Also, nacho. How do you INCREASE coverage to include more people, and keep the SAME coverage for others, WITHOUT raising price?

 

That is indeed the whole idea of a legal reform: changing the system. The current system is the most expensive one in the world, and far from the best in terms of treatment given per dollar. Changing the system gives it a whole set of different properties, so you can for instance increase coverage without raising price. That means someone makes less money (i.e. insurance companies, pharmaseutical companies, possibly doctors). That is why these groups have opposed the reform so vehemently: not due to what is ethically right, but because of their own self-interests. This is the entire point and nature of having a reform in the first place. I cannot think of anyone being against health reform, as the previous system, and the new current system are obviously both broken. The new system is simply a tad less broken than the previous one, but it still comes out terribly in comparsion with other countries.

 

again, look at the example of Maryland: you can quite easily defy this apparent contradiction, and achieve the same high quality coverage for more people while paying less. It just means sticking up to the corporations that effectively run the US at this point in history. Similarly, considering only the facts: look at the gun lobby and the harm it causes, religious lobbies and their interest in education, millitary lobby, lobby, lobby lobby. Where did the common voter reassign their power to the corporations, rather than their own votes? Corporatism requires strict lobby regulation, and obviously this is not the case, so reform is neccessary. For a lobbyist, the right to free speech does not amount to a right to the bribery of politicians. I doubt such an argument would pass through the Supreme court though. That's the mess the american legal system is in.

 

The type of corruption lobbyists perform that is going on in sophisticated terms, and this power-struggle of a percieved status quo in every situation is the nature of all political struggle, local, domestic, national and international. Those in power wish to establish a status quo, thus ensuring their continued power, while those who do not have power wish to alter the "status quo" that is actually ever-dynamic in ways beneficial to themselves. Just look at the bribery conducted under the terms of "compromise" to pass any healthcare bill: states getting special exceptions, or cheaper care, not for ideological or ethical reasons, but simply because they need to be bribed to do the right thing.

 

I wonder how long america can retain its position as the flaws of its political system are made clear by polerization between the two parties. The EU is also in trouble, it is just a question before the east takes over unless vast reform takes place. In a conservatist enviornment, that's nigh on impossible.

That is indeed the whole idea of a legal reform: changing the system. The current system is the most expensive one in the world, and far from the best in terms of treatment given per dollar. Changing the system gives it a whole set of different properties, so you can for instance increase coverage without raising price. That means someone makes less money (i.e. insurance companies, pharmaseutical companies, possibly doctors). That is why these groups have opposed the reform so vehemently: not due to what is ethically right, but because of their own self-interests. This is the entire point and nature of having a reform in the first place. I cannot think of anyone being against health reform, as the previous system, and the new current system are obviously both broken. The new system is simply a tad less broken than the previous one, but it still comes out terribly in comparsion with other countries.

So this is reform just for the sake of reform? Just playing around with trillions of dollars trying something new?

 

This new system doesn't work. The reason the current one doesn't is because there is no connection between cost and the consumer. Because employers pay for insurance there's no need to self-ration care, and no self-rationing means overusage of healthcare, and overusage means increased costs. This bill not only expands the problem, but makes it worse by having the government pay for it rather than the consumer. Taxes will increase so people will want there money's worth and will use this new government system even more. Costs can only go up because of this.

 

again, look at the example of Maryland: you can quite easily defy this apparent contradiction, and achieve the same high quality coverage for more people while paying less. It just means sticking up to the corporations that effectively run the US at this point in history. Similarly, considering only the facts: look at the gun lobby and the harm it causes, religious lobbies and their interest in education, millitary lobby, lobby, lobby lobby. Where did the common voter reassign their power to the corporations, rather than their own votes? Corporatism requires strict lobby regulation, and obviously this is not the case, so reform is neccessary. For a lobbyist, the right to free speech does not amount to a right to the bribery of politicians. I doubt such an argument would pass through the Supreme court though. That's the mess the american legal system is in.

Do y'all have some links about this? Tried Googlin' and didn't find anything. I've only seen this new system compared to Massachussettes, and that one doesn't work.

 

I wonder how long america can retain its position as the flaws of its political system are made clear by polerization between the two parties. The EU is also in trouble, it is just a question before the east takes over unless vast reform takes place. In a conservatist enviornment, that's nigh on impossible.

