Dumb americans??

[obiwan94]

Hi guys, I ran across this article from BBC and though ti was interesting.

Why do people often vote against their own interests? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm)

Do you agree? Disagree?

If you are from out of the country, do you think US is any dumber than our other developed brethren? Shouldn't this be a worldwide phenomenon?

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure...I'm not an "average" american. My dad holds a Phd and I attend a really expensive boarding school, so I've been taught to look at numbers and facts - not just go based on what I "feel" is right. So...yeah, guess I'm saying I'm agreeing to article and sometimes feel like I want to smack sense into people.

[Raptor22]

I believe that that BBC article is horribly biased solely based on the fact that healthcare reform is not in the best interests of the majority of Americans and would leave the nation in even more debt.

[Antares]

I think Americans are misinformed and selfish. I think this will eventually lead to our downfall...but it isn't necessarily here yet. I think these things sometimes sway our votes to places where they shouldn't be.
Although, I like everyone else that posts is biased, but I still do think that we...do have some not smart people that feed into the propaganda.

When you have people like Glenn Beck basically brainwashing Americans with really...weird material, thats what youre gonna get

[Whisper]

I believe that that BBC article is horribly biased solely based on the fact that healthcare reform is not in the best interests of the majority of Americans and would leave the nation in even more debt.
Your system would be very different than ours, but until recent spending on stimulus packages (that have nothing to do with social programs) Canada had no debt period. We were the only debt free G7 nation. Yet we have universal healthcare.

[Raptor22]

Your system would be very different than ours, but until recent spending on stimulus packages (that have nothing to do with social programs) Canada had no debt period. We were the only debt free G7 nation. Yet we have universal healthcare.

You also have a lottery system for access to healthcare and people coming into the US to see our doctors... :P

[obiwan94]

I believe that that BBC article is horribly biased solely based on the fact that healthcare reform is not in the best interests of the majority of Americans and would leave the nation in even more debt.

Why would it put us more in debt? We could raise taxes on the rich. Norway, which has some of the highest taxes also regularly ranks top in quality of life/happiness studies. They have universal health care and I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure they arent in debt.

[Raptor22]

Why would it put us more in debt? We could raise taxes on the rich. Norway, which has some of the highest taxes also regularly ranks top in quality of life/happiness studies. They have universal health care and I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure they arent in debt.

Raising taxes on businesses is not the way to economic stimulus, it would only cause more unemployment in the United States, and the outsourcing of labor by American businesses. By taxing the providers, you are effectively leeching from everyone because there will be no jobs, and therefore no production, leading to further economic decline...

[Sage]

While I agree with the article, you'd be a fool or a liar to say it's not democratically/liberally biased.

[Kahn]

I agree with Tim. The article states it's opinion well but it is very liberal. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if you think about it.

[2D]

I agree with Tim. The article states it's opinion well but it is very liberal. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if you think about it.

Depends on what you think.

[Sapphire]

I still fail to see how anyone (regardless of nationality) can view a system of health care that systematically leaves many of those it is there to help with bills they can't pay and leave them in lots of debt in a favourable light.

But with regards to the article, I think it's really quite true in what it's saying and the irony that it highlights is definitely not lost on me.

[Whisper]

I still fail to see how anyone (regardless of nationality) can view a system of health care that systematically leaves many of those it is there to help with bills they can't pay and leave them in lots of debt in a favourable light.

But with regards to the article, I think it's really quite true in what it's saying and the irony that it highlights is definitely not lost on me.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly

[Raptor22]

I still fail to see how anyone (regardless of nationality) can view a system of health care that systematically leaves many of those it is there to help with bills they can't pay and leave them in lots of debt in a favourable light.

But with regards to the article, I think it's really quite true in what it's saying and the irony that it highlights is definitely not lost on me.

Because in this country we can decide if we want it or not, and have options as to how we obtain those services, unlike having no options because you are forced to get the government plan, and no competition to drive down prices the government is free to charge what they want. And the Obamacare plan involves a $1400 mandatory tax hike on everyone to pay for it, with the threat of incarceration for those that dont pay. So the families in the US that cannot currently afford to pay for healthcare will not be able to pay the now mandatory heathcare tax or risk being sent to prison. The core of the problem lies in the current (government implemented) system of HMOs, primary care physicians, referrals, high rates of malpractice insurance, and limiting of out of state competition for healthcare firms. There are many things that the government plan wouldnt cover anyways, that current health plans due, even though the government health plans include tax dollars towards abortions (very wrong) and euthanasia (none of the government's business). Sure Obama says that if socialist healthcare was implemented it would not take effect until 2013-2014 when at that point all Americans would have to pay into that healthcare plan, and give up whatever coverage they already have. I imagine it as functioning like a big toilet, we all swirl closer and closer to the middle until its 2014 and we are all sucked down into the sewers of Obamacare, and I dont want that.

[Sapphire]

Because in this country we can decide if we want it or not, and have options as to how we obtain those services, unlike having no options because you are forced to get the government plan, and no competition to drive down prices the government is free to charge what they want. And the Obamacare plan involves a $1400 mandatory tax hike on everyone to pay for it, with the threat of incarceration for those that dont pay. So the families in the US that cannot currently afford to pay for healthcare will not be able to pay the now mandatory heathcare tax or risk being sent to prison. The core of the problem lies in the current (government implemented) system of HMOs, primary care physicians, referrals, high rates of malpractice insurance, and limiting of out of state competition for healthcare firms. There are many things that the government plan wouldnt cover anyways, that current health plans due, even though the government health plans include tax dollars towards abortions (very wrong) and euthanasia (none of the government's business). Sure Obama says that if socialist healthcare was implemented it would not take effect until 2013-2014 when at that point all Americans would have to pay into that healthcare plan, and give up whatever coverage they already have. I imagine it as functioning like a big toilet, we all swirl closer and closer to the middle until its 2014 and we are all sucked down into the sewers of Obamacare, and I dont want that.
Ok, all you have done is tell me what you don't like about the proposed plan.
From what I have read (and before you tell me that I know nothing about this, I have read a number of articles written in and outside the USA) it appears that you are not giving an accurate picture of what Obama is proposing. You appear to be trying to say that the government will have an integral role in health care. But this reform is only with regards to payment - not the actual provision of health care - so it cannot be socialist.

And anyway, my point was that the current state of things leaves many people who need health care with bills they cannot pay and in debt. How can people of any nationality look upon such a state of health care in a positive light?

