is set in stone. Democrats and Republicans are known for two schools of thought on economics. Democrats are a fan of spending as a means of infusing the economy. They feel that if they take the burden of healthcare off of the citizens, or at least as much as possible, then the extra cash can then be used by the population to re-energize the economy. Republicans on the other hand are fiscally conservative, at least in theory. Their idea is to minimize government spending, since we don't have the funds to cover everything we want to do. Now in reality both sides are corrupt and are spending money we don't have. However Republicans do prefer a healthcare plan that isn't so damn expensive. I'm not saying that I'm a Republican, but I definitely feel like this plan is being pushed through too quickly and it's too expensive. We have a nation that is already in a recession and most of us can't afford to be taxed any more than we already have, so this is where borrowing comes in but as Dave pointed out, the debt will be passed on to the next generation or we'll end up going to war with the debt holders when we default on them.

Not a pleasant picture.

Catapharact
24-12-09, 16:59
Expensive for who? Isn't it supposed to make health care approachable to everyone?

So you don't mind that the Middle East and China practically are your legal creditors and potentially have the right to take whatever they wish from you if they want to settle the debt you are accumilating ;).

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 17:01
So you don't mind that the Middle East and China practically are your legal creditors and potentially have the right to take whatever they wish from you if they want to settle the debt you are accumilating ;).But Cat, healthcare is a right! It matters more than the future of the country!

:rolleyes:

Capt. Murphy
24-12-09, 17:02
As Draco pointed out, emotionalism. Proponents of UHC are often quick to point out "how many people will die" if it doesn't get passed.

More people will die when they turn away the very young and elderly... Also, weren't they trying to get abortion funded with that bill?

And with less people around - who's going to pay the taxes needed to pay off this debt? Oh wait... They were going to fine people (some very large amount) that refused to follow along... :o

LaraLuvrrr
24-12-09, 17:05
same here, but you never know whats going to happen with obama

I think he's wanting to make the U.S. more European like.. Like French socialism. I remember hearing that some of his economic policies were based on French socialism or sumthin. Tbh I think it would be nice to narrow the gap between rich and poor, restore middle class and give everybody healthcare. Too much capitalism is just as based as too much socialism. And in these times when the wealthy and those at the top of corporations are doing fine while almost all everyday workers are having problems piling (no healthcare, unemployed, foreclosures) we could use some more socialism into the mix.

SamReeves
24-12-09, 17:09
More people will die when they turn away the very young and elderly... Also, weren't they trying to get abortion funded with that bill?

Yup, it's in there and it doesn't make me a happy camper. Soon enough you'll be able to get your abortions as often as a Big Mac at McDonalds.

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 17:11
But Cat, healthcare is a right! It matters more than the future of the country!

:rolleyes:

You should have excluded the roll eye because if there's no people, there's no country.

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 17:15
You should have excluded the roll eye because if there's no people, there's no country.At the moment healthcare is not a right in America, yet its population is 300 million and growing. This is what I meant when I said supporters of UHC always try and play the guilt card.

Draco
24-12-09, 17:45
Healthcare is not a right in any country. Rights are free, healthcare is not.

Ward Dragon
24-12-09, 17:46
Great, so basically Obama's plan to provide health insurance to everyone is to sic the IRS on us with hefty fines if we don't buy it ourselves? And we have to pay higher taxes for this "right" to boot? The elections next year will be so much fun to look forward to. I very much doubt the Democrats will be able to keep control of Congress after this stunt they pulled. I still can't get over Harry Reid mocking all of the Senators who had the integrity to refuse to sell their vote for the bribes he was offering. That's really what happened there, and it sickens me that such an ill-thought out and expensive plan was passed only because the people in power like Reid were willing to out-right bribe Senators into voting for it, and that's considered a good thing? :hea:

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 17:47
Healthcare is not a right in any country. Rights are free, healthcare is not.I agree, unfortunately though here (as well as Europe) healthcare is seen as a right.

LaraLuvrrr
24-12-09, 17:56
Healthcare is not a right in any country. Rights are free, healthcare is not.

lol very true...

