Obamacare Lives!

[Bible_Belt]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1#.T-xrKpGOuVo

the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.

What a load of crap.

(edit, response to post below)

good news for the majority of the American public.

Well, we shall see. Right now it is payments from private insurance that is keeping hospitals and clinics afloat. The state of Illinois is three years behind on its payments to docs and clinics. In rural areas where most people are poor and don't have private insurance, I don't see how docs will stay in business after everyone is on the government plan. If it's government healthcare, then the government has to pay for it, or the doc goes out of business, or more likely just moves to the city where he can still financially survive. I think we will see rural healthcare clinics close, and the quality of care go way down. Old people will be driving four hours to the nearest specialist and waiting in line for another four hours before they get treatment.

 

[Mike32ct]

Expect longer wait times and quality of care to decline. You can't serve more people with the existing system and expect better or faster service.

Expect doctor and nurse wages to fall because the federal gov't won't be able to pay as much in reimbursements.

 

[backbreaker]

i have no real problem with this. if anyone has ever spent any time abroad it won't take you long to figure out our health care system is light years behind in overall care than the UK's.

the only place where it really hurts if at all is the specialized doctors, but overall general health care this is just common sense.

I might actually tune in to fox news to see just how pissed they are.

 

[Jaylan]

Expect longer wait times and quality of care to decline. You can't serve more people with the existing system and expect better or faster service.

Expect doctor and nurse wages to fall because the federal gov't won't be able to pay as much in reimbursements.

People always say things like this and then cry about Socialism and point to countries like Sweden as an example. Last I checked their economy and healthcare was doing pretty fine. Obviously the capitalistic model hasnt worked for healthcare as many people are uninsured and cant afford A NECESSARY thing such as healthcare.

i have no real problem with this. if anyone has ever spent any time abroad it won't take you long to figure out our health care system is light years behind in overall care than the UK's.

the only place where it really hurts if at all is the specialized doctors, but overall general health care this is just common sense.

I might actually tune in to fox news to see just how pissed they are.

This.

 

[Mike32ct]

Did Sweden start out with a capitalist system with mostly employer-funded private insurance and then successfully CONVERT to a gov't healthcare system via one major legislative change?

If they did that successfully and everything worked out, great. If not, then it's not a valid comparison.

(Plus we are neglecting the huge difference in populations, ie size of the healthcare systems.)

 

[backbreaker]

my wife has a friend who had to get an abortion about a year and a half ago beucase she did not have insurance and did not want to pay the medical bills that go along with a delivery and aftercare.

when kids are being aborted beucase of **** like that your system is broke.

 

[Jaylan]

Don't forget Sweden's massive contribution to health technology over the last 30 years......

Oh wait, they had none.

Maybe that profit motive isn't so bad after all....

Last I checked a large percentage of their population werent without decent healthcare or education. So I think they are doing just fine. And they didnt have a large homeless population either. Collectivist societies will always fair better than individualist societies, and our version of capitalism is way too individualistic and selfish and is a detriment to the country's citizens as a whole.

Its really no surprise that America has gotten to where it is...especially when you look at the ridiculous rich vs poor gap. Theres no reason that the supposed best place to live in the world has such large poverty, lack of healthcare, and kids not being able to afford college. If we are such a land of opportunity, why are so many people without opportunities. Are rich-poor gap is insane for a developed nation.

The system needs to change, and its all starting with Obamas policies. Do people really need to care about profit and be so rich that they step on everyone else and twist the system for their rich benefit? Come on now...this capitalist healthcare system has not truly benefited everyone as a whole...especially the lower middle class and the poor. People are being forced to go abroad to get procedures done...yet Im supposed to believe those against Obama's plan truly have anyone but themselves in mind? The healthcare big wigs only care about lining their pockets...health care shouldnt be about that.

my wife has a friend who had to get an abortion about a year and a half ago beucase she did not have insurance and did not want to pay the medical bills that go along with a delivery and aftercare.

when kids are being aborted beucase of **** like that your system is broke.

