Looks like America WILL have National Health Care after tonight
- Thread starter writtenstyle
- Start date
Meh, none of that stuff really bothers me. I could list loads of things like that about your country also, it's pretty meaningless.
I bet if you were to live here for 5 years you would feel just a 'free' as you did living in America.
PS. I'm also pretty sure we have pretty good dental care statistically.
I'm not going to be one to bash Europeans for their lifestyle. However, part of the reason we got on a boat and came over here is because we're not much for letting big government run our way of life. We've already proven without a doubt, that free enterprise works great to make many people wealthy. The only time it breaks down, is when big government starts adding too much regulation.
People think that the reason the banks and financial institutes were failing was because they weren't being regulated enough. But that's simply false. They were being over-regulated. Regulations were forcing them to give out loans to people that the institutions knew would never be paid back. They then had to over leverage and do other shady tactics to protect themselves from the obvious losses.
So most of us that have seen un-regulated free enterprise work, want to see big government NOT take over health insurance. But just the opposite. We want them to take some of the regulations away. If we could buy insurance from across state lines- and quit regulating that Doctors give out so many unnecessary tests, the price of insurance would be cut drastically.
People think that the reason the banks and financial institutes were failing was because they weren't being regulated enough. But that's simply false. They were being over-regulated. Regulations were forcing them to give out loans to people that the institutions knew would never be paid back. They then had to over leverage and do other shady tactics to protect themselves from the obvious losses.
So most of us that have seen un-regulated free enterprise work, want to see big government NOT take over health insurance. But just the opposite. We want them to take some of the regulations away. If we could buy insurance from across state lines- and quit regulating that Doctors give out so many unnecessary tests, the price of insurance would be cut drastically.
@josearmando that's dope.
@healthcare, It's going to be good for America and the economy, and for the quality of life of EVERYONE. If you have ever been to a country that has socialized health care chances are the crime rates and obesity are much lower than in the US. I would even bet education levels are higher than the US in countries with universal healthcare.
One problem I do see are the costs because most american's are unhealthy this is going to blow money like Birdman on a friday night. But what will this really do? US has been in debt to the tune of gazillions forever, as long as China keeps loaning US money and the FEDs keep printing it, hyperinflation won't be an issue.
@healthcare, It's going to be good for America and the economy, and for the quality of life of EVERYONE. If you have ever been to a country that has socialized health care chances are the crime rates and obesity are much lower than in the US. I would even bet education levels are higher than the US in countries with universal healthcare.
One problem I do see are the costs because most american's are unhealthy this is going to blow money like Birdman on a friday night. But what will this really do? US has been in debt to the tune of gazillions forever, as long as China keeps loaning US money and the FEDs keep printing it, hyperinflation won't be an issue.
Hey you sperm burping fagit get off my nuts.
Man ,seeing kershaw pitch that fucking good yesterday got me fucking excited.
If him and bills can dominate this year we are going all the way.
and to respond to you I was just responding to being called a fucking NAZI, you giving this dude a rim job or something?
36 states are thinking about filing lawsuits to ban mandatory health care. 13 of them are already initiating lawsuits, some of them states whose representatives voted for this bill. Does that sound like a bill was passed that a majority of Americans wanted?
Our government is set up, or is supposed to be set up in a way, that the government can't infringe on us simply because they think it is for our own good. However, that is exactly what they have done.
The shitty part is they didn't do it because it would be better for the majority, but that it would be good for a percentage of people that refuse to get their shit together.
Just allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, thus stimulating competition would have greatly reduced costs by itself, instead they decided to take over the whole fucking ball of wax.
Here's to hoping that when all the dems are voted out of office that the right goes just as radical and enslaves the poor, cuts their welfare benefits in half, and cuts taxes and gives stimulus checks to all of the people that are able to make their own way. /end sarcasm
Is it so hard for some to understand that those of us that are living lives and being self sufficient, just want to be left the fuck alone? When you actually look at the tax break down and see right in front of you the amount of money that we pay in taxes that already goes towards welfare programs at both the state and federal level, you would be forced to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Now, instead of MY health care costs going down, it is going to be more expensive for me to insure myself and my family. It's almost like I deserve to be penalized because I've busted my ass and found a way to make shit work, and support my family without the assistance of the government.