Healthcare is a service

voltz
24-12-09, 18:19
I don't like the fact that residents are being "required" to have a health care plan.... or pay a yearly fine of $750. Low income they mentoned having an exemption for (my current bracket :(), but this really comes as a problem with those in job positions who are able to avoid the 50 employee mark and pay well enough.

and "WTF" on tanning beds?? 10% tax increase???

Eddie Haskell
24-12-09, 18:21
Health care is a right, even in the United States. You cannot be turned away regardless of your ability to (ever) pay. Imagine if it were otherwise (if you dare to).

Legend 4ever
24-12-09, 18:22
Yeah, alright, healthcare is a service and the surgery I had done here was $5,000 but my friend in Europe payed it only $500.

Johnnay
24-12-09, 18:29
Oh well

at least us Aussies gets free health via Medicare on some issues

Forwen
24-12-09, 18:53
No comment on the article itself, but...

Because that's the only way they can push their socialist agenda. Joseph Stalin did it through fear and guilt. Look what it got the Soviet Union! ;)

And yet you compare American socialists to Stalin. Is this irony lost on you?

EmeraldFields
24-12-09, 19:09
Yeah, down with socialism!

While were at it, lets get rid of the police, firefighter, public schools, libraries, the postal service, and the FDA.

http://i50.************/j77wv9.gif http://i50.************/j77wv9.gif http://i50.************/j77wv9.gif

TheBloodRed
24-12-09, 19:41
Universal health care works just fine in many other countries, and guess what! The people have more money and have happier lives!!

Doctors still get paid well and nobody loses.

Dustie
24-12-09, 19:51
What is the situation of the health care system in the USA at this time?... I always thought it's much better than it is, for example, over here, but hearing about this, I guess it's not that pretty.

Here, employees get a percentage deducted from their earnings to cover social security and healthcare, so as long as you're employed (or your parents are), you can receive treatment - except the 'economy' within the hospitals is so poor, that you have to wait for months to get to the doctor as their schedules are so overloaded and some facilities are in debt for millions... And the only savior is private health care, which is pretty expensive (unless your employer is good enough to have a paid plan with one of the private clinics).

Ward Dragon
24-12-09, 20:00
What is the situation of the health care system in the USA at this time?... I always thought it's much better than it is, for example, over here, but hearing about this, I guess it's not that pretty.

Here, employees get a percentage deducted from their earnings to cover social security and healthcare, so as long as you're employed (or your parents are), you can receive treatment - except the 'economy' within the hospitals is so poor, that you have to wait for months to get to the doctor as their schedules are so overloaded and some facilities are in debt for millions... And the only savior is private health care, which is pretty expensive (unless your employer is good enough to have a paid plan with one of the private clinics).

Basically it's the same way with money getting deducted from earnings to cover the social security, and health insurance is provided by the employers. The difference is that the health insurance covers private healthcare, so we usually don't have very long wait-times over here and the facilities are quite good.

I found some numbers which agree with me (aren't statistics fun when they say what I want? :p)

Over the past week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found a way to collect 60 votes and move health care reform legislation forward in the U.S. Senate. However, his negotiating and the ongoing debate did nothing to improve public opinion of the legislation.

The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly tracking update shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the bill and 55% are opposed. Those figures are essentially unchanged from a week ago. This the fifth straight week with support for the legislation between 38% and 41%.

Among senior citizens, the group most likely to use the health care system, just 33% are in favor while 60% are opposed. Most adults under 30 favor the plan, but majorities of every other age group take the opposite view.

The intensity remains with those who oppose the legislation. Just 19% Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed.

Polling released last week showed that 57% of voters say passing nothing would be preferable to passing the current legislation. Most voters (54%) believe they personally will be worse off if the legislation passes.


Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters believe that passage of the legislation will lead to a lower quality of care, and 58% say it will drive the cost of care up.

...

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters nationwide trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.

Forty-seven percent (47%) also believe that restricting jury awards for medical malpractice lawsuits will significantly reduce the cost of health care in the United States, but the plan working its way through Congress does not include limits on such lawsuits.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 20:03
Yeah, down with socialism!

While were at it, lets get rid of the police, firefighter, public schools, libraries, the postal service, and the FDA.

http://i50.************/j77wv9.gif http://i50.************/j77wv9.gif http://i50.************/j77wv9.gifNo, let's not.