That sounds horrible dude. But kids are freaking expensive, especially if you dont have necessary health insurance in their early years.

 

[Mike32ct]

There is no question that our system has flaws and people without insurance is a major problem.

I wouldn't be opposed to a limited public plan to help those that can't afford it. But revamping the ENTIRE system so quickly is dangerous. I hope it works out, for everybody's sake.

 

[Upside]

Reform is the answer. Obamacare is not.

Watch costs go up, quality go down, and doctors that can't get paid or forced to take cuts. I've read decent chunks of the first couple drafts a few years ago. Unless anything changed, it will just be another social net drag.

 

[Jaylan]

Collectivism destroyed the Native Americans? Um no, Europeans did (genocide, disease, etc). Wow you have no knowledge of accurate history. Have you ever studied any of Native American history? Collectivism wasnt destroying their societies before Europeans landed.

And just look at South Korea and Japan...two HUGELY collectivist societies that are thriving. They call it collective capitalism...look it up. Its a great model...and way better than the capitalist model the US uses. A collectivist mindset does great things for a nation. You dont have to be all out socialistic in order to be collectivist. GO study their cultures and some economic theory that correlates economy to individualism and collectivism. Collectivism is not directly tied to only one political model.

Btw...just because you can cite the Soviet Union and China (whos up and coming anyway) as failed collectivist nations, does not discount the success Northern Europe and other East Asian countries have had with a collectivist model. Btw...China and USSR's communism has more to do with their poor doings, not them being collectivist...which they really werent.

The Soviet Union was hardly a collectivist nation culturally. The people didnt want to band together...they were being forced to by a red regime. Thats not true collectivism. True collectivism is a system in which every person has the entire society's good in mind. That would be Japan as a perfect example. So again, the communism is why the USSR and China had problems...not their fake collectivism.

True collectivism is what you see in Northern Europe (socialistic) countries, and S. Korea and Japan (capitalist to a point, but not as much as the US). Communism killed the countries you sited, not collectivism. Get your facts straight. Do some research on collective capitalism as well as the Four Asian Tigers.

 

[betheman]

I was born and raised in England, here in greta Britain, we have this thing called the national health service, personally I think its brilliant as a concept and as a working model. basically, it worked and still works....just! the greedy capitalist B@stards (conservatives) are running it into the ground, making it accountable and having to balance the books...it never could and never will, it could be better run, but will always be a drain on public finances, but, it worked, it was supported by the majority and the vast majority of regualr taxpayers.
we are slowly being privatised to go along with the US model...may god fcuking help us!

 

[Rubirosa]

Without choosing sides here, I think it needs to be pointed out that Sweeden and England are tiny areas and populations compared to the mass of the U.S.

The U.S. is the biggest immigrant destination country on the planet, and it is safe to say that a large number of these immigrants take more from govt. than they give to the govt.

Comparing Sweeden's healthcare system to that of the U.S. is like comparing the number of fleas on a Chihuaua and a Great Dane and saying that the Chiuahaua's owner is more responsible because their dog has less fleas.

If England or Sweeden had the mass and diverse population of the U.S., and their socialized healthcare system still worked, then I'd be impressed

 

[backbreaker]

Danger, bro I love ya, but you could not possibly be more wrong than you are ITT.

Collectivism killed the native Americans good freaking god rotfl. the native Americans were "behind" because they had no incentive to "catch up". history shows that innovation is always brought on by force. . everyone was happy, had plenty food, in less than 8 thousand years they had spread from the Bering straight to populate all of north and south America. that's doing pretty fvcking good if you ask me.

They ran into a culture that was more technologically advanced, but it was not because they were not collectivist it was because of the industrial revolution that was taking place overseas, which was brought on us by the Italian and English Renaissance, and there wasn't anything particularly individualist about the renaissance.