At the same time, those that make a living off of finding ways to have other people give them everything they need are unchanged, because they are still going to be on medicaid just like they were before, the only difference is, they are going to let a few million more people into the program, who probably could have paid their own way if they didn't buy that plasma TV, brand name clothes, the latest smart phone, and the new car sitting in their driveway.
If things continue on this route, I wouldn't be surprised if states started breaking off from the country in the not so distant future.
Watch and see, this health care shit is only the beginning.
Our government is set up, or is supposed to be set up in a way, that the government can't infringe on us simply because they think it is for our own good. However, that is exactly what they have done.
The shitty part is they didn't do it because it would be better for the majority, but that it would be good for a percentage of people that refuse to get their shit together.
Just allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, thus stimulating competition would have greatly reduced costs by itself, instead they decided to take over the whole fucking ball of wax.
Here's to hoping that when all the dems are voted out of office that the right goes just as radical and enslaves the poor, cuts their welfare benefits in half, and cuts taxes and gives stimulus checks to all of the people that are able to make their own way. /end sarcasm
Is it so hard for some to understand that those of us that are living lives and being self sufficient, just want to be left the fuck alone? When you actually look at the tax break down and see right in front of you the amount of money that we pay in taxes that already goes towards welfare programs at both the state and federal level, you would be forced to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Now, instead of MY health care costs going down, it is going to be more expensive for me to insure myself and my family. It's almost like I deserve to be penalized because I've busted my ass and found a way to make shit work, and support my family without the assistance of the government.
At the same time, those that make a living off of finding ways to have other people give them everything they need are unchanged, because they are still going to be on medicaid just like they were before, the only difference is, they are going to let a few million more people into the program, who probably could have paid their own way if they didn't buy that plasma TV, brand name clothes, the latest smart phone, and the new car sitting in their driveway.
If things continue on this route, I wouldn't be surprised if states started breaking off from the country in the not so distant future.
Watch and see, this health care shit is only the beginning.
I personally am for the health care bill. I do understand both sides more now, and I am beginning to re-think my stance. The biggest problem isn't what the bill does, its how it goes about it. I get it. Reading this made me understand the conservative point of view better. Leave it to Ben Franklin to break it down:
[FONT="] [/FONT]Benjamin Franklin
(1706 - 1790)
On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
For the LONDON CHRONICLE.
To Messieurs the PUBLIC and CO. I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abus'd by you all; -- in short I am a Farmer.
By your News-papers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favour to Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring in millions among us, and make us flow in money, that to be sure is scarce enough.
But the wisdom of Government forbad the exportation.
Well, says I, then we must be content with the market price at home.
No, says my Lords the mob, you sha'n't have that. Bring your corn to market if you dare; -- we'll sell it for you, for less money, or take it for nothing.
Being thus attack'd by both ends of the Constitution, the head and the tail of Government, what am I to do?
Must I keep my corn in barn to feed and increase the breed of rats? -- be it so; -- they cannot be less thankful than those I have been used to feed.
Are we Farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of honest labour? -- And why? -- One of the late scribblers against us gives a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and proclaims to all the world that we had the insolence to eat beef and pudding! -- Has he never read that precept in the good book, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; or does he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen?
O, but the Manufacturers! the Manufacturers! they are to be favour'd, and they must have bread at a cheap rate!
Hark-ye, Mr. Oaf; -- The Farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray, would you have them hoard the money they get? -- Their fine cloaths and furniture, do they make them themselves, or for one another, and so keep the money among them? Or do they employ these your darling Manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation?
My wool would produce me a better price if it were suffer'd to go to foreign markets. But that, Messieurs the Public, your laws will not permit. It must be kept all at home, that our dear Manufacturers may have it the cheaper. And then, having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton!
I have heard my grandfather say, that the Farmers submitted to the prohibition on the exportation of wool, being made to expect and believe, that when the Manufacturer bought his wool cheaper, they should have their cloth cheaper. But the deuce a bit. It has been growing dearer and dearer from that day to this. How so? why truly the cloth is exported; and that keeps up the price.
Now if it be a good principle, that the exportation of a commodity is to be restrain'd, that so our own people at home may have it the cheaper, stick to that principle, and go thorough stitch with it. Prohibit the exportation of your cloth, your leather and shoes, your iron ware, and your manufactures of all sorts, to make them all cheaper at home. And cheap enough they will be, I'll warrant you -- till people leave off making them.