Universal health care works just fine in many other countries, and guess what! The people have more money and have happier lives!!

Doctors still get paid well and nobody loses.It certainly doesn't work well here. None the less, most people still blindly defend it.

TheBloodRed
24-12-09, 20:05
It doesn't work well here because nobody has ever tried it here.

If it gets enacted, trust me, things will be a lot better.

Mad Tony
24-12-09, 20:10
It doesn't work well here because nobody has ever tried it here.

If it gets enacted, trust me, things will be a lot better.I was talking about Britain.

Dustie
24-12-09, 20:30
Basically it's the same way with money getting deducted from earnings to cover the social security, and health insurance is provided by the employers. The difference is that the health insurance covers private healthcare, so we usually don't have very long wait-times over here and the facilities are quite good.
But the healthcare is generally not free in the USA, right? Does it revolve around the fees that feed the social security? Or the specific parameters of health insurance from the employers? (i.e. better employer = higher insurance fees = more healthcare services available for free)

Here we have the public healthcare, which is feed from the social security fees. They're a percentage of monthly earnings, so you don't really feel them, since you know you get various taxes and fees deducted from your pay anyway. That gives the access to services, except they can be poor or you have to wait unrealistically long to use them. So you technically are paying, except you don't really feel you do and what you get has the feeling of 'sucks because you get it for almost free anyway'.

And then there's private healthcare: if you're lucky to have a good employer (usually a big company or at least a strong, solid employer), they recently tend to buy healthcare plans from private clinics for their employees, which are usually covered by small fees deducted from their payouts. That gives you access to much better healthcare at little expense.

So is there no division in the USA, meaning pretty much everything is 'private'?

Ward Dragon
24-12-09, 20:55
But the healthcare is generally not free in the USA, right? Does it revolve around the fees that feed the social security? Or the specific parameters of health insurance from the employers? (i.e. better employer = higher insurance fees = more healthcare services available for free)

Social security is something different here. It's a retirement benefit that people can claim after reaching a certain age and it doesn't have to do with health care. The fees do get deducted from employee paychecks, though.

As for the health care, different companies offer different benefits packages to employees, basically which medical insurance the employees will receive. There isn't really a fee the employee pays for this, but if the benefits weren't provided then the company would probably pay a higher salary to the employee. Benefits are usually considered to be worth around $10,000 a year (which is to say if the company isn't giving you benefits, you should ask for a higher salary than someone who has a similar job and is receiving the benefits). Generally the basic things are covered by the insurance and you have to pay a small co-pay fee when you go to the doctor (usually only around $20, but it can vary). The insurance plan has participating doctors and hospitals, but it's usually not too restricting.

And then there's private healthcare: if you're lucky to have a good employer (usually a big company or at least a strong, solid employer), they recently tend to buy healthcare plans from private clinics for their employees, which are usually covered by small fees deducted from their payouts. That gives you access to much better healthcare at little expense.

So is there no division in the USA, meaning pretty much everything is 'private'?

I think so. There are free healthcare clinics for people who cannot afford anything else, and anyone can walk into an emergency room and receive immediate treatment regardless of ability to pay. However I think most people deal with private health care and have insurance from their employers.

Draco
24-12-09, 22:21
Health care is a right, even in the United States. You cannot be turned away regardless of your ability to (ever) pay. Imagine if it were otherwise (if you dare to).

Healthcare is not a right. The requirement for emergency medical services to be rendered regardless of the ability to reimburse or not has nothing to do with rights.

Oh well

at least us Aussies gets free health via Medicare on some issues

But you don't get free health.

Universal health care works just fine in many other countries, and guess what! The people have more money and have happier lives!!

It works, but I don't really know about the 'just fine' part. Nobody is truly against universal healthcare in the US. Our problem is the way its being done, which is just yet another ridiculous government bloated spending spree which won't actually help anyone that couldn't be helped before.

Doctors still get paid well and nobody loses.

If it were to be done right, the US could enact a universal health system for less than what Medicare/Welfare/Medicaid/VA/etc already cost, simply by getting rid of the fraud and waste.