[quartermaster]

This, of course, assumes that it is actually beneficial to voters and within their best interests to give the federal government such precedence. This article would argue to disregard the implications and just go with what gives the handout, what reaps the immediate results; overtime, of course, the theft and dependence will continue, and the government will say that it is a good thing! Short-term gain for long-term pain! The health care system needs reform, to be sure, but this, nor anything that encourages big government and the destruction of our Constitution, is not the answer.

I particularly like how this piece accuses many voters opposed to the health care bill of having "politicians" pick their interests for them, yet disregard the fact that the Progressive agenda would do the exact same thing, tell voters that a forced insurance scheme and/or government health care is best for them and if they are against it, they are brainwashed. I am not implying that half of the people that are arguing against the health care bill are not misinformed, because many of them are, as they are pleased with the current system, which is the worst of both worlds (the bastardization of the market with a mixture of government intervention and corporate collusion). What I am saying, however, is that this is not some zero-sum game, there are other options, options that could be, and price data indicates, would be better; the pretense that this is within the best interest of the voters is unfortunate, as it accepts a warrant that is not at all in consensus. There are many complexities to this bill that go far beyond the zero-sum game that the Democrats and Republicans try to create; one is not dumb if they think that such implications are not only morally wrong, but also in the end, ruinous.

Do not debate my friends, do not discuss, there is no time for discussion, we need to change now! Do not ask questions! People are dying on the streets, if you ask hard-hitting questions, you are not only delaying change and killing people, but you are stupid and rely on your God and guns! The rhetoric is almost as bad as the Republican rhetoric during the war in Iraq; this article is not only pretentious, but it is horribly one-sided.

[Ripplemagne]

BBC is all propaganda and tends to shit on America more often than not. A good read on this subject is virgomonkey (http://virgomonkey.wordpress.com/)'s blog. Pretty much tackles every "LOL EMERIKA DUM ND FAT" myth out there.

By the way, Glenn Beck is awesome. <3

[Sapphire]

I think you're showing a bit of ignorance there with regards to your comment on the BBC, Ripp. But each to his own.

[Ripplemagne]

I think you're showing a bit of ignorance there with regards to your comment on the BBC, Ripp. But each to his own.

How so?

[Sapphire]

They report on the happenings in America since we are neighbours and allies as well as the effect that American politics has on us as a country but they don't go out of their way to paint America in a certain light or take stances on their politics.
Their articles are examples of good reporting and I don't think I've seen many (if indeed any) BBC reporters taking biased stances on stories regarding America.
The only time I recall anything that could be regarded as fitting in slightly with your claim was when our NHS was being attacked by your politicians and media.

If you want biased reporting, read the Daily Mail.

But each to his own. If you want to carry on believing that the BBC is an evil propaganda machine, don't let me stop you.

[Raptor22]

Ok, all you have done is tell me what you don't like about the proposed plan.
From what I have read (and before you tell me that I know nothing about this, I have read a number of articles written in and outside the USA) it appears that you are not giving an accurate picture of what Obama is proposing. You appear to be trying to say that the government will have an integral role in health care. But this reform is only with regards to payment - not the actual provision of health care - so it cannot be socialist.

And anyway, my point was that the current state of things leaves many people who need health care with bills they cannot pay and in debt. How can people of any nationality look upon such a state of health care in a positive light?

Because our current system is still better than what Obama is proposing, thats why. The government will have an integral role in the provision of healthcare because there will no longer be private healthcare providers and competition in the marketplace. Any government run operation is socialist, law enforcement, and public schools are socialist too, however we do not need government healthcare.

[Ripplemagne]

They report on the happenings in America since we are neighbours and allies as well as the effect that American politics has on us as a country but they don't go out of their way to paint America in a certain light or take stances on their politics.
Their articles are examples of good reporting and I don't think I've seen many (if indeed any) BBC reporters taking biased stances on stories regarding America.
The only time I recall anything that could be regarded as fitting in slightly with your claim was when our NHS was being attacked by your politicians and media.

If you want biased reporting, read the Daily Mail.

But each to his own. If you want to carry on believing that the BBC is an evil propaganda machine, don't let me stop you.


I love how everyone insists that the reporters that they agree with are unbiased, but the ones they don't are. I never claimed that they were evil, but their spin on America is ignorant and more-often-than-not Americanophobic.

But I suppose someone who actually lives in America and knows what its happenings are wouldn't know if an outside source has it wrong. Nope. I'm too busy polishing my rifle and spitting tar in a vase.

I linked virgomonkey for a reason. Start giving her articles a read.

[Sapphire]

Because our current system is still better than what Obama is proposing, thats why. The government will have an integral role in the provision of healthcare because there will no longer be private healthcare providers and competition in the marketplace. Any government run operation is socialist, law enforcement, and public schools are socialist too, however we do not need government healthcare.
Show me where Obama has stated that the government will be providing the entire nation's health care and wiping out private health care as an option.

If you can show me that, I will concede on this point.

[Raptor22]

Show me where Obama has stated that the government will be providing the entire nation's health care and wiping out private health care as an option.

If you can show me that, I will concede on this point.

Have fun: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

[soccer8]

excuse me but i live in the usa and i know for a fact that many americans disagree with many things obAma does and hates the idea of the health care reform SO IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THEN SHUT YOUR TRAP

[Severus Snape]

You've come to a very illogical conclusion that fails to take into consideration basic information available to basically anyone. Many Americans think the healthcare system needs reform, but simply disagree with the current proposals set forth by President Obama and Congress. Therefore people tend to have very subjective feelings toward the issues of healthcare reform, its controversial and nearly everyone has a different opinion of what kind of reform should take place. The latest Gallup poll actually indicates that while a majority of Americans think reform should take place, they think it should be set aside for now. Probably due to the fact it is so expensive.

Also, stereotypes are so full of fail and it saddens me to see so many people just hop on the bandwagon.

edit- Oh right, I forgot.

In short I think the article is full of crap. While I love the BBC, they tend to depict Americans very poorly, just look at the picture they chose to include. The BBC can kindly go fuck itself and stop being so hypersensitive about the fact that many Americans don't like the idea of socialized medicine.

[CaptainObvious]

I believe that that BBC article is horribly biased solely based on the fact that healthcare reform is not in the best interests of the majority of Americans and would leave the nation in even more debt.

That's not true. As a percentage of GDP, America spends 2nd most in the world on healthcare - after East Timor, which is a ravaged shithole. If costs aren't brought down, the current system is what will bankrupt the country.