Some folks seem to think they ought never to be easy, till England becomes another Lubberland, where 'tis fancied the streets are paved with penny rolls, the houses tiled with pancakes, and chickens ready roasted cry, come eat me.
I say, when you are sure you have got a good principle, stick to it, and carry it thorough. -- I hear 'tis said, that though it was necessary and right for the M ------ y to advise a prohibition of the exportation of corn, yet it was contrary to law: And also, that though it was contrary to law for the mob to obstruct the waggons, yet it was necessary and right. -- Just the same thing, to a tittle. Now they tell me, an act of indemnity ought to pass in favour of the M ------ y, to secure them from the consequences of having acted illegally. -- If so, pass another in favour of the mob. Others say, some of the mob ought to be hanged, by way of example. -- If so, ------ but I say no more than I have said before, when you are sure that you have got a good principle, go thorough with it.
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. -- Possibly. -- But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. -- A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? -- If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; -- you are welcome to your part of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?
On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence. I am, your's, &c. ARATOR.
The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766
[FONT="] [/FONT]Benjamin Franklin
(1706 - 1790)
On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
For the LONDON CHRONICLE.
To Messieurs the PUBLIC and CO. I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abus'd by you all; -- in short I am a Farmer.
By your News-papers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favour to Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring in millions among us, and make us flow in money, that to be sure is scarce enough.
But the wisdom of Government forbad the exportation.
Well, says I, then we must be content with the market price at home.
No, says my Lords the mob, you sha'n't have that. Bring your corn to market if you dare; -- we'll sell it for you, for less money, or take it for nothing.
Being thus attack'd by both ends of the Constitution, the head and the tail of Government, what am I to do?
Must I keep my corn in barn to feed and increase the breed of rats? -- be it so; -- they cannot be less thankful than those I have been used to feed.
Are we Farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of honest labour? -- And why? -- One of the late scribblers against us gives a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and proclaims to all the world that we had the insolence to eat beef and pudding! -- Has he never read that precept in the good book, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; or does he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen?
O, but the Manufacturers! the Manufacturers! they are to be favour'd, and they must have bread at a cheap rate!
Hark-ye, Mr. Oaf; -- The Farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray, would you have them hoard the money they get? -- Their fine cloaths and furniture, do they make them themselves, or for one another, and so keep the money among them? Or do they employ these your darling Manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation?
My wool would produce me a better price if it were suffer'd to go to foreign markets. But that, Messieurs the Public, your laws will not permit. It must be kept all at home, that our dear Manufacturers may have it the cheaper. And then, having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton!
I have heard my grandfather say, that the Farmers submitted to the prohibition on the exportation of wool, being made to expect and believe, that when the Manufacturer bought his wool cheaper, they should have their cloth cheaper. But the deuce a bit. It has been growing dearer and dearer from that day to this. How so? why truly the cloth is exported; and that keeps up the price.
Now if it be a good principle, that the exportation of a commodity is to be restrain'd, that so our own people at home may have it the cheaper, stick to that principle, and go thorough stitch with it. Prohibit the exportation of your cloth, your leather and shoes, your iron ware, and your manufactures of all sorts, to make them all cheaper at home. And cheap enough they will be, I'll warrant you -- till people leave off making them.
Some folks seem to think they ought never to be easy, till England becomes another Lubberland, where 'tis fancied the streets are paved with penny rolls, the houses tiled with pancakes, and chickens ready roasted cry, come eat me.
I say, when you are sure you have got a good principle, stick to it, and carry it thorough. -- I hear 'tis said, that though it was necessary and right for the M ------ y to advise a prohibition of the exportation of corn, yet it was contrary to law: And also, that though it was contrary to law for the mob to obstruct the waggons, yet it was necessary and right. -- Just the same thing, to a tittle. Now they tell me, an act of indemnity ought to pass in favour of the M ------ y, to secure them from the consequences of having acted illegally. -- If so, pass another in favour of the mob. Others say, some of the mob ought to be hanged, by way of example. -- If so, ------ but I say no more than I have said before, when you are sure that you have got a good principle, go thorough with it.
