Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Healthcare in America...

Hey, here's a way of thinking about the mandate that makes it clear it's not unconstitutional:

It's a 750$ excise tax, and you can get deductions if you buy health insurance.

There, I solved your problem. It's no more unconstitutional than the federal mandate that you have to pay income tax unless you spend all your money on solar panels.
 
Sarek said:
I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. Saccharin was approved as a food sweetener by both the FDA and the USDA. Yet it's been banned as a a cancer causing agent in most other countries and is still a hot topic of debate in the US. Just because the FDA says something is ok, doesn't necessarily make it so.
Click to expand...

So was Absinthe. Until smarter people figured out there wasn't anything to the hysteria and the initial data was wrong.
 
Dirk Funk said:
So was Absinthe. Until smarter people figured out there wasn't anything to the hysteria and the initial data was wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm sure that from a conservative viewpoint, that means everything must be ok.

That's the other part of the problem. Corporations will lie through their teeth or distort the truth if it means making a profit off a product. A little pay off here, a little pay off there and they can get most regulatory agencies to back them until the shit hits the fan.
 
Sarek said:
Yes, and I'm sure that from a conservative viewpoint, that means everything must be ok.
Click to expand...

I'm not a conservative.

Sarek said:
That's the other part of the problem. Corporations will lie through their teeth or distort the truth if it means making a profit off a product. A little pay off here, a little pay off there and they can get most regulatory agencies to back them until the shit hits the fan.
Click to expand...

The fact is, both of those items were illegal for decades based on flawed research, old wives tales and paranoia. Science and reason eventually caught up but it took years. And tell me. Which companies profited from those two substances being banned? Which companies profited from prohibition? Or the banning of many drugs? None. However, the big winners were organized crime and the federal government. As usual. The point is, not all stupid and destructive decisions are because of corporate pressure. A good deal are because of a lust for power, special interest groups and personal/religious/ideological vendettas and agendas.
 
Dirk Funk said:
I'm not a conservative.
Click to expand...

I never said you were.



The fact is, both of those items were illegal for decades based on flawed research, old wives tales and paranoia. Science and reason eventually caught up but it took years. And tell me. Which companies profited from those two substances being banned? Which companies profited from prohibition? Or the banning of many drugs? None. However, the big winners were organized crime and the federal government. As usual. The point is, not all stupid and destructive decisions are because of corporate pressure. A good deal are because of a lust for power, special interest groups and personal/religious/ideological vendettas and agendas.
Click to expand...

It's usually corporate pressure or lobbying that leads to most untested products being released on the market before being thoroughly tested. And i didn't point the finger solely at corporate America for these decisions. The FDA is a government agency. How many medications have been released on the market in the last 15 years that were approved and then side effects start popping up and you see ads for lawsuits all over the place. My point is the ENTIRE system is dangerously broken and won't be fixed anytime soon because there's to much money in pumping crap into the market that isn't researched fully. And it's ALL in the name of making a profit before the other guy can.
 
Robert "Monkey" Loggia said:
The U.S. is ever the petulant teenager of the Western world in many aspects. We just hate being told what to do, no matter how good it is for us. :D
Click to expand...

It might seem that way on the surface, but it's really far more complicated. I'm not making assumptions about you, since you seem like an otherwise intelligent individual from our other chats. However, people who make that kind of comment usually don't "get" the way our system of government is designed. They generally don't fully understand the doctrine of enumerated powers, and that we first and foremost are a nation of laws. The government can't simply make any law it wants and force it's citizens to do things simply because a politician thinks it's a good idea, or they decide it's "good for us".

It was designed this way because of the reality of the abusive and vile nature of governments. When people get into power, they usually tend to lose common sense. Power corrupts. So, our country was designed to make it extremely difficult for the government to perpetrate wide scale abuse. It's worked pretty well, but people are clever, and as time went on they've found ways around it.
 
I get how it works, I'm talking more about the general American attitude toward doing anything good for us even if other countries are doing it much better. We seem to always be the last of the "civilized" western countries to do the right thing, be it anti-discrimination laws, drug laws, health care, etc., and the country is chock full of people who seem to thrive on being contrary, selfish, and pigheaded for the hell of it, even when it is good for society and has been proven to work in every other damned country that has adopted it.
 
Friday said:
If it's so good for society, why are Obama and his cronies exempt from it?
Click to expand...

Probably because you don't understand the bill! The White House provides health insurance already, so, as with all of the other people who already get health insurance through their employers, the White House staff isn't really affected by the bill in any substantial way.