You also have a lottery system for access to healthcare and people coming into the US to see our doctors... :P

Kindly shut the fuck up when discussing issues you know nothing of. We do not have a lottery system to see doctors in Canada. That is probably the most utterly retarded - and untrue - thing I've heard this week.

And yes, many of the richest go to America for care, because for the very rich that's where the best healthcare is. But you don't design a national system just for the very rich, you design it for the whole population.

Because in this country we can decide if we want it or not, and have options as to how we obtain those services, unlike having no options because you are forced to get the government plan, and no competition to drive down prices the government is free to charge what they want.

Sorry, are you talking about what you'd like to have happen, or what does happen? Because in this country in actual fact, I have no more freedom to choose my treatment options than in Canada, despite having great insurance. The dichotomy that government care means no choice while private insurance means free choice simply doesn't reflect reality. The only ones with true freedom in America are those who pay out of pocket. And very few can afford that.


And the Obamacare plan involves a $1400 mandatory tax hike on everyone to pay for it, with the threat of incarceration for those that dont pay. So the families in the US that cannot currently afford to pay for healthcare will not be able to pay the now mandatory heathcare tax or risk being sent to prison.

That's disingenuous. The families that actually can't afford the additional cost won't have to pay it.

The core of the problem lies in the current (government implemented) system of HMOs, primary care physicians, referrals, high rates of malpractice insurance, and limiting of out of state competition for healthcare firms.

Those things are a big part of the problem, but another big part is the systematic misalignment of incentives in healthcare provision to treat in the most expensive manner. In America, incentives exist for insurance companies to withhold treatment as long as possible, and then attempt to drop a person once they are so sick they require it, or otherwise bite the bullet and pay the - by now - very expensive acute care costs. A far more efficient provision mdoel focuses on prevention, but you can't implement that without public competition in the system.

There are many things that the government plan wouldnt cover anyways, that current health plans due, even though the government health plans include tax dollars towards abortions (very wrong) and euthanasia (none of the government's business).

You don't have a clue, do you? The government plan contains no money for euthanasia, and sadly no money for abortion, now (which is tragic, abortion is a health procedure like any other). You're just spouting illegitimate crazy right wing fundy talking points, now.



Sure Obama says that if socialist healthcare was implemented it would not take effect until 2013-2014 when at that point all Americans would have to pay into that healthcare plan, and give up whatever coverage they already have. I imagine it as functioning like a big toilet, we all swirl closer and closer to the middle until its 2014 and we are all sucked down into the sewers of Obamacare, and I dont want that.[/QUOTE]

This, of course, assumes that it is actually beneficial to voters and within their best interests to give the federal government such precedence. This article would argue to disregard the implications and just go with what gives the handout, what reaps the immediate results; overtime, of course, the theft and dependence will continue, and the government will say that it is a good thing! Short-term gain for long-term pain! The health care system needs reform, to be sure, but this, nor anything that encourages big government and the destruction of our Constitution, is not the answer.

You have managed to make a large argument here without ever making a real specific point. How is the massive inefficiency of a system that encourages provision of only the most expensive care to be sustained while providing universal coverage? Market reforms will certainly take us to a point, but to truly efficiently - and the massive cost of healthcare makes efficiency a requirement - provide healthcare to a society requires a public option to compete with the private options. That public option can put into place the kind of efficiency-boosting reforms that current incentives in the system prevent, and thereby lower costs, prompting private competitors to follow suit.

Because our current system is still better than what Obama is proposing, thats why. The government will have an integral role in the provision of healthcare because there will no longer be private healthcare providers and competition in the marketplace. Any government run operation is socialist, law enforcement, and public schools are socialist too, however we do not need government healthcare.

How are you incapable of seeing that government involvement could increase competition? If the government were to run an insurance plan that was required to be budget-neutral, it would simply enhance competition. Why do you oppose competition to heighten efficiency? Nobody has ever proposed getting entirely rid of private care, and nobody will. You obviously know essentially nothing of what you're talking about here, because that has never been proposed in America and exists almost nowhere in other nations either; most countries with universal single payer care also allow private care for those who wish to pay.

Have fun: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

How many pages of that document have you actually read? Please quote the specific sections in which it is said that the government will be providing "the entire nation's healthcare", and that it will be "wiping out private care".

Here's a hint: neither of those things actually exist in the bill - which, by the way, is a great big blaring message to me that you haven't read the thing at all - because they would be stupid.

Clearly, like on so many other issues, you're long on opinions and short on actual understanding here.

[Sapphire]

I love how everyone insists that the reporters that they agree with are unbiased, but the ones they don't are. I never claimed that they were evil, but their spin on America is ignorant and more-often-than-not Americanophobic.
I don't agree with everything the BBC report but I don't disagree with it all either. I don't agree with everything in the Daily Mail but I don't disagree with it all either. Considering this, I am intrigued as to how can you make that initial statement with reference to me.

Care to point out these "ignorant and more-often-than-not Americanophobic" articles for me?
Since you are saying they are widespread, you shouldn't have any problem finding a lot of them.

Have fun: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
Thank you.

Now, if you would look at your own source for a moment.
(B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;This ^ is from lines 10-12 on page 4.

That is enough to contradict your argument about how there "will no longer be private healthcare providers and competition."

(D) a non-Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the State or political subdivision of a State (or agency or instrumentality of such State or subdivision) which establishes or maintains such plan; or
(E) a Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the appropriate Federal official.This ^ is taken from lines 15-23 on page 14.

It shows that the government won't be the sole providers of health care plans and so the health care reform cannot be socialist.

Maybe you can all accept how this isn't a socialist proposal now.

[Kapitan Kokenbalz]

But I suppose someone who actually lives in America and knows what its happenings are wouldn't know if an outside source has it wrong. Nope. I'm too busy polishing my rifle and spitting tar in a vase.


You leave that to us Alabamians, you hear?

[Ripplemagne]

I think I'm going to take this article apart now.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

When? The Tea Party Movement (notice they don't even refer to it by name) was rather civil and no violence broke out at all. Yes, people were enraged and, by comparison with how liberals were during the Bush administration, it's non-comparable.

Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare and the majority of people who voted for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate Election did so to oppose Health Care Reform. In fact, Nancy Pelosi went on record as saying that she didn't care how many people stood in the way; they were going after it anyway.

The American people do not want Health Care Reform. Big shot Progressives do.