Doesn't Europe do what the US Government's trying to do...? Europe is sinking economically because it's moved so far left and socialist, while countries like China and India which remain relatively free-market economically are flourishing.

 

On that point, in this current global economic system, doctors go to the US for jobs in true innovation; the people who look for new ways to combat cancer and heart disease come to the United States. More doctors immigrate to the US for work than any other nation. If the US goes socialist like the rest of the Western world, where do those doctors go? Where does the drive for innovation go?

On that point, in this current global economic system, doctors go to the US for jobs in true innovation; the people who look for new ways to combat cancer and heart disease come to the United States. More doctors immigrate to the US for work than any other nation. If the US goes socialist like the rest of the Western world, where do those doctors go? Where does the drive for innovation go?

Just for the record I really don't care about this bill at all, but I'm wondering if there is a correlation between the doctors that are coming here, as you say, for innovation in heart disease, cancer, etc. and the doctors this bill will affect. It seems to me that the most affected doctors would be surgeons, physicians, nurses, etc. i.e. the ones you find in normal hospitals across the country. I find it hard to believe that doctors who immigrate to work in the most cutting edge facilities on complex diseases will be seeing any of the new 30 million or so people that will be covered by this bill. I just don't see the correlation because most doctors I have seen throughout my lifetime (albeit 20 years is not a 'lifetime') are pharmaceutical lapdogs and none of them are cutting edge researchers. I believe most Americans see those type of doctors as well.

Doctors immigrate here for the money, and I don't mean from the rewards to be reaped if they make a breaking discovery. Plus, if they immigrated here to the degree that you are talking about, we wouldn't have a doctor shortage. You actually think that "socializing" the health care system will make innovation go down? What bullocks. Our medical breakthroughs are the result of government intervention, and anyone who knows anything about the medical industry knows that. For one, in a free market, intellectual property isn't protected; this is why the free-market doesn't work with research and development.

 

Have you ever heard of this government entity?:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institutes_of_Health

 

That entity is responsible for our medical breakthroughs, not the ability for drug companies to charge 4-6x what they charge in other countries just because our government allows it while theirs does not; not the ability for doctors to make 2-3x here what they make in other countries. The drug companies' private money mostly goes towards re-inventing some drug they already invented, making it slightly different, getting another government-protected monopoly for another 6-12 years; wash, rinse, repeat. The NIH actually invests money on worthwhile ventures. The reason this is the case is mostly because of the FDA; once they approve a drug, a company isn't going to risk their newfound fortune trying to get a drug approved that's completely different, so they change it a little, and keep the gravy train going. That's why libertarians want to dismantle it. This is of course stupid, and not worth the possible lowered drug costs as many people would die.

 

Read this:

 

http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/

 

And if you think that author is a leftist, think again:

 

Ben Domenech founded Red State.

 

Of course, New Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman agree with him: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/go-read-jon-cohn/

 

The link he posts is broken, some can be recovered here:

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_11/010249.php

 

Of course, there is opposition to this:

 

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA550MedicareDrugPrices.html

 

Then again, this is the same idiot who wrote this:

 

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

 

The guy's a hack. There is one proven method to bring down costs, and it's as I said: SET PRICES. Even the libertarian paradise for health care, Singapore, has to do this to keep prices down. Health care is not an elastic good; people don't "shop around." They get what they can get, and take it right there...emergency care or not.

 

Lastly, I already said, there are more or less two countries with socialized health care, and they're Britain and Sweden. Finland can also be thrown into the mix, they're mostly public hospitals. Everywhere else relies on the private industry to do most of the work.

 

And about the doctor shortage: medical school and college should be free like everywhere else in the world to meet this demand, assuming your grades are in good order. It's worth the investment, and has been proven that more people graduating college results in a huge return on the investment in GDP. Of course, then you'd hear more about "boot straps," "personal responsibility," and "socialism," but hey, people throwing those buzz words around aren't interested in seriously tackling problems in this country; it's just fear mongering to get people to vote against their own interest, lower taxes until the deficit and debt are so high that the deficit hawks start cutting social security and Medicare.

Actually, thats what was thought.

 

1.) Its an executive order, which even according to Bart Stupak could be reversed by Obama easily.

 

2.) President can't just issue an executive order to change laws whenever he wants.

 

1.) Abortions were NEVER, EVER, funded by this money, no matter how many lies the Republicans and Bart Stupak told you.