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. -- Possibly. -- But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. -- A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? -- If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; -- you are welcome to your part of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?
On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence. I am, your's, &c. ARATOR.
The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766
I just joined this forum, so I hope I am not interrupting, but I could not resist when I saw the topic of this thread; so my 2 comments are:
1/ great, and the money is coming from?
2/ ok socapitalistic countries like USA wanta more socialist health care system, and socialist countries like France want a more capitalistic health care system, duh.
1/ great, and the money is coming from?
2/ ok socapitalistic countries like USA wanta more socialist health care system, and socialist countries like France want a more capitalistic health care system, duh.
LOL Biden drops the f-bomb:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic2eEcnwghU]YouTube - Biden Drops The F-Bomb?[/ame]
And the Gallup poll is out with no surprise, democrats love it, republicans hate it, and independents are evenly split:
By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage
And teaser internals from usatoday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm
November will be interesting.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic2eEcnwghU]YouTube - Biden Drops The F-Bomb?[/ame]
And the Gallup poll is out with no surprise, democrats love it, republicans hate it, and independents are evenly split:
By Slim Margin, Americans Support Healthcare Bill's Passage
PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly half of Americans give a thumbs-up to Congress' passage of a healthcare reform bill last weekend, with 49% calling it "a good thing." Republicans and Democrats have polar opposite reactions, with independents evenly split.
The findings, from a March 22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted one day after the bill received a majority of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, represent immediate reactions to the vote.
Americans' emotional responses to the bill's passage are more positive than negative -- with 50% enthusiastic or pleased versus 42% angry or disappointed -- and are similar to their general reactions.
Although much of the public debate over healthcare reform has been heated, barely a third of rank-and-file citizens express either enthusiasm (15%) or anger (19%) about the bill's passage. However, only Democrats show greater enthusiasm than anger. Independents are twice as likely to be angry as enthusiastic, and Republicans 10 times as likely.
Bottom Line
Passage of healthcare reform was a clear political victory for President Obama and his allies in Congress. While it also pleases most of his Democratic base nationwide, it is met with greater ambivalence among independents and with considerable antipathy among Republicans. Whether these groups' views on the issue harden or soften in the coming months could be crucial to how healthcare reform factors into this year's midterm elections. Given that initial public reaction to Sunday's vote is more positive than recent public opinion about passing a healthcare reform bill, it appears some softening has already occurred.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,005 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 22, 2010, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
And teaser internals from usatoday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm
November will be interesting.
The marketing will definitely be interesting.
I know some of the folks here think a November housecleaning is a slam dunk. It's not. The GOP is walking a very thin tightrope. From what I've read, they're throwing their campaigns behind repealing health care and painting the Democrats as charlatans.
That's a risky move. According to Jack Cafferty at CNN...
"Some of the benefits of health care reform go into effect only weeks before the midterm elections - a lot of them being the most popular and least costly to implement."
If this is true, it will be difficult for the GOP to convince voters these benefits are a bad idea. Especially when the Democrats' campaigns will run a flood of ads showing smiling children receiving medical attention. Remember, voters are emotional. These are the people who buy acai. They can be sold anything with the right marketing.
Two things make matters even more problematic for the GOP...
1. the populace has a very short memory. In politics, six months is an eternity.
2. immigration reform is scheduled to take center stage in the run-up to November. This means far less media - and thus, voter - attention will be given to health care.
Few voters have an intellectual position on health care reform. The framing is either "Ah don' wanna pay for no welfare babies to get a shot on my dime" or "you gonna let these poor people die?!"
With the right marketing, they can be easily swayed. It will be interesting.
Guess you didn't read the thread. This has been posted already. Or did you think we needed to read it again?
Screwing the country out of an extra few hundred billion is *kind of* a big fucking deal. But, I guess when you're on a roll... why not assume a little more executive power?
I saw this great video today where Peter Schiff explains the history of American health care vis a vis government intervention and market solutions while stumping in Connecticut.
About the first 5.5 minutes.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTEAReRLvRc"]YouTube - Peter Schiff - Killingly, CT - P3[/ame]
The education bit at the end is excellent as well.
About the first 5.5 minutes.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTEAReRLvRc"]YouTube - Peter Schiff - Killingly, CT - P3[/ame]
The education bit at the end is excellent as well.