The native Americans did not have iron or bronze not beucase they were stupid they had absolutely no need for it therefore it was never cultivated. When they had to invent **** they did.l when they had to live in the ass fvck cold the invented igloos and snowshows when they had to cross large rivers they invented kayaks. The south american indians invented chocolate (and cocaine lol) They made their homes out of the animals hide they killed, they lived off the land and did so quite well.

the irony of your post is that guns, which were the main technological advantage that the English had over the natives, were invited in China, not Europe, which blows your entire theory out of the water.

but the real killer of the natives was not guns but germs. the natives could have had tommy guns and still would have been wiped out their immune systems had never seen anything like the small pox that the English brought over.

Also, if you are going to say that socialist states do not work beucase of the failed soviet union, can i not also make the argument that democry does not work becuase of the failed democracy in greece and rome?


my entire point being that your examples of Natives and Chinese, who by the way have the 2nd oldest civilization known to man BTW lol as failed, is just.. it doesn't compute.

I mean, i'm about the biggest capalistist that you will ever find and at my core I have a lot of true concertitive republican vaules, i don't believe in big goverment, i believe in free trade and i am very much a capalisst, but i draw the line at health care. a person'a income or job or statrus should have no effect on the type or level of health care that the person recievs. I also believe that health care is a public service, for whatever that means to advancing technology so be it.

I mean imagine if the small pox re broke out right now and a vaccine was 10 grand if you did not have insurance. hell would break lose.

Without choosing sides here, I think it needs to be pointed out that Sweeden and England are tiny areas and populations compared to the mass of the U.S.

The U.S. is the biggest immigrant destination country on the planet, and it is safe to say that a large number of these immigrants take more from govt. than they give to the govt.

Comparing Sweeden's healthcare system to that of the U.S. is like comparing the number of fleas on a Chihuaua and a Great Dane and saying that the Chiuahaua's owner is more responsible because their dog has less fleas.

If England or Sweeden had the mass and diverse population of the U.S., and their socialized healthcare system still worked, then I'd be impresse

I think it's more than fair to limit health care to american citizens. i have no real problem with that. if you are going to come over here illgally or even illegally you can't make citizens pay for your health care if you aren't even a citizen that's not right.

but i believe all citizens shoudl be able to walk into a hostipal and get proper and attentive care regardless of their background, income or religion. that's just something i'm not going to bend on.

 

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

The USA has 300,000,000 MORE people than Sweden. Can't compare the two

 

[backbreaker]

I mean, so what exactly is the point that you are trying to make? That beucase we are going to a non capitalist health care model that we will not have any real innovation anymore and will stop making health related breakthroughs?

If that is what you are trying to say I see your point and it's an interesting point of view but i can't agree with it for the reason that..well out side of the pharmaceutical industry, health care breakthroughs never were capitalistically motivated in the first place.

There is not company that is behind HIV/AIDS research it's university's who pour money into endowments and recruiting the best scientific minds. The polio vaccine was invented at the university of Pittsburgh, not a fortune 500 company.

TRUE innovation has never come from businesses in the medical field. the meidical field finds ways to make you live with what you have and extoring money out of you but they aren't innovators. true innovation comes from the best minds around and the best scientific minds are not and never have been seriously interested in monetary gain. lol the dudes slaving over the HIV vaccine aren't getting online to look at new Bentley that they can buy after they find the cure.

I understand your point about collectivism but i just do not believe it is accurate with the medical field. the only thing that was holding back medical breakthroughs was the fear of death/harecy from the church for 1000 or so years, scientists never have been and never will be seriusly interested in monetary gain.

 

[betheman]

Without choosing sides here, I think it needs to be pointed out that Sweeden and England are tiny areas and populations compared to the mass of the U.S....

If England or Sweeden had the mass and diverse population of the U.S., and their socialized healthcare system still worked, then I'd be impressed

I can assure you in Britain we do have a very diverse, and increasingly so, population. we do not have the mass but then nor do we have the resources of the US.
Ppeople have come to the UK on 'treatment holidays', when they are better, they return home. I am vehemently opposed to this but it went unchallenged for too long. now we are part of Europe, anyone from a member state can come here and get treatment, can you imagine that? apaprently I can also go to poland and expect the same....I think not!can you imagine mexicans coming to the US, having treatment, offering nothing in return before going back home...and its legal?