2.) Abortion is NOT illegal to fund with public money, the Hyde Amendment is passed each and every year by appropriation to prevent funds from being distributed for abortions through taxpayer money. It's not illegal, it's just prevented each and every year as the Hyde Amendment is approved.

3.) The executive order just repeated the Senate's language to provide Stupak cover from the misogynist Catholic Bishops, even though countless other Catholic organizations approved of the bill.

4.) The Senate language prevents abortion funding.

 

Lastly, we already subsidize abortion coverage with tax payer money: it's called subsidizing employer-based coverage, which costs the Federal Government $250 billion per year, through a giant tax-break that's been in place for years. You don't see them going after that over abortion, do you? No, why? Because they're liars, hypocrites, and they are continuing to use wedge issues to distract the public from the issues that actually matter. Oh, and they're anti-woman, which is really what the abortion debate is about in the first place; if men could give birth it never would have been an issue.

 

And lastly lastly, why should the Hyde Amendment even be approved of anyway? Why should we get to vote on based on what some people find immoral, and preventing women from accessing a moral medical procedure that's needed for their health? 1/3 of women will need an abortion at some point in their lives. I found the Iraq War to be illegal, and immoral. Where's my tax check for the money spent on that? Do you see how ridiculous this is?

 

And actually, the president CAN issue an executive order to change/clarify the law, but this doesn't change the law. They can act to FURTHER law, not to CREATE law. Read some court cases:

 

Executive Order 10340

 

Your other post was full of just as many errors, and repeated just about every talking point possible, but I don't feel like addressing it. Except, this:

 

I don't want to live in a nanny state. I will take care of myself, the Gov't doesn't need to run everything.

 

Besides the fact that the government isn't running anything and is only giving subsidies to people, oh and preventing insurance companies from denying people who have pre-existing conditions care (because everyone knows you don't need a "nanny" to disrupt an abusive industry), health care is a right. It is therefore the job of the government to protect that right. If you don't think health care is a right, you should tell Congress to repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

 

Speaking of nanny states, I have some heavy reading for you from economist Dean Baker, the first to spot the housing bubble, "The Conservative Nanny State":

 

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

And because I just LOVE posting three times in a row, I found this cartoon today. Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn? It may as well have been drawn in 2009/2010:

 

 

And just for fun, Mitt Romney, circa 2007/2008 during the campaign:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0

 

How quickly they forget...

On that point, in this current global economic system, doctors go to the US for jobs in true innovation; the people who look for new ways to combat cancer and heart disease come to the United States. More doctors immigrate to the US for work than any other nation. If the US goes socialist like the rest of the Western world, where do those doctors go? Where does the drive for innovation go?

Just for the record I really don't care about this bill at all, but I'm wondering if there is a correlation between the doctors that are coming here, as you say, for innovation in heart disease, cancer, etc. and the doctors this bill will affect. It seems to me that the most affected doctors would be surgeons, physicians, nurses, etc. i.e. the ones you find in normal hospitals across the country. I find it hard to believe that doctors who immigrate to work in the most cutting edge facilities on complex diseases will be seeing any of the new 30 million or so people that will be covered by this bill. I just don't see the correlation because most doctors I have seen throughout my lifetime (albeit 20 years is not a 'lifetime') are pharmaceutical lapdogs and none of them are cutting edge researchers. I believe most Americans see those type of doctors as well.

1. To dispel the misconception that doctors are so overly payed is indeed false. The majority of any profit made by a doctor goes to malpractice insurance because in America you sue if you drop hot coffee on yourself,

2. Which leads me to my next point. Even if you reform an entire system, it effects all related systems, therefore to pass something like health care effectively would require the updating of many many institutions, which won't happen especially because this bill was rushed to the extent were it makes provisions for certain laws but the actual substance of the laws are not even written yet.

3. People think doctors turn these people who can't afford insurance away? Bull crap. When my dad was chairman of St. Joseph Hospital he raised the required amount of free service provided by physicians to people who cannot afford medical service. Many [Catholic] hospitals require that physicians who practice there give free service to those who cannot afford it for nonessential things, and people who enter the ER like dying cannot be rejected to begin with.

4. And just because you tell your doctor to give you antibiotics when you have a virus and they say no and instead try to give you something that will actually work doesn't mean they're "pharmaceutical lapdogs". In fact there was a law passed last year, I'm not sure if it was in NJ or the entire US, that you're unable to receive gifts from drug companies over the price of like, $5.

