Health Care Reform Bill Passed In House!

[Ocie Denver]

Jason Tandro wrote:

@Raini: No ma'am. My friend Josh is an able-bodied young man more than capable of working. But he's on food stamps. All he does is hangs out with us and plays WoW all day (his mom pays for his account). When he's not with us, we constantly rip into him (and sometimes we do it when he's around). i.e. Us: Hey Josh Josh: What? Us: You got a job yet? Josh: Aw shut up guys.

Hm! Poor boy. Keep push him until he lose his mind or show him the professional paycheck to change his mind about future. Five/six digitals paychecks or wasting the life over games like WOW? Think of values...

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

@Raini: No ma'am. My friend Josh is an able-bodied young man more than capable of working. But he's on food stamps. All he does is hangs out with us and plays WoW all day (his mom pays for his account). When he's not with us, we constantly rip into him (and sometimes we do it when he's around). i.e. Us: Hey Josh Josh: What? Us: You got a job yet? Josh: Aw shut up guys.

If I ever, EVER, go out there to say hi to you Jase, you better keep me away from him. I might just do something rash like punch him a few times. Why am I paying for his food when he can work for himself?

Argh, now I'm just irate.

[Flamez]

I couldnt imagine not having health care, you cry about it now, but the day will come when you need the dam system and you will be grateful.

To put this in perspective, about 10 years ago my father became extremly ill and need multiple surgeries totalling over 100k, without our current system in aust I would be less one father.

[Jason Tandro]

I don't like the idea of paying for a bums health care out of MY hard-earned money, and yeah, I may have free health care for the 1 time every four years that I chance upon a hospital visit, but I'd gladly settle for being able to choose my doctor and style of care rather than having the government control everything.

Give the government too much power, and individual freedoms get fucked.

Like Hillary Clinton said: "We need to get rid of this idea of individual rights."

Great idea Hildabeast.

[Freedan]

I couldn't imagine not having health care. It would be scary as hell to live without it.

About a year and a half ago, my Mom had surgery to remove the early stages of breast cancer. And she could have that surgery because it was free. It didn't matter that we're not exceedingly wealthy, our family still gets medical treatment.

The thought of a hospital saying "no surgery for you until you pay us $12,000" repulses me. As though we've got thousands of dollars tucked away under a mattress somewhere.

Private health care has its advantages; namely, no wait times, which is a problem we face here. But it also allows people to jump the line, so those who aren't as well off end up waiting even longer; and they may very well not have that kind of time.

Maybe it's because I've lived here all my life, but I honestly can't see how providing health care for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a bad thing.

[inferiare]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

Maybe it's because I've lived here all my life, but I honestly can't see how providing health care for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a bad thing.

The problem is like Jason and I have said: we don't want to have to pay for those who don't want to work and want everything for free around here. We have enough of that as it is. It goes back to my example of the jackasses who have $40k+ cars and expensive Gucci handbags and clothes, but come into my store where I work and have $400+ in food stamps because "wah I can't afford food for my children or myself wah ;_;". Why should I have to pay for them when I can pay for my own insurance when the time comes?

They also have in their 2000 page bill (yes, it's 2000 pages long) that if you DON'T go with their government health care, you're actually fined money. 2% out of your wages, and then if you still refuse, they slap you with a higher fine (which figure eludes me at the moment) that you have to pay on the spot.

Aaaand they're also taking out some $400 billion out of the medicare program, which is what veterans and older Americans use for their medical bills (it's a little cheaper for them for doctor visits, surgeries, etc.) because they're all gonna die anyway.

:\ Anything that the people want here is thrown out the window. We've been trying to get our own reforms passed, but the government wants nothing to do with it because they can't force us to take theirs.

Also, off-topic but I'm moving this to the debate board. It's seeming to go in that direction.

[Flamez]

Basically the way the system works in Aust is this. There are two types of health care, Public and private. Private works like the american system where you need insurance to access it where public as exactley that, a public system.