What I think you're referring to is the requirement for Congressmen and their staffs to get insured through the exchanges, which really, is little more than a cosmetic difference. The exchanges will just be marketplaces where insurance plans meeting certain standards (defined by the states) will be offered, and you can choose from the plans offered by different insurance companies to buy as normal. The two main differences are that it'll be much easier to both compare plans between different companies, and the information given by the exchanges on what's covered and the details of each plans will be much clearer. Both individuals and businesses will be able to buy from the exchanges, and small businesses (who are exempt from the mandate to cover their employees) will get a tax credit if they choose to buy their employees insurance through the exchange.
Now, Congress wrote in that Congressmembers and staff would have to buy insurance through the exchanges. That has pretty much little practical effect - their insurance would still be provided by Congress. They just wanted to be able to say that buying from the exchanges would get you the same health care as Congresspeople give themselves. That doesn't mean, however, that it's in any way legitimate to criticise the White House for not insisting on the same language for their employees: they'll be affected just as much as the millions of people already receiving health care from their employers.
 
"Oh those pesky poor and middle class in the US. How dare they expect health care? Could one of the Americans on my list explain what people have the problem with? I have heard "it is socialism" but can I have a better explanation as to why they are so adverse to this?"

"Public opinion in the US has been so manipulated by big business (low taxes, low regulation, minimal services etc) that people have been tricked into believing in things that are not in their best interests. Socialist/communist is the ultimate insult over there, and is sold as "un-American". That's why Obama's reforms are so remarkable."

"But no one has actually said how it would affect them negatively. Surely they can't be ALL that stupid ..."

"Because people's right to buy a schmicko car is more important. If someone is unemployed or low income, they're lazy and deserve to die. It's the American way."

hmmmmm
 
headvoid said:
I think it is most interesting that the potential encroachment on individuals choice has been considered so widely abhorent. I doubt any of the posters would actually consider NOT having a healthcare insurance policy, but the mere suggestion that they will be legally OBLIGED to take one raises everyones hackles.

If only the rampant profiteering of the insurance companies brought about such indignation! No, it is the forcing of an act that everyone does already that really raises the blood pressure.

In many ways this is a strength of the American character and is heartening. In other ways it feels misdirected.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, so you want EVERYONE ELSE to pay for YOUR healthcare? THAT is why your government has proposed that everyone MUST have some form of coverage if you are not going to have universal healthcare. Fuck, but you Americans are stupid. The USA, the ONLY country on earth with zero universal healthcare, or you would like to think this is true. You are so stupid you currently pay for your own healthcare, AND the healthcare of millions of others. Americans pay TWICE for their healthcare, and they cling to this concept with their very lives. STUPID.
 
The benefits of this legislation will be shown in time, and like most other American mandates the bad will drop away if need be. This is the good thing about our country; whether we do it right or fuck it up, our electoral system allows for the opportunity to fix it when the next regime takes over (see: no child left behind act)

The real scary thing is, how the hell I ended up agreeing with every word Sarek said. WTF? Last time some crazy miracle shit like that happened there was a star in the East...
 
i don't live in the US but the drugs companies - pfizer, etc.. are holding the uk national health service to ransom, they are making obscene profits from taxpayers

looks like they just got a green light to climb on the gravy train in america too,

we should forcibly nationalise these companies, worldwide nationalisation to benefit everyone
 
ToeRag said:
i don't live in the US but the drugs companies - pfizer, etc.. are holding the uk national health service to ransom, they are making obscene profits from taxpayers

looks like they just got a green light to climb on the gravy train in america too,

we should forcibly nationalise these companies, worldwide nationalisation to benefit everyone
Click to expand...

Yes, but this is the way it is everywhere, and rly wat choice do we have, our governments will not do the development and research themselves so we have this problem.
Its this reason y HIV medication is inaccessible to 90% of the world, cancer meds are unaffordable in developed countries. Health care is a business, just like prisons; reducing the impact and increasing access for the public needs to be a concern for everyone; not just those who are denied access.

Keep the beast on a fucking leash
 
SuN said:
Yes, but this is the way it is everywhere, and rly wat choice do we have, our governments will not do the development and research themselves so we have this problem.
Its this reason y HIV medication is inaccessible to 90% of the world, cancer meds are unaffordable in developed countries. Health care is a business, just like prisons; reducing the impact and increasing access for the public needs to be a concern for everyone; not just those who are denied access.

Keep the beast on a fucking leash
Click to expand...

You really WANT the government designing and manufacturing your medicines? Tell me, have you ever seen a Soviet automobile?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top