 

[Warrior74]

I have no knowledge of what Obama care does or does not entail, but my gut hates the feeling of being forced to pay for health care. Then again I'm poor and living day to day. It may possibly be a boon to me for all I know. I admit to being completely uneducated on the topic. Regardless, I live in a very very red state and my representatives are against it, and I have no voice in it either way.

 

[Upside]

backbreaker, your argument is essentially the core issue of the bill. Should the government treat health care service as a private good or public good. (Public goods being non-excludable and non-rivalrous in consumption).

Governments are more efficient at managing public goods. Military and police forces are such examples. Where governments fail however is the management of private goods. It isn't even close.

You view health care as a human right. I get it and I respect it. The problem is you can't just offer up a service and maintain it without any costs. The bill is ****ed up because it treats health care like a pseudo private-public good. All this is going to do is increase inefficiencies with government and private insurance companies. This inefficiency will lead to higher, not lower, coverage.

I don't support the bill because of political affiliation or anything like that, but I view it as a half ass attempt to manage costs. You either remove private institutions as a whole and charge health care as a tax like you would for the military; or the government GTFO of health care management and let's private insurers do their thing. This half-assery will do a half-ass job of alleviating any problems and just further exacerbate many of the key problems such as administrative overhead.

I have no knowledge of what Obama care does or does not entail, but my gut hates the feeling of being forced to pay for health care. Then again I'm poor and living day to day. It may possibly be a boon to me for all I know. I admit to being completely uneducated on the topic. Regardless, I live in a very very red state and my representatives are against it, and I have no voice in it either way.

I've read some of the bill 2 years ago and I'm still foggy on the issue. This is just my opinion and is by no means the right answer. This is just what my logical brain (hopefully) came up with.

 

[Jaylan]

Danger, bro I love ya, but you could not possibly be more wrong than you are ITT.

Collectivism killed the native Americans good freaking god rotfl. the native Americans were "behind" because they had no incentive to "catch up". history shows that innovation is always brought on by force. . everyone was happy, had plenty food, in less than 8 thousand years they had spread from the Bering straight to populate all of north and south America. that's doing pretty fvcking good if you ask me.

They ran into a culture that was more technologically advanced, but it was not because they were not collectivist it was because of the industrial revolution that was taking place overseas, which was brought on us by the Italian and English Renaissance, and there wasn't anything particularly individualist about the renaissance.

The native Americans did not have iron or bronze not beucase they were stupid they had absolutely no need for it therefore it was never cultivated. When they had to invent **** they did.l when they had to live in the ass fvck cold the invented igloos and snowshows when they had to cross large rivers they invented kayaks. The south american indians invented chocolate (and cocaine lol) They made their homes out of the animals hide they killed, they lived off the land and did so quite well.

the irony of your post is that guns, which were the main technological advantage that the English had over the natives, were invited in China, not Europe, which blows your entire theory out of the water.

but the real killer of the natives was not guns but germs. the natives could have had tommy guns and still would have been wiped out their immune systems had never seen anything like the small pox that the English brought over.

Also, if you are going to say that socialist states do not work beucase of the failed soviet union, can i not also make the argument that democry does not work becuase of the failed democracy in greece and rome?


my entire point being that your examples of Natives and Chinese, who by the way have the 2nd oldest civilization known to man BTW lol as failed, is just.. it doesn't compute.

I mean, i'm about the biggest capalistist that you will ever find and at my core I have a lot of true concertitive republican vaules, i don't believe in big goverment, i believe in free trade and i am very much a capalisst, but i draw the line at health care. a person'a income or job or statrus should have no effect on the type or level of health care that the person recievs. I also believe that health care is a public service, for whatever that means to advancing technology so be it.

I mean imagine if the small pox re broke out right now and a vaccine was 10 grand if you did not have insurance. hell would break lose.