Because of this the private system is a higher quality and less of a wait style system, where as the public one is a "get in line unless your on deaths door" style system. You do get a better quality of care from private but at the end of the day both of them keep you ticking; btw im a bum getting money from the gov, hate me raini, let me wallow in your anger

[inferiare]

Flamez wrote:

Basically the way the system works in Aust is this. There are two types of health care, Public and private. Private works like the american system where you need insurance to access it where public as exactley that, a public system. Because of this the private system is a higher quality and less of a wait style system, where as the public one is a "get in line unless your on deaths door" style system. You do get a better quality of care from private but at the end of the day both of them keep you ticking; btw im a bum getting money from the gov, hate me raini, let me wallow in your anger

But you have a job, yes? I don't have hate for those who have a job and are on food stamps or whatnot, since they're still working as well and actually doing something. It's the jerks who don't do fuck all who irritate me.

[psychokind]

[quote="rainichan"]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

Maybe it's because I've lived here all my life, but I honestly can't see how providing health care for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a bad thing.

The problem is like Jason and I have said: we don't want to have to pay for those who don't want to work and want everything for free around here. We have enough of that as it is. It goes back to my example of the jackasses who have $40k+ cars and expensive Gucci handbags and clothes, but come into my store where I work and have $400+ in food stamps because "wah I can't afford food for my children or myself wah ;_;". Why should I have to pay for them when I can pay for my own insurance when the time comes? [quote]

I don't quite understand what kind of insurance you can pay with ->$400<- that provides health care without already thousands of other people paying into the same pot

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

rainichan wrote: Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote: Maybe it's because I've lived here all my life, but I honestly can't see how providing health care for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a bad thing. The problem is like Jason and I have said: we don't want to have to pay for those who don't want to work and want everything for free around here. We have enough of that as it is. It goes back to my example of the jackasses who have $40k+ cars and expensive Gucci handbags and clothes, but come into my store where I work and have $400+ in food stamps because "wah I can't afford food for my children or myself wah ;_;". Why should I have to pay for them when I can pay for my own insurance when the time comes? I don't quite understand what kind of insurance you can pay with ->$400<- that provides health care without already thousands of other people paying into the same pot

No no, food stamps =/= insurance. Two different things. Food stamps = welfare, or rather "The government is paying for my food for the month, so I can use any checks I'm getting for child support or social security on pointless crap I don't need" for some people (not everyone is like this, of course.) That same money that everyone else is paying for is going toward these food stamps, and if the health care bull passes the senate, we'll be paying for their health care too when they're doing jack all like the rest of us. :/

[psychokind]

aaah now I get it. I thought you said sth about you earning 80$ a week or so earlier, and I wondered then because you said you can pay for your own insurance when the time comes (which would be a miracle )

[Freedan]

rainichan wrote:

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote: Maybe it's because I've lived here all my life, but I honestly can't see how providing health care for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a bad thing. The problem is like Jason and I have said: we don't want to have to pay for those who don't want to work and want everything for free around here. We have enough of that as it is.

What about the 47 million people who are without health coverage?

A few key lines:


* Several studies estimate the number of uninsured Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 47 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2008, their latest data available.

* Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families

* A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage. Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.

* Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 22,000 a year.

* Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, they are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals.


Scrapping public health care because some people might take advantage of it would condemn many, many more people to some very unfortunate situations. Should they be told "someone capable of paying for their treatment might use public health care, so you need to pay for your operation up front"?

[Jason Tandro]

* Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families

--

Okay. I'll gladly pitch in for that 80%. The 20% should not recieve welfare of ANY kind until they get a job (or at least are actively looking for one, I do realize its a little hard nowadays. )

[inferiare]

psychokind wrote:

aaah now I get it. I thought you said sth about you earning 80$ a week or so earlier, and I wondered then because you said you can pay for your own insurance when the time comes (which would be a miracle )

That was my own weekly figure on how much I'm making (the $80). People who are on welfare or help from the government (I am not including those who have lost their jobs and are actively seeking employment, nor those who are working but receiving aid in the matter: I'm talking those who have done nothing to earn it but do anyway because they can't fund their expensive hobbies otherwise.) Right now, I'm still insured by my parents, and that expires when I hit 25. In all honesty, I can switch over to my job's insurance to use, but they'd have to work me 30 hours a week or more (up to 40) and since my boss hates me... well, I'll probably be going uninsured for a while. To me, it's no big deal. :/ It means getting a second job that may or may not work me more, but at least I could afford it.