What is the situation of the health care system in the USA at this time?... I always thought it's much better than it is, for example, over here, but hearing about this, I guess it's not that pretty.

It is relative really. The healthcare itself is the best in the world, its the coverage that people whine about.

But the healthcare is generally not free in the USA, right?

Healthcare is not free anywhere.

Does it revolve around the fees that feed the social security?

Social Security is a government money generation gimmick that has since backfired. It has nothing to do with helping anyone. In the US that is.

Love2Raid
24-12-09, 22:32
Sounds like great news to me.

Eddie Haskell
24-12-09, 23:48
^Draco
You can call it whatever you like, but remember that hospitals are under no obligatory laws to treat anyone (aside from emergency care). But they know that the refusal to treat the indigent or "charity" cases would send them down the (no return) slippery slope to guaranteed national health care. So, they begrudgingly "recognize" this as a HUMAN RIGHT.

And remember, all not-for-profit hospitals do not pay taxes. They are expected to (at least) treat enough charity cases in lieu of this. Those that fail to do so will soon find this tax exempt status in jeopardy. Some not-for-profit hospitals are swimming in money and not providing anything near what is required to maintain this.

Big Matt
25-12-09, 05:39
I still can't get over Harry Reid mocking all of the Senators who had the integrity to refuse to sell their vote for the bribes he was offering. That's really what happened there, and it sickens me that such an ill-thought out and expensive plan was passed only because the people in power like Reid were willing to out-right bribe Senators into voting for it, and that's considered a good thing? :hea:

Usually it's discreet high dollar hookers and hefty deposits into numbered offshore accounts. They took a different tact this time and just perpetrated the highly illegal bribery in broad daylight in front of the entire nation. It's disgusting and, in my opinion, treasonous.

I don't like the fact that residents are being "required" to have a health care plan.... or pay a yearly fine of $750.

The government forcing its own product, or rather service, onto the citizenry -- if that's not socialism then nothing is. It's the absolute antithesis of what this nation was founded upon. I think I'll just take the option of paying the yearly fine as it's cheaper than maintaining a health care plan. If and when I get sick or need treatment for something then I'll sign up for the insurance since they won't legally be able to refuse me. If the very few who seem to have found themselves in authority over this nation for a brief while, wish to be crude, filthy, and underhanded with the citizens they have sworn to serve -- then they had better expect the citizens to reciprocate the favor.

So you don't mind that the Middle East and China practically are your legal creditors and potentially have the right to take whatever they wish from you if they want to settle the debt you are accumilating ;).

Enslave future generations in payment of the ever-growing debt... or fight a war with whomever wants to try to collect on the debt once it's defaulted on (which is, tragically, the only option, IMO).

A thought that has crossed my mind countless times. What happens if and when the likes of China decides to cash in their chips and there is nothing but inflated funny money to pay them with? It's not a likelihood at the moment because a major portion of China's economy is dependent on the US, but things are always changing. Actually paying off that debt would steamroll the US economy, if not be outright impossible to make good on.

In the small-time, things like this are why loan sharks bust heads and break legs. In the big-time, wars are fought over such things. As far as raw numbers go, China is the only nation in the world with a military anywhere near as large as America's. I suppose it will be an interesting day if this matter ever comes to a head.

When whatever doofus we have for a president at the time says, "Sorry, we can't pay up," will China just forgive the debt and walk away (as the US has done plenty of times for other countries) or will they say something on the order of, "That's okay. We'll just take your Western coast and call it even." Right now, attempting to call America's bluff would be stupid because of our military and 80 million heavily armed citizens, but, as I said, things change. Circumstances may be different ten or twenty years down the road.

Dustie
25-12-09, 09:15
So if I'm getting this right, the bill forces every employer to provide health insurance and forces changes on the insurance companies regarding their healthcare services compensation habits?...

Healthcare is not free anywhere.
Well I was sort of referring to the situation over here. You kind of feel it's free, when the fees come from the part of your pay you don't get to see anyway, and for any private health service you actually have to reach for money from your wallet.

Draco
25-12-09, 13:11
^Draco
You can call it whatever you like, but remember that hospitals are under no obligatory laws to treat anyone (aside from emergency care). But they know that the refusal to treat the indigent or "charity" cases would send them down the (no return) slippery slope to guaranteed national health care. So, they begrudgingly "recognize" this as a HUMAN RIGHT.