I think it's more than fair to limit health care to american citizens. i have no real problem with that. if you are going to come over here illgally or even illegally you can't make citizens pay for your health care if you aren't even a citizen that's not right.

but i believe all citizens shoudl be able to walk into a hostipal and get proper and attentive care regardless of their background, income or religion. that's just something i'm not going to bend on.

This, ad infinitum.

Thanks for quelling my need to respond to his off the mark post

 

[backbreaker]

backbreaker, your argument is essentially the core issue of the bill. Should the government treat health care service as a private good or public good. (Public goods being non-excludable and non-rivalrous in consumption).

Governments are more efficient at managing public goods. Military and police forces are such examples. Where governments fail however is the management of private goods. It isn't even close.

You view health care as a human right. I get it and I respect it. The problem is you can't just offer up a service and maintain it without any costs. The bill is ****ed up because it treats health care like a pseudo private-public good. All this is going to do is increase inefficiencies with government and private insurance companies. This inefficiency will lead to higher, not lower, coverage.

I don't support the bill because of political affiliation or anything like that, but I view it as a half ass attempt to manage costs. You either remove private institutions as a whole and charge health care as a tax like you would for the military; or the government GTFO of health care management and let's private insurers do their thing. This half-assery will do a half-ass job of alleviating any problems and just further exacerbate many of the key problems such as administrative overhead.



I've read some of the bill 2 years ago and I'm still foggy on the issue. This is just my opinion and is by no means the right answer. This is just what my logical brain (hopefully) came up with.

so your arugement is basically that it's not necessarily a bad thing but if you are going to do it, do it right or don't do it at all.

and i get what you are saying

but you know as well as i do that was not going to happen beucase of partisan politics.

I believe if obama really had his way he would have done exactly that, go all out. but i believe this is better than what we had. it's a step in the right direction.

but I mean, i don't really see how this is.. bad. i mean, costs will lower now beucase more bills will not be getting stiffed.

i mean, let's step back and take a broad scope of this ****.

people's credit scores will improve. I've dated 3 girls whose credit is shot up from nother other than health care bills. nothing else. Medical related BK's will be reduced, people will have better credit scores which in turn will allow them to stiniume the economy. it's hard if not impossible to buy a house or car or anything with medical bills.

more hospital bills will be paid, which means, that my 3000 dollar over night stay for acid reflx is now 2000 beucase they don't have to pass the cost on to me anymore.


people are saying lines are going to be longer that's not necessarily true people who get hurt go to the hospital or not rather they have insurance or not, it's not like mom's are pouring Robitussin on broken legs and **** at home lol (my fav chris rock skit ever, let that tussin simmer in the leg). if i have a broken leg i'm going to go to the ER rather i have insurance or not and the hosptial is required by law to treat me rather i have insurance or not, now granted, they will kick my ass out the first chance they have lol but i am going to go to teh hosptial. so that to me is a moot argument.

I don't get the.. the bad part lol. the complaints aren't even realistic. I'm not even going to say republicans, people who hate obama have made this seem like now the hosptials are just going to be infested with broke people abusing the health care system **** they are doing that now lol. my dad and my brothers mom have worked in an ER for the vast majority of my life i have been inside of a hostiapl more than 99% of the American population. I spent every summer afternoon and everyday after school from the age of what, 8 to 13-14 sititng in the ER and taking IV's to different floors for my dad. that motherfcvcker stays packed. insurance or not.

if anything you are going to see more non serious stuff in the ER, like I just got the worst cold ever and iusually i will just sta home and drink orange juice but now i got this insurance **** i might as well use it. it's not like that requires a surgeon general anyway lol. most nurses can give you what you need in that case. **** the last time i went to a hosptial and stayed over night, for acid reflux i never even saw a doctor, my dad's wife (now ex) who is an RN admitted me. i did not see the doctor until i was checked in and in bed.

pharma does not like it beucase the goverment is now their biggest competitor. they will lose clients to the goverment , also they have to level their costs beucase of the goverment. and they put out ads to to the public to tell yout hat this is bad when it really isn't.