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

rainichan wrote: Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote: Maybe it's because I've lived here all my life, but I honestly can't see how providing health care for everyone, rich and poor alike, is a bad thing. The problem is like Jason and I have said: we don't want to have to pay for those who don't want to work and want everything for free around here. We have enough of that as it is. What about the 47 million people who are without health coverage?

A lot of people are also uninsured by their own choices. They don't want to have it taken out of their paychecks, so they go without, limiting what is taken out of their paycheck weekly/biweekly. I wouldn't doubt that that is contributing to those numbers.

Quote:

* A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage. Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.

Here's what gets me: the cost of health care is already pretty high, can't and won't dispute that. It will only go higher because everyone will be paying more out of their pockets for everyone else, and not just their families. BUT, the amount people make weekly/biweekly/monthly/whatever is going down because their business isn't making as much as they used to be because of the recession and money being lost. How much sense does it make to raise prices even more when people can't afford it now? It's the same with all of the taxes we're going to be getting (which is another debate in itself) eventually: why tax us MORE when we don't have the money to pay the taxes, or in this case, the health care for everyone?

Quote:

* Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 22,000 a year.

I almost find it funny I can't find a list opposing that view. Then again, haha, at the risk of sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist, why release those numbers when it sounds better to say x amount of people die from these related issues? However, more people die from unintentional accidents yearly (according to the CDC, Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599.) While yes, the things higher on that list can be prevented with a hospital stay (strokes, cancer, heart disease), not always. There's also the fact that, even if you're insured, your doctor can be a complete dolt. The number of medical malpractice deaths have equaled out to 225,000 deaths. I can't get to the article cited due to me needing a subscription, but other places I've looked at say the same thing.

Quote:

* Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, they are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals.

I'd like to believe that, whether you're insured or not, if you know there's something seriously wrong, whether it's with yourself or a child or whatnot, you're going to go get help anyway. Some things (not all, but some) are easily prevented without going to a hospital/doctor for help (the flu, for example, can be prevented by washing your hands and making sure you're not keeping germs around. STD's can be prevented by practicing safe sex. Some heart problems can be prevented by a healthier diet and watching cholesterol, especially if you know heart problems run in your family. And so on and so forth.)

Quote:

Scrapping public health care because some people might take advantage of it would condemn many, many more people to some very unfortunate situations. Should they be told "someone capable of paying for their treatment might use public health care, so you need to pay for your operation up front"?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when over 1 million Americans openly oppose the governments way of health care, that's saying something. When the government won't listen to those they are supposed to be listening to (in all rights, they're doing this for themselves, not for the people they're supposed to be serving, essentially), of course we're going to oppose. We're all supposed to pay a flat rate, no matter how many in a household, when right now we can pick and choose "Hey, this would work best for myself/my family/my budget, since it takes out X amount of money from my paycheck instead of this higher rate of Y!"

Right now there's commercials airing on TV for medicine for health problems that are specifically saying "If you can't afford your prescription, contact us and we'll help you." It might not be free health care, but I would assume they're offering to either lower the cost or set up a payment plan. I'm not exactly an expert on insurance, but I know I'd rather have my insurance take out $10.28 (plus whatever I might add in for any future medical expenses) then have that number triple or quadruple because I have to pay for the other 2 million people in this country. There are ways for the uninsured to get help as well, not just the free health care that Obama is proposing.