And remember, all not-for-profit hospitals do not pay taxes. They are expected to (at least) treat enough charity cases in lieu of this. Those that fail to do so will soon find this tax exempt status in jeopardy. Some not-for-profit hospitals are swimming in money and not providing anything near what is required to maintain this.

Hospitals turn out patients all the time for not having the means to pay for the care. You can go on and on about human rights all you want, the bottom line is healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. Period.

Even under an NHS, it is still not a right. Even ignoring the fact you are still paying for it, you can be refused treatment if your particular problem is expensive to treat. That is a problem that won't go away, not until the law is written to force treatment of any illness or problem that a patient could have, which as you can hopefully imagine is its own can of worms.

patriots88888
25-12-09, 15:13
So they passed the gass eh? Is anybody truthfully surprised by this? It was inevitable and just a question of when, not if, whether you agree with it or not.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
25-12-09, 15:32
No wonder the US national debt is predicted to be $18 trillion in 10 years time.

Obama is an absolute tool. He has absolutely no sense of fiscal responsibility. Simply keeping the national debt from skyrocketing is more important than universal healthcare.

Yeah, now we can go broke even faster!!

Eddie Haskell
25-12-09, 15:35
So they passed the gass eh? Is anybody truthfully surprised by this? It was inevitable and just a question of when, not if, whether you agree with it or not.

It is also inevitable that national health care will arrive some day. As we inexorably move further and further from our animal roots and evolve, enlightenment and humanity will take the place the place of ignorance and self-centeredness. It's just a question of when.

Mad Tony
25-12-09, 15:39
It is also inevitable that national health care will arrive some day. As we inexorably move further and further from our animal roots and evolve, enlightenment and humanity will take the place the place of ignorance and self-centeredness. It's just a question of when.This is another tactic used by supporters of UHC - call the opposition selfish and label them as backwards.

Eddie Haskell
25-12-09, 15:44
This is another tactic used by supporters of UHC - call the opposition selfish and label them as backwards.

It is not a tactic, and in many ways they are. We are not animals.

Mad Tony
25-12-09, 15:49
It is not a tactic, and in many ways they are. We are not animals.Indeed we are not, but being opposed to national health is hardly animal-like.

Capt. Murphy
25-12-09, 15:49
Well, if anything, we'll (or they'll) learn from their mistake.... But will it be too late by then? :confused:

I don't know why I say "mistake". It's almost as if they don't care, because, surely - no one is that foolish.

Those that support UHC, be sure to vote for them printing more money, then that'll fix everything. :whi:

Eddie Haskell
25-12-09, 15:55
Indeed we are not, but being opposed to national health is hardly animal-like.

You have to ask yourself, what is it that lifts us above the animal world?

Mad Tony
25-12-09, 16:03
Well, if anything, we'll (or they'll) learn from their mistake.... But will it be too late by then? :confused:

I don't know why I say "mistake". It's almost as if they don't care, because, surely - no one is that foolish.

Those that support UHC, be sure to vote for them printing more money, then that'll fix everything. :whi:China will be calling in America's debts by then.

You have to ask yourself, what is it that lifts us above the animal world?Lots of things. Scientific advancement probably being the main one.

Draco
25-12-09, 16:13
It is not a tactic, and in many ways they are. We are not animals.

Do you even know what most of the opposition's problem with the healthcare bill is? It has nothing to do with being against universal health care.

Eddie Haskell
25-12-09, 16:33
Do you even know what most of the opposition's problem with the healthcare bill is? It has nothing to do with being against universal health care.

All that is irrelevant. It is going to happen anyway eventually, and it would be all the better if the opposition joined in to help shape it. Instead they choose to try and sabotage it or spread lies in an effort to scare the public.

I should say that after college and when I joined the military I have been around this world many times, visited strange and distant lands, met countless people and have been exposed to many various attitudes, political systems and the like. And when the topic of health is discussed, I always say how wonderful our technology is, and how great it is. And it is...for me. I will never have to worry about my health care as a disabled veteran. But for the majority of the people I know, it is a big problem.