“You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” -- Nancy Pelosi

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

What this doesn't account for is the fact that some people do not want Health Care and, ergo, do not have it. It's a fallacy to think that everyone without Health Care wants it.

Tort reform has been continually proposed as an alternative to Obamacare, yet hasn't even been debated by Progressives. Why is it the government's business to tell people what they need? It's not when they, obviously, don't want it.

In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.



rofl. What? Really? Really?

That had to be he most arrogant, ignorant and butthurt thing I've ever heard in my life. Just because the majority of people disagree with you in the United States doesn't mean it's because they're ignorant. If you're going to grasp at straws like this in a desperate attempt to salvage your political ego and rationalize (one of the six common defense mechanisms people use to cope with things they don't want to accept) and convolute the facts, then it's obvious that you're a sore loser.

In summary: The left is crying "THE SUN WAS IN MY EYES" after losing the snowboarding race.

Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.

Not reallly. Statistics don't really mean much in the way of "sense" and President Bush was pointing that out.

"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."

Oh my God. *Facepalm*

The rest of the article will take me too long to go into and, frankly, the points are absurd.

[CaptainObvious]

When? The Tea Party Movement (notice they don't even refer to it by name) was rather civil and no violence broke out at all. Yes, people were enraged and, by comparison with how liberals were during the Bush administration, it's non-comparable.

The reasons for outrage are also non-comparable. These people were out bitching and moaning before Obama had been in office even 6 months. The same is not true of liberals and Bush; other than the anger over Florida, his villification did not begin until he began massively fucking up. Obama wasn't even given that chance.

Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare and the majority of people who voted for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate Election did so to oppose Health Care Reform. In fact, Nancy Pelosi went on record as saying that she didn't care how many people stood in the way; they were going after it anyway.

The majority of Americans support a public option and most of the other original core reforms in Obama's plan. The majority of Americans do not support the bloated and gutted version of Obama's plan that the Republicans and Conservative Democrats in Congress spit back out. There's a difference.

Also, please substantiate your assertion that polling has showed the majority of people voted for Scott Brown to oppose health care reform. I have seen no such evidence yet.

The American people do not want Health Care Reform. Big shot Progressives do.

That's both untrue by the numbers (Americans, when polled, do want reform) and not an argument. If the American people don't want reform of a system that is bankrupting their country and destroying their economic competitiveness, they're idiots.

What this doesn't account for is the fact that some people do not want Health Care and, ergo, do not have it. It's a fallacy to think that everyone without Health Care wants it.

This might be true, but why should anyone be allowed to be without? Since it is ultimately society's responsibility to care for them if they become sick, why should we not treat health insurance like auto insurance?

Tort reform has been continually proposed as an alternative to Obamacare, yet hasn't even been debated by Progressives. Why is it the government's business to tell people what they need? It's not when they, obviously, don't want it.

Tort reform doesn't go nearly far enough. It will help, but not solve the problem of the soaring cost of the system.

That had to be he most arrogant, ignorant and butthurt thing I've ever heard in my life. Just because the majority of people disagree with you in the United States doesn't mean it's because they're ignorant. If you're going to grasp at straws like this in a desperate attempt to salvage your political ego and rationalize (one of the six common defense mechanisms people use to cope with things they don't want to accept) and convolute the facts, then it's obvious that you're a sore loser.

Well, by the numbers the median IQ in the world of the population is a little over 100. 50% of the population is dumber than that. So, by definition, I consider the majority of the population at least fairly stupid (since my cutoff for intelligence certainly begins above the median, probably around an IQ of ~110).

More directly, people hold lots of beliefs about things that aren't true. Most people in America believe in God, disbelieve evolution, and so forth. Pointing out that the majority oppose an idea is a very, very poor substitute for an argument against that idea, in my eyes. The majority are often wrong as hell, because, as I pointed out above, most people are stupid.

Not reallly. Statistics don't really mean much in the way of "sense" and President Bush was pointing that out.

Bit of an absurd thing to take away from that particular anecdote, but ok then.

[Sapphire]

Ripp, as interesting as that was, you didn't actually address my last post.

[Ripplemagne]

I know, Carole. My computer was being stupid when I tried to edit, so I'll respond to it now.

I don't agree with everything the BBC report but I don't disagree with it all either. I don't agree with everything in the Daily Mail but I don't disagree with it all either. Considering this, I am intrigued as to how can you make that initial statement with reference to me.

No one said anything about you agreeing or disagreeing with everything. You don't have to agree with every little thing to agree, by and large.

Care to point out these "ignorant and more-often-than-not Americanophobic" articles for me?
Since you are saying they are widespread, you shouldn't have any problem finding a lot of them.

Because I bookmark every single article I read. *Rolls eyes* Just look at this article alone.

The reasons for outrage are also non-comparable. These people were out bitching and moaning before Obama had been in office even 6 months. The same is not true of liberals and Bush; other than the anger over Florida, his villification did not begin until he began massively fucking up. Obama wasn't even given that chance.

Because he rushed right into all of his plans. Congress is dominated by liberals, meaning that Obama's policies can go right through, whereas Bush had a harder time doing so. Meaning that the Stimulus Package, Health Care Reform, et cetera were all passed right through at a very accelerated rate.

If it were so unreasonable, how did Obama get in in the first place? Moreover, why is he such a cultural icon and why was he practically praised as a messiah during the election? You can't really say that it's unwarranted attack, when the criticism only came on him after he was elected.

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-debt-first-100-days.jpg

Bush was no saint when it came to the economy and our national debt, but Obama has done more damage in one year than Bush did in eight. And projections aren't looking too good:

http://777denny.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-debt.jpg
http://chartingtheeconomy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/book8_11088_image005.gif

The majority of Americans support a public option and most of the other original core reforms in Obama's plan. The majority of Americans do not support the bloated and gutted version of Obama's plan that the Republicans and Conservative Democrats in Congress spit back out. There's a difference.

http://www.citizenactionny.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Untitled-1.gif


Also, please substantiate your assertion that polling has showed the majority of people voted for Scott Brown to oppose health care reform. I have seen no such evidence yet.

How about the flocks of people from Massachusetts who were on the News right after the election, saying how they were afraid of the Health Care plan? These are people who have voted, historically, Democrat for decades. It is where Hillary Clinton went to college, where the Kennedys (Ted Kennedy, the Liberal Lion, was the Massachusetts Senator before Scott Brown) resided, and so on and so forth.

What changed? The proof is in the pudding, bro.