[Freedan]

rainichan wrote:

A lot of people are also uninsured by their own choices. They don't want to have it taken out of their paychecks, so they go without, limiting what is taken out of their paycheck weekly/biweekly. I wouldn't doubt that that is contributing to those numbers. ............ Here's what gets me: the cost of health care is already pretty high, can't and won't dispute that. It will only go higher because everyone will be paying more out of their pockets for everyone else, and not just their families.

If wasteful spending were curbed, it would free up a lot of money for that expensive health care, leaving no need to tax it out of people. How much is this "war in Iraq" business costing every year? Sources say about $12 billion a month (though that article is a year and a half old). So, say close to $144 billion each year. This is after they did what they set out to do (get rid of Saddam and hold elections), but that's another debate. How many hundreds of billions, or God forbid, trillions, are spent on wars rather than at home? People's taxes are funding those too, incidentally, and half the country didn't want a war.

One example among many. Cut frivolous spending, and focus on people's needs.

Quote:

BUT, the amount people make weekly/biweekly/monthly/whatever is going down because their business isn't making as much as they used to be because of the recession and money being lost.

This could just as easily be chalked up to greedy executives lining their own pockets. Hell, my boss (while still a good boss in most ways) is a notoriously cheap prick. He made a handsome profit some time ago, and the employees got fuck all out of it.

Quote:

There's also the fact that, even if you're insured, your doctor can be a complete dolt. The number of medical malpractice deaths have equaled out to 225,000 deaths. I can't get to the article cited due to me needing a subscription, but other places I've looked at say the same thing.

Over how long a period? 10 years, 20 years? In any case, a criminally stupid doctor malpracticing all over the place is (or at least, should be) just as preventable as deaths resulting from lack of health care provision. The two aren't really related anyway; I'm sure I'm reading this wrong, but it comes out sounding like "even if you're insured, your doctor could kill you with stupidity, so there's no point insuring you".

Quote:

Quote: * Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, they are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals. I'd like to believe that, whether you're insured or not, if you know there's something seriously wrong, whether it's with yourself or a child or whatnot, you're going to go get help anyway. Some things (not all, but some) are easily prevented without going to a hospital/doctor for help (the flu, for example, can be prevented by washing your hands and making sure you're not keeping germs around. STD's can be prevented by practicing safe sex. Some heart problems can be prevented by a healthier diet and watching cholesterol, especially if you know heart problems run in your family. And so on and so forth.)

I bolded the critical line in that one. Yes, some things can be prevented without medical intervention. But such business as cancer screenings, genetic predispositions to whatever to be tested for, and such... those are preventative treatments as well. If someone can't afford them, they won't realize what the problem is until the cancer they haven't detected starts making them sick (at which point, it's probably too late).

And even if you forget preventative stuff altogether, there's still the matter of being treated for things that couldn't be prevented (such as the aforementioned genetic predispositions to, say... heart disease). Someone's ticker starts to kick out on them when they're 30, there's not much they can do about that without medical intervention. And if they can't afford it.... And, even if they do somehow get treated, they're not given as much follow-up care, which could render the treatment useless.

Quote:

I'm saying that when over 1 million Americans openly oppose the governments way of health care, that's saying something. When the government won't listen to those they are supposed to be listening to (in all rights, they're doing this for themselves, not for the people they're supposed to be serving, essentially), of course we're going to oppose. We're all supposed to pay a flat rate, no matter how many in a household, when right now we can pick and choose "Hey, this would work best for myself/my family/my budget, since it takes out X amount of money from my paycheck instead of this higher rate of Y!"

Again, I suggest that 'cutting out frivolous spending' business. Subsidizing this health care business with hundreds of billions of saved dollars will keep costs low for taxpayers, whose tax dollars would have gone to those frivolous projects in the first place.

Half the country opposed Bush's war business, yet they pushed ahead. The difference here is that this issue is meant to provide quality care for people at home, rather than rebuilding a country that resents you. Whether people are opposed or not, it seems like a more efficient use of money. I realize they're two separate issues, but if a million people opposing is a reason not to do something, someone should have mentioned that a few years ago. Could have saved the country some money.