I have an old friend from high school who lived under a bridge. He lost his job, his wife divorced him and he went bankrupt in order to maintain his humanity. He had been in remission for cancer for a number of years, and had trouble obtaining new health insurance after he lost his job. He is not eligible for Medicaid, and therefore was unable to keep up with his medical regimen. When he was forced out of his house, he had nowhere to go and ended up on the streets. When I returned from Afghanistan I was laid up in the hospital for a long time, and I asked my brother about him. When he told me the story, I informed my wife to help him. You cannot imagine the trouble that my wife and I went through to get him help, you just couldn't. And even after I shamed the administrator of a local not-for-profit hospital, it still took a few days to get him the charity care that he needed. And by the way, it was a drop in the bucket to their proceeds.

But the irony of this story is that in all of the countries that I was ever in, he would have gotten all the necessary health care that he required. This is the 21st century. We should have moved well beyond the Cro-Magnon mindset of yesteryear and into the enlightened age that humanity demands.

Dustie
25-12-09, 16:47
Do you even know what most of the opposition's problem with the healthcare bill is?
I want to know.

jackles
25-12-09, 17:08
Hospitals turn out patients all the time for not having the means to pay for the care. You can go on and on about human rights all you want, the bottom line is healthcare is not a right. It is a privilege. Period.

Even under an NHS, it is still not a right. Even ignoring the fact you are still paying for it, you can be refused treatment if your particular problem is expensive to treat. That is a problem that won't go away, not until the law is written to force treatment of any illness or problem that a patient could have, which as you can hopefully imagine is its own can of worms.


You will still recieve treatment. No one is going to turf you out or not give you drugs. What might happen is that NICE ( thats should be NASTY) will refuse to authorise drugs that they think are too expensive, you will get given a cheaper and possibly less effective drug. There have been cases where people have appealed against their ruling and gone on to win the right to get the drugs, (generally cancer drugs) BUT you will still recieve treatment no matter what. No matter how poor you are or how rich.

Dustie
25-12-09, 17:29
You will still recieve treatment. No one is going to turf you out or not give you drugs. What might happen is that NICE ( thats should be NASTY) will refuse to authorise drugs that they think are too expensive, you will get given a cheaper and possibly less effective drug. There have been cases where people have appealed against their ruling and gone on to win the right to get the drugs, (generally cancer drugs) BUT you will still recieve treatment no matter what. No matter how poor you are or how rich.
Aren't more complex surgeries always required to be paid for?...

Eddie Haskell
25-12-09, 17:52
Aren't more complex surgeries always required to be paid for?...

Yes, unless you are covered by Medicare (for older Americans who have paid enough into the system), Medicaid (for indigent older Americans or poor children) or insurance (where you will be on the hook for a portion of the bill), you are on the hook for all of it. You may die before you pay it back, or they can write some or all of it off as charity work (and get tax credits), but as Draco says, nothing is really free (unless of course as I said you die before you pay it back).

jackles
25-12-09, 18:45
Aren't more complex surgeries always required to be paid for?...


Not in the uk. It is funded via national insurance but you are not expected to pay anything else. If you CHOOSE you can go private but you don't have too.

Uzi master
25-12-09, 18:50
okay, why do so many people hate health care? it keeps you alive LONGER and is usefull in emergencies, we have it here in canada and I doubt people would like haveing to pay hundreds of dollars for basic healthcare.

Mad Tony
25-12-09, 18:58
okay, why do so many people hate health care? it keeps you alive LONGER and is usefull in emergencies, we have it here in canada and I doubt people would like haveing to pay hundreds of dollars for basic healthcare.Wait, who said they hate healthcare?

Also, the US had healthcare last time I checked. I think you're getting healthcare mixed up with universal healthcare.

Uzi master
25-12-09, 19:06
when I said healthcare, I meant the universal healthcare (or near,) they just got, not regular healthcare.

Draco
25-12-09, 19:11
I just wish that the day that Universal Healthcare came to the US would not have been the same day that Congress and Obama completed the financial enslavement of our country. We deserve it, but I still don't like it.

Solice
26-12-09, 04:06
They exclude themselfs from there own health care plan. I want to see Harry Reed and Naughty Nancy sign up first.