That's both untrue by the numbers (Americans, when polled, do want reform) and not an argument. If the American people don't want reform of a system that is bankrupting their country and destroying their economic competitiveness, they're idiots.

It's true as evidenced by the poll I put above.

Sure. We're idiots for having an alternative view and a different perspective on how to deal with the problem. Yeah, that makes sense.

This might be true, but why should anyone be allowed to be without? Since it is ultimately society's responsibility to care for them if they become sick, why should we not treat health insurance like auto insurance?

Why is it the government's business to press the issue? It's going to cost more money in the long run to make a "public option" than it would be to care for uninsured people who wind up in the hospital.

Is there a financial risk for the person if this happens? Yes. But it's [i]their risk.

However, the difference between auto insurance and health insurance is in the voluntary nature of the person. You choose to drive; you don't choose to live.

Tort reform doesn't go nearly far enough. It will help, but not solve the problem of the soaring cost of the system.

Sure, it would. The long term effects of it would mirror the soaring rates of Obamacare in the next few years. How does tort reform not go far enough?

Well, by the numbers the median IQ in the world of the population is a little over 100. 50% of the population is dumber than that. So, by definition, I consider the majority of the population at least fairly stupid (since my cutoff for intelligence certainly begins above the median, probably around an IQ of ~110).

More directly, people hold lots of beliefs about things that aren't true. Most people in America believe in God, disbelieve evolution, and so forth. Pointing out that the majority oppose an idea is a very, very poor substitute for an argument against that idea, in my eyes. The majority are often wrong as hell, because, as I pointed out above, most people are stupid.


Ahahahaha. So, wait. People are stupid for believing in God and not believing in Evolution?

So, by that logic, I'm stupid. Even though every atheist who's every tried to go toe to toe with me in a religious debate has been utterly decimated. Even though every time I've debated evolution, the other person has been squashed.

I believe that your view of people is imposed upon by your own views of the world. That is, if someone has contrary views than you, they are stupid. In fact, your entire thesis on this matter negates factors such as emotional intelligence (EI), latent inhabition, among a multitude of other intellectual factors.

Why do you think you can't define a self-actualized person by their IQ? Sure, to be a Mensan, you have to score high on an IQ test, but it doesn't implicitely relate to being intelligent. I've met individuals with low IQ tests that can make professors and scientists studder and I've met individuals with high IQ tests that are as dumb as a rock.

I'm sorry to say, but you're giving off the vibe of pseudo-intellectual very strongly. And I don't mean that as an insult, but just your general attitude toward this subject radiates that

[Sapphire]

No one said anything about you agreeing or disagreeing with everything. You don't have to agree with every little thing to agree, by and large.And yet you felt it just to make a comment about how people claim things they agree with are unbiased and those they don't agree with as biased in reference to me. What was the logic behind doing that?
Because I bookmark every single article I read. *Rolls eyes* Just look at this article alone.But as I said before, seeing as (according to you) these articles are so common you should have no problems finding them. You obviously have enough time to spare because you have looked up stats etc to argue other points in this post.

[Ripplemagne]

And yet you felt it just to make a comment about how people claim things they agree with are unbiased and those they don't agree with as biased in reference to me. What was the logic behind doing that?


...That didn't make sense.

But as I said before, seeing as (according to you) these articles are so common you should have no problems finding them. You obviously have enough time to spare because you have looked up stats etc to argue other points in this post.

Which took two seconds to find. Reading through every article on BBC? Not so much.

No thank you.

As for my "spare time", I'm trying to work out right now and really don't even want to debate this right now.

[Sapphire]

...That didn't make sense.Sorry, it is late here and I am tired. I shall re-word.

You felt that it was just to make the following comment aimed at me after I defended the BBC on their generally unbiased reporting and criticised the Daily Mail for biased reporting.
I love how everyone insists that the reporters that they agree with are unbiased, but the ones they don't are.What was the logic behind that if you weren't going on the basis of it being true for me with the BBC and the Daily Mail?

Which took two seconds to find. Reading through every article on BBC? Not so much.

No thank you.
If they are so common then a number of examples wouldn't be hard to find, surely.
And if you'd have to spend time reading every article on the BBC for a biased one against the USA then you are either not using the website properly to conduct your search or making false claims about the prevalence of such bias.

Also, if you don't want to debate this right now - why are you? You can always respond later once you have worked out

[Ripplemagne]

What was the logic behind that if you weren't going on the basis of it being true for me with the BBC and the Daily Mail?

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking. I'm assuming that you think I meant that you had to agree with every single thing one station said to defend them. Not the case.

Think of your best friend, for example. Do you agree with them on every single thing? Of course not. Do you defend them as a whole, anyway? Of course.

If they are so common then a number of examples wouldn't be hard to find, surely.
And if you'd have to spend time reading every article on the BBC for a biased one against the USA then you are either not using the website properly to conduct your search or making false claims about the prevalence of such bias.


First of all, I never said it was in every single article. In fact, I never even said that all of BBC was anti-American. I said more often than not, they are. And by that, I meant that in contrast them actually favoring us.

So, no. I'm not going to go through every single BBC article and read them all to compile a list of reasons why I have a particular view about a news station. If you are comfortable watching them and don't see a problem, go ahead. I'm not.

[Sapphire]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking. I'm assuming that you think I meant that you had to agree with every single thing one station said to defend them. Not the case.

Think of your best friend, for example. Do you agree with them on every single thing? Of course not. Do you defend them as a whole, anyway? Of course.That is what I meant. But you are still making sweeping assumptions about me based on one post.

First of all, I never said it was in every single article. In fact, I never even said that all of BBC was anti-American. I said more often than not, they are. And by that, I meant that in contrast them actually favoring us.

So, no. I'm not going to go through every single BBC article and read them all to compile a list of reasons why I have a particular view about a news station. If you are comfortable watching them and don't see a problem, go ahead. I'm not.
I've not actually said any of that.
I just pointed out that if they (as a whole) criticise America more than they support it, it wouldn't be too hard to look through 10 articles from the Americas section of their website and find evidence of this bias.

You saying that you don't want to go "reading through every article on BBC" in search of this evidence implies that you either don't know how to use the website properly (searching only in the news section for the Americas) or have made false claims about this bias.

[Ripplemagne]

That is what I meant. But you are still making sweeping assumptions about me based on one post.

Regardless, it's neither here nor there.

I've not actually said any of that.
I just pointed out that if they (as a whole) criticise America more than they support it, it wouldn't be too hard to look through 10 articles from the Americas section of their website and find evidence of this bias.

