Resolution bill
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Ha ha good luck with that. I hope they keep trying cause come November I know a lot of Republicans and dems that are going to be out on their ass. Both parties need to be destroyed and replaced with people who actually give a damn about this country and the people who live here. I am so tired of all these public servants taking my money to do as they please. They make laws to make me the criminal and then they let themselves off. You know if it was really about health care it would be one thing. We are in what they call a recession how can we create the money to pay for all this spending? We have to get a grip on spending and start saving and growing jobs. Once we do that a lot of other things will fix themselves. The government needs to get out of the way..
To be frank, the issue died with the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending. Come November you are going to see an unprecedented push by advertisers working for insurance companies to shoot down politicians who genuinely want good health care reform. They will use party prejudices and fear mongering to destroy any possibility that legitimate health care reform will be pushed through because it is too much of a threat to their pocket books. They could care less whether they tank American health care as long as they can keep pocketing the billions, and they will manipulate the masses into getting exactly what they want.
S
Shai Gar
I'm 26. I gave up pure idealism for finding constructive methodological intelligent ways of obtaining my ideals.
I Yes.
I Yes.
Read
http://www.centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021
Both Senate and House "Bills Would Begin to Slow Growth in Health Expenditures
Because people who lack insurance use fewer health care services, expanding insurance coverage will, by itself, increase health care spending in the short term. CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates that covering all of the uninsured would increase total health spending by between 2 percent and 5 percent. [28] It is therefore no surprise that the actuary at HHS
http://www.centeronbudget.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3021
Both Senate and House "Bills Would Begin to Slow Growth in Health Expenditures
Because people who lack insurance use fewer health care services, expanding insurance coverage will, by itself, increase health care spending in the short term. CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates that covering all of the uninsured would increase total health spending by between 2 percent and 5 percent. [28] It is therefore no surprise that the actuary at HHS
I'd like to know how there doing this with out raising taxes and not increasing our deficit. that just doesn't seem plausible, I mean what programs are they cutting to do this. I would think it would require a great deal to even out the costs.
Amazingly, once states mandated that all drivers carry auto insurance, insurance rates went down. go figure? Also folks who do not have insurance and use an ER are presently having their medical bills paid for by those who either have insurance (me) or pay taxes (me again)
mmmm
I have been wondering about this line for the last couple of weeks. I don't think I really want to know what it means.
But I would like to chant partisan like "Ram it!Ram it!Ram it!"
I have been wondering about this line for the last couple of weeks. I don't think I really want to know what it means.
But I would like to chant partisan like "Ram it!Ram it!Ram it!"
I'm in favor of scrapping the bill altogether.
The process of nationalizing health care grossly disfigures what's left of our federal republic; which is worth considering, because it's arguable that a federal republic is, as America's founders thought, best suited to preserving our safety and our liberties. The growth of the federal government evokes in me the same sort of plummeting despair as if you'd demolished an ancient ruin or burned an authentic historic tome before my eyes.
A national health care system is not going to eliminate the hardships of life. And it must seriously be questioned whether it will even reduce them significantly enough to make the trade-off in liberty (and quality) worth the sacrifice.
Of course, this sort of discussion is quickly becoming moot. Even if the Democrats fail to pass a health care reform bill during Obama's first administration, "universal" health care will eventually become a reality. The genius of the evolving welfare state is that it can entirely ignore the protests of the existing adult generation because it understands that that generation's children will grow up not knowing what it's like to live in a society in which the federal government's presence isn't just about everywhere.
Which is why it's sadly amusing to watch many of those in the Baby Boomer generation come to the realization that if a health care reform bill is passed, they will see their share of the pie significantly reduced. In FDR's time it was fashionably compassionate to show heightened concern for the elderly. Now it turns out, the elderly receive a "disproportionate" degree of government assistance. The only reason the elderly matter today is because they're alive and able to vote. But the Democrats have gained a lot of experience cultivating the welfare state. As Barney Frank has said, it's all about incremental steps. Make the elderly's sacrifices small enough over the course of a few years, and before they know it they're passing away and a new generation is being raised under the newer, more constrained conditions.