You saying that you don't want to go "reading through every article on BBC" in search of this evidence implies that you either don't know how to use the website properly (searching only in the news section for the Americas) or have made false claims about this bias.


And I'm pointing out again that I'm not reading that many articles to prove your opinion of them wrong.

[Sapphire]

To me, sounds like an excuse not to look. But, each to their own.

[Ripplemagne]

It is an excuse not to look. Doesn't invalidate what I said though.

[CaptainObvious]

Because he rushed right into all of his plans. Congress is dominated by liberals, meaning that Obama's policies can go right through, whereas Bush had a harder time doing so. Meaning that the Stimulus Package, Health Care Reform, et cetera were all passed right through at a very accelerated rate.

If it were so unreasonable, how did Obama get in in the first place? Moreover, why is he such a cultural icon and why was he practically praised as a messiah during the election? You can't really say that it's unwarranted attack, when the criticism only came on him after he was elected.

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-debt-first-100-days.jpg

Bush was no saint when it came to the economy and our national debt, but Obama has done more damage in one year than Bush did in eight. And projections aren't looking too good:

First, you're flat wrong when you state that Obama can just get things passed through, as we can all see from his failure to get his health plan passed in its original form.

Second, you're wrong to say that villification hadn't started before the election. The Tea Partyers are the same crowd that were out at Palin rallies frothing about Obama being a "terrorist sympathizer" and so forth. Their ranks have just been swelled by his election, which is totally understandable and inevitable: A bad economy makes people angrier at the incumbent, regardless of who it is.

Third, I want you to quote that image in context or link to its production so I can substantiate the numbers. Methodologically, I suspect there are a lot of unsaid partisan assumptions being used to create that graph.

Last, you're outright wrong that Obama has done "more damage", and to say that reflects a serious lack of thoughtfulness on your part. Much of the deficit increases in Obama's first year have been dealing with an economic crisis he did nothing to cause, and inheritred when it was already massively disastrous. Furthermore, Bush's additions to the deficit came primarily from his tax cuts - economically unnecessary and politically motivated bad policy - and the Iraq War, neither of which were necessary adventures. Also, Obama's horrible misdeeds are projected, not yet occurred. Until Obama has actually stacked that much onto the national debt for reasons as useless as Bush, you cannot possibly call him less responsible with any degree of legitimacy.

http://www.citizenactionny.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Untitled-1.gif


Uhhhhh... so that supports what I was saying?

How about the flocks of people from Massachusetts who were on the News right after the election, saying how they were afraid of the Health Care plan? These are people who have voted, historically, Democrat for decades. It is where Hillary Clinton went to college, where the Kennedys (Ted Kennedy, the Liberal Lion, was the Massachusetts Senator before Scott Brown) resided, and so on and so forth.

What changed? The proof is in the pudding, bro.

So in other words, I was right to assume that you were relying entirely on unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence. I shouldn't have to remind you that a few people on the News does not a valid statistical prediction make.

The reason Brown won had more to do with Cokely's absolutely disastrous excuse for a campaign. If you'd been following local news during the campaign - clearly you hadn't - you would have seen it coming.

It's true as evidenced by the poll I put above.

Ummmmmm... did you mean to post a different poll? Because the one you posted quite overwhelmingly shows majority support for a public option.

Sure. We're idiots for having an alternative view and a different perspective on how to deal with the problem. Yeah, that makes sense.

That's not what I said, but go be histrionic if you'd like. I said anyone who wants the current system that is so destroying America's competitiveness and future viability (via the massively soaring cost of care) to continue is an idiot. Do you want the current system to continue as it is? If so, then yes, sorry, you're a bit of an idiot.

Why is it the government's business to press the issue? It's going to cost more money in the long run to make a "public option" than it would be to care for uninsured people who wind up in the hospital.

Do you just entirely forget the part where the public option is generally proposed to operate revenue-neutrally, as a private insurance plan does? It can only bring costs down, via competition and heightened efficiency.

Is there a financial risk for the person if this happens? Yes. But it's [i]their risk.

No, it's the society's risk, because so much of the cost ends up being borne by society, via mandatory treatment laws and the like.

Sure, it would. The long term effects of it would mirror the soaring rates of Obamacare in the next few years. How does tort reform not go far enough?

Since you seem to like numbers so much, let's see the numbers that suggest tort reform could so mssively reduce costs. Even fairly optimistic estimates of, for example, the costs of defensive medicine pin them at ~100 billion per year. That's nowhere close to the kind of savings required.

Ahahahaha. So, wait. People are stupid for believing in God and not believing in Evolution?

Maybe I shouldn't have included the former, because it can also stem from a propensity to believe things without proof. But with regard to the latter, yes, those who disbelieve evolution are certainly stupid in my eyes.

So, by that logic, I'm stupid. Even though every atheist who's every tried to go toe to toe with me in a religious debate has been utterly decimated. Even though every time I've debated evolution, the other person has been squashed.

You've debated evolution on the side of it not existing and not come out on the massively losing end? You must have been debating some absolute idiots then, to have won. Sad my fellow atheists are representing us this badly.

I believe that your view of people is imposed upon by your own views of the world. That is, if someone has contrary views than you, they are stupid. In fact, your entire thesis on this matter negates factors such as emotional intelligence (EI), latent inhabition, among a multitude of other intellectual factors.

Why do you think you can't define a self-actualized person by their IQ? Sure, to be a Mensan, you have to score high on an IQ test, but it doesn't implicitely relate to being intelligent. I've met individuals with low IQ tests that can make professors and scientists studder and I've met individuals with high IQ tests that are as dumb as a rock.

I'm sorry to say, but you're giving off the vibe of pseudo-intellectual very strongly. And I don't mean that as an insult, but just your general attitude toward this subject radiates that

You're seriously over-fixating on my use of IQ in that example. Which is my fault, because I introduced it. No, I'm not actually that interested in anyone's IQ, but it correlates decently with other things. My overall point in saying that was to note that yes, it is entirely possible to consider the majority of the population unintelligent by a consistent and reasonable criterion.

It's more than a little misguided of you to say that IQ doesn't "implicitely [sic]" relate to intelligence; it can by no means be viewed as perfect but is certainly a good approximation in many situations. Also, your example of making scientists stutter is entirely irrelevant since verbal fluency has little to do with intelligence in and of itself. Not to mention that scientists are often not particularly verbally fluent. This is all getting too sidetracked, though.

The "vibe of a pseudo-intellectual"? Well thank you for your expert analysis. What did you mean by that, exactly, if not as an insult? Is there some non-pejorative meaning to pseudo-intellectual of which I wasn't aware?

[Sapphire]

Ok Ripp, let me do some research for you then.

Here are 12 recent articles concerning the USA and the blog of the BBC editor for North America. Note how he lives and works in the USA so is going to be able to distinguish reports of complete fabrication from the legit ones. Not one of these goes out of its way to paint America in a negative light as you have claimed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8494682.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8495752.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8497176.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8497363.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8497422.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8482068.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8497251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8497423.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8494775.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8494369.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8486496.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8494540.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

[Ripplemagne]

Le sigh.

I wrote up a response twice. And twice, my computer decided to find a way to delete everything I wrote. And I'm not doing it again.

I'm going to be upfront. Had this been a year ago, I probably would have gone twenty pages debating this subject with you. Hell, if it had been a few months ago, I would have. But right now, I'm sick, I have barely slept in the last few days, and I have a hundred things going on (most of which are beyond my control), which is leading me to uncharacteristically rush my posts. My mind is just not into this and, for that, I apologize.

So, I'm stepping out. You win.

[quartermaster]

You have managed to make a large argument here without ever making a real specific point.


You like to make imperative statements, telling people what they have done, without actually being correct, that, in and of itself is quite something. I made several arguments and several points; it was an overview, summary of my school of thought, not a thesis.


How is the massive inefficiency of a system that encourages provision of only the most expensive care to be sustained while providing universal coverage?

I am going to assume that this is a question that assumes I advocate the current system or simple market reform (I have to assume, because I am not sure what you are asking). If my assumption is true, then you have just extrapolated my argument, thus a hasty generalization and I need not concern myself with this question. I never told you what I advocate, so as to why you would argue with my particular statement regarding health care without even establishing my solution is a bit lost to me. However, I will continue on, because perhaps you did know that I am for the free market from a previous post of mine.


Market reforms will certainly take us to a point, but to truly efficiently - and the massive cost of healthcare makes efficiency a requirement - provide healthcare to a society requires a public option to compete with the private options.


Where is your proof? How do you know a public option is the only way to ensure such results? You make quite a statement and have no proof, historical or not, that a public option is the best way to provide efficiency and price control.

As far as I can tell, your argument stems from a general misunderstanding of either what I support, or the free market (assuming you understand that I advocate laissez faire in the health care industry). Since I support the free market, I will deal with both possible misconceptions in one “fell-swoop.” The free market (which is what I advocate, not some corporatist system as you do) will ensure health prices will be low, while preventing an increase in taxes and the reallocation of wealth. I do not want so-called market reform (as the Republicans would call for), I want a market overhaul in the sense that the government gets out of the market in regards to health care. The government props up an oligopoly through regulation (barriers to entry, forced guilds, employment insurance etc.), this oligopoly in the health care industry drives up prices significantly.

The free market is the best way to provide quality health care, or any good or service for that matter, for a good price. There are many problems with the current system that are solved by the market, which can provide it for far less than a public plan ever could. The first problem is that there is no competition; in the free market, doctors, not an oligopoly of insurance companies, would compete against each other, which would lower prices considerably. You would pay out of pocket for regular checkups (which would be much cheaper due to the increase in competition) and insurance premiums would lower considerably because it would serve its original purpose of being for events that are not likely to occur.

Insurance is not supposed to be for every little incident, it is supposed to be for an event that is not likely to occur, but could occur (such as a tornado, an accident etc.). You would never, for instance, pay car insurance for regular car checkups or standard car maintenance, because those are costs that you expect to take on, you expect to pay for car checkups, you do not usually expect a car accident; such behavior defeats the purpose of insurance. On that same premise, the idea of having insurance pay for medical checkups in insane, as it not only defeats the purpose of insurance, but it forces up costs considerably, as would car checkup insurance.

The first reason for the price of medical care is that doctors can and do inflate their costs to the insurance companies, which means an increase in insurance premiums. Second, because insurance is paid in a monthly premium (or some form of a premium), clients try to maximize their use, thus they go to the doctor more often than they would and should, thus forcing prices up on the insurance companies, vis-à-vis, higher premiums. Third, the government puts many regulations on insurance companies, making them and their clients “jump” through hoops (such as not being able to take your plan across state lines etc.) that people on Medicaid and Medicare do not have to do (which are, by the way, still more expensive on average than your average private insurance company’s price). Lastly, the government has created an oligopoly of insurance companies that, due to their cartel, are allowed to control the market and charge the monopoly price, ergo, very high prices for health care.

Ultimately, it would all together be less on the clients as they would be paying far less for insurance and would only pay for the doctor (who would have much lowered prices due to a massive increase in competition), when they absolutely need to go to the doctor, not because they want to maximize their use (the common way of thinking is: we’re paying for it anyway).

Cutting the guild and cartel regulations and allowing the free market to prevail will efficiently provide health care to the masses for a good price. No other system in history but the capitalist enterprise has provided quality goods and services at an efficient rate, which perplexes me as to why you somehow think that the market would not be efficient naturally, but needs a monopoly to incentivize efficiency by breaking the market share of an oligopoly (it is a bit like adding mice to control pest and then adding snakes to control mice and then adding mongooses to control snakes, instead of just not the adding mice). When there is a money incentive (such that companies are forced to compete or go out of business), there can be no greater incentive to be efficient, as seen throughout the history of the free enterprise.

Of course, that is not possible when a cartel is artificially propped up, as the money incentive is to keep lobbying the government to further regulate the market to drive starter companies out of business and allow them to keep their oligopoly and keep prices high. There is no incentive to provide quality service for a good price in an oligopoly, because there is no real competition, but there is no real competition because the government eliminated it, or keeps it out of the market, through regulation; that is not capitalism, that is corporatism and that is only possible through government intervention into the market economy.

What you advocate is a continuance of a corporatist system, you just want to add a “third wheel” to continue the status-quo in many senses, not incentivize actual competition, which occurs through the free market and competition with other companies, not a government monopoly (unless, of course, your goal is just to force the remaining companies out of business and have a government takeover). Essentially, in your ideal plan of a public option, what you will see is not a decrease in price, but a further increase, as the smaller regional companies are put out of business and the larger companies drive-up prices for a niche group of premium care.