The process of nationalizing health care grossly disfigures what's left of our federal republic; which is worth considering, because it's arguable that a federal republic is, as America's founders thought, best suited to preserving our safety and our liberties. The growth of the federal government evokes in me the same sort of plummeting despair as if you'd demolished an ancient ruin or burned an authentic historic tome before my eyes.
A national health care system is not going to eliminate the hardships of life. And it must seriously be questioned whether it will even reduce them significantly enough to make the trade-off in liberty (and quality) worth the sacrifice.
Of course, this sort of discussion is quickly becoming moot. Even if the Democrats fail to pass a health care reform bill during Obama's first administration, "universal" health care will eventually become a reality. The genius of the evolving welfare state is that it can entirely ignore the protests of the existing adult generation because it understands that that generation's children will grow up not knowing what it's like to live in a society in which the federal government's presence isn't just about everywhere.
Which is why it's sadly amusing to watch many of those in the Baby Boomer generation come to the realization that if a health care reform bill is passed, they will see their share of the pie significantly reduced. In FDR's time it was fashionably compassionate to show heightened concern for the elderly. Now it turns out, the elderly receive a "disproportionate" degree of government assistance. The only reason the elderly matter today is because they're alive and able to vote. But the Democrats have gained a lot of experience cultivating the welfare state. As Barney Frank has said, it's all about incremental steps. Make the elderly's sacrifices small enough over the course of a few years, and before they know it they're passing away and a new generation is being raised under the newer, more constrained conditions.
But wasn't the US republic set up for the ability to dynamically adapt to modern issues not foreseen by such forefathers? I am assuming you are knocking on the portion mandating one MUST have health insurance. Also as far as the current bill is concerned it's half-assed between nationalization and a piece of paper. Simply put a truly nationalized system would be more conducive than the system being proposed.
It is not meant to eliminate all hardship but rather stem the insane amount of money people are profiting off of others problems.
I hope you are an equal opportunity hater of big brother as I feel what was done during the Bush administration makes this whole health insurance bit look very insignificant.
All I can say is that in the political environment that has cultivated a system that has two polar opposite parties the thought of any long term welfare state cropping very slim. If one were to enact it the other would repeal it ASAP.
America Will Never Have Universal Health Care
"Americans don't want universal health care, and will sacrifice the collective health of the nation for nothing more substantial than ideology. Americans want the best health care free markets can provide, in either theory or practice. The pampered individuals of America are more than happy to trade any collective advantage for their right to personal freedom. They would prefer to live shorter, slothful, violent lives rather than adopt a competing ideology, or at least their perceptions of one.
America will never have a universal health care system."
"Americans don't want universal health care, and will sacrifice the collective health of the nation for nothing more substantial than ideology. Americans want the best health care free markets can provide, in either theory or practice. The pampered individuals of America are more than happy to trade any collective advantage for their right to personal freedom. They would prefer to live shorter, slothful, violent lives rather than adopt a competing ideology, or at least their perceptions of one.
America will never have a universal health care system."
You're right; the founding fathers never would have wanted a dynamically shifting society. If it was all small government set in stone the way they 'envisioned' it, a handful of educated white men would have even more money and power than they do today.
Thank god for a shifting society.
Thank god for a shifting society.
too boring to appreciate
Well we are on the eve of the last stand for Health Care Reform in that the House of Representatives is about to vote up or down on accepting the bill passed last year by a 60 to 40 margin in the Senate. There is going to be a lot of screaming from the GOP. Tellingly here in INFJs.com land this topic as only had 17 votes on the poll, 9 participants in the discussion and 383 views. I find this funny because if the law passes it will significantly change the way a big part of our economy operates. Those against the reform are very much aware of this, as are those who are for it. Many don't think it matters or feel it is to complicated to bother to understand on any level. I wonder most about those folks.
Well we are on the eve of the last stand for Health Care Reform in that the House of Representatives is about to vote up or down on accepting the bill passed last year by a 60 to 40 margin in the Senate. There is going to be a lot of screaming from the GOP. Tellingly here in INFJs.com land this topic as only had 17 votes on the poll, 9 participants in the discussion and 383 views. I find this funny because if the law passes it will significantly change the way a big part of our economy operates. Those against the reform are very much aware of this, as are those who are for it. Many don't think it matters or feel it is to complicated to bother to understand on any level. I wonder most about those folks.