Take, for instance, the public school system, which put out of business many private schools, and the ones that remained or entered the market after, were forced to raise prices to a high level to provide education to a niche market, just to compete against the public schools. Again, it is impossible to actually compete against a government monopoly that sells itself as free to the people (which it is, as you well know, not), so in order to survive, you must find a niche market that the government does not fill (vis-à-vis, premium health care for the rich or more privileged), or raise prices to off-set the small student population.

To reiterate, I do not advocate the current market, or any semblance of the current market, I want massive reform just as many people do, but I believe the best reform is to stop and eliminate regulation and let the market provide health care naturally. Of course, at this current rate, the failure of the corporatist system may prompt universal health care regardless, as it will appear to be a “market failure.” The easiest way to blame something as a cause is to simply redefine what it is, as many people commonly do with the free market and our current system.

[Giles]

I can't be arsed to read the mountains of text that I probably won't understand anyways. So I'm just going to do this.

I still fail to see how anyone (regardless of nationality) can view a system of health care that systematically leaves many of those it is there to help with bills they can't pay and leave them in lots of debt in a favourable light.

But with regards to the article, I think it's really quite true in what it's saying and the irony that it highlights is definitely not lost on me.

QFT

[Raptor22]

That's not true. As a percentage of GDP, America spends 2nd most in the world on healthcare - after East Timor, which is a ravaged shithole. If costs aren't brought down, the current system is what will bankrupt the country.

The Government isnt spending the money though, its the citizens, they citizens would have to spend the same amount of money only it would be to the fed and not to private companies.

Kindly shut the fuck up when discussing issues you know nothing of. We do not have a lottery system to see doctors in Canada. That is probably the most utterly retarded - and untrue - thing I've heard this week.

And yes, many of the richest go to America for care, because for the very rich that's where the best healthcare is. But you don't design a national system just for the very rich, you design it for the whole population.

There is opportunity for everyone in this country, everyone makes their own decisions.

Sorry, are you talking about what you'd like to have happen, or what does happen? Because in this country in actual fact, I have no more freedom to choose my treatment options than in Canada, despite having great insurance. The dichotomy that government care means no choice while private insurance means free choice simply doesn't reflect reality. The only ones with true freedom in America are those who pay out of pocket. And very few can afford that.

The Government cannot afford it either...


That's disingenuous. The families that actually can't afford the additional cost won't have to pay it.

Yes they will, its a tax on everyone.

Those things are a big part of the problem, but another big part is the systematic misalignment of incentives in healthcare provision to treat in the most expensive manner. In America, incentives exist for insurance companies to withhold treatment as long as possible, and then attempt to drop a person once they are so sick they require it, or otherwise bite the bullet and pay the - by now - very expensive acute care costs. A far more efficient provision mdoel focuses on prevention, but you can't implement that without public competition in the system.

I agree with this.

You don't have a clue, do you? The government plan contains no money for euthanasia, and sadly no money for abortion, now (which is tragic, abortion is a health procedure like any other). You're just spouting illegitimate crazy right wing fundy talking points, now.

Healthcare reform is dead now anyways, why are we wasting our time...

Sure Obama says that if socialist healthcare was implemented it would not take effect until 2013-2014 when at that point all Americans would have to pay into that healthcare plan, and give up whatever coverage they already have. I imagine it as functioning like a big toilet, we all swirl closer and closer to the middle until its 2014 and we are all sucked down into the sewers of Obamacare, and I dont want that.



You have managed to make a large argument here without ever making a real specific point. How is the massive inefficiency of a system that encourages provision of only the most expensive care to be sustained while providing universal coverage? Market reforms will certainly take us to a point, but to truly efficiently - and the massive cost of healthcare makes efficiency a requirement - provide healthcare to a society requires a public option to compete with the private options. That public option can put into place the kind of efficiency-boosting reforms that current incentives in the system prevent, and thereby lower costs, prompting private competitors to follow suit.



How are you incapable of seeing that government involvement could increase competition? If the government were to run an insurance plan that was required to be budget-neutral, it would simply enhance competition. Why do you oppose competition to heighten efficiency? Nobody has ever proposed getting entirely rid of private care, and nobody will. You obviously know essentially nothing of what you're talking about here, because that has never been proposed in America and exists almost nowhere in other nations either; most countries with universal single payer care also allow private care for those who wish to pay.



How many pages of that document have you actually read? Please quote the specific sections in which it is said that the government will be providing "the entire nation's healthcare", and that it will be "wiping out private care".

Here's a hint: neither of those things actually exist in the bill - which, by the way, is a great big blaring message to me that you haven't read the thing at all - because they would be stupid.

Clearly, like on so many other issues, you're long on opinions and short on actual understanding here.[/QUOTE]

There has been like 10 different versions of the house and senate bills in different versions, none of the shit got passed so it doesnt matter anyways.

[Sapphire]

There has been like 10 different versions of the house and senate bills in different versions, none of the shit got passed so it doesnt matter anyways.
If it doesn't matter, why did you give us the actual Bill to read?

I would still like you to respond to this:
Now, if you would look at your own source for a moment.
(B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;This ^ is from lines 10-12 on page 4.

That is enough to contradict your argument about how there "will no longer be private healthcare providers and competition."
(D) a non-Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the State or political subdivision of a State (or agency or instrumentality of such State or subdivision) which establishes or maintains such plan; or
(E) a Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the appropriate Federal official.This ^ is taken from lines 15-23 on page 14.

It shows that the government won't be the sole providers of health care plans and so the health care reform cannot be socialist.

Maybe you can all accept how this isn't a socialist proposal now.

[Raptor22]

If it doesn't matter, why did you give us the actual Bill to read?

I would still like you to respond to this:

My point was that the bill is 2000 pages long and even most congresspeople dont know exactly whats in it. This Congressman doesnt even believe he is obligated to read it before he votes on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw

Thats pretty ridiculous. People voted him into office to make intelligent decisions and do his job, not just to give him a title and a retirement package...

[Sapphire]

My point was that the bill is 2000 pages long and even most congresspeople dont know exactly whats in it.Is that so? That seems to actually contradict your post in which you gave me the bill but I guess I'll let that slide.

But can you now see that it is not a socialist proposal and that competition will still exist?

[Nihilus]

The Americans who are bitching over the health reforms are idiots. We have super low taxes compared to most of the worlds industrialized, so what would be the issue of the fact that we may need to raise taxes. Health care should be more important that raising taxes a bit. Americans need to stop thinking about themselves(one person) and look at the bigger picture, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, which is what we need. (I didn't read the article, this is somewhat of a rant on how I feel).