5. As for the doctors who came here from foreign countries because of new developments, etc. my dad came from Italy, the Gemalli University ( which is pretty decent seeing as how its the hospital that the pope goes to) and lead the initiative of the modern-"clean" feeding tubes (a new thing at the time). He chooses to see people from a city so poor that it is a 50% reduced tax zone. So yes, immigrant doctors who come because of new methods will be effected by the bill.

6. Lastly insurance companies find ways to delay their payments before, now it will be even worse and co-pays will be higher, so for the people who could afford it before, it hurts more.

Lastly, I already said, there are more or less two countries with socialized health care, and they're Britain and Sweden. Finland can also be thrown into the mix, they're mostly public hospitals. Everywhere else relies on the private industry to do most of the work.

I assume you know that you've forgotten several countries that also has socialized healthcare?

Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn?

 

I'm gonna go out on a wild guess and say that it was drawn in 1994 for the Chicago Tribune. That's just my guess, though. Could be wrong.

Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn?

 

I'm gonna go out on a wild guess and say that it was drawn in 1994 for the Chicago Tribune. That's just my guess, though. Could be wrong.

Has to be earlier Stalin is pictured I believe he died in 55. I'm gonna say... late 40's early 50's. Wait at the bottom it say in really small either '34 or '84

my money is on '38

Also how about this violence over the bill? I believe its wrong but I'm not surprised, its what happens when words are ignored. Also I'm gonna be watching for someone to make a slip or just be ballsy enough to say that this just goes to show how all republicans are crazy and violent.

Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn?

 

I'm gonna go out on a wild guess and say that it was drawn in 1994 for the Chicago Tribune. That's just my guess, though. Could be wrong.

Has to be earlier Stalin is pictured I believe he died in 55. I'm gonna say... late 40's early 50's. Wait at the bottom it say in really small either '34 or '84

my money is on '38

Also how about this violence over the bill? I believe its wrong but I'm not surprised, its what happens when words are ignored. Also I'm gonna be watching for someone to make a slip or just be ballsy enough to say that this just goes to show how all republicans are crazy and violent.

All? Nice generalisation.

Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn?

 

I'm gonna go out on a wild guess and say that it was drawn in 1994 for the Chicago Tribune. That's just my guess, though. Could be wrong.

Has to be earlier Stalin is pictured I believe he died in 55. I'm gonna say... late 40's early 50's. Wait at the bottom it say in really small either '34 or '84

my money is on '38

Also how about this violence over the bill? I believe its wrong but I'm not surprised, its what happens when words are ignored. Also I'm gonna be watching for someone to make a slip or just be ballsy enough to say that this just goes to show how all republicans are crazy and violent.

All? Nice generalisation.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people, especially what people will say( and I mean ALL people). I'm saying this from a conservative standpoint. Remember when John Kerry made that slip/ mis-read about the troops and didn't apologize for like a week? That's the kind of thing i'm talking about.

Hopefully this URL works. This is the moronic backlash from some Republicans over the passing of the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36027892

 

I lol'd at the guy threatening to kill Stupak because he wasn't pro-life. Kinda ironic.

Anyone wanna pose a guess as to when it was drawn?

 

I'm gonna go out on a wild guess and say that it was drawn in 1994 for the Chicago Tribune. That's just my guess, though. Could be wrong.

Has to be earlier Stalin is pictured I believe he died in 55. I'm gonna say... late 40's early 50's. Wait at the bottom it say in really small either '34 or '84

my money is on '38

Also how about this violence over the bill? I believe its wrong but I'm not surprised, its what happens when words are ignored. Also I'm gonna be watching for someone to make a slip or just be ballsy enough to say that this just goes to show how all republicans are crazy and violent.

All? Nice generalisation.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people( and I mean ALL people). I'm saying this from a conservative standpoint. Remember when John Kerry made that slip/ mis-read about the troops and didn't apologize for like a week? That's the kind of thing i'm talking about.

I'm not American so i don't know. I don't know if i've seen that footage, but then i've forgotten it.

Hopefully this URL works. This is the moronic backlash from some Republicans over the passing of the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36027892

 

I lol'd at the guy threatening to kill Stupak because he wasn't pro-life. Kinda ironic.

What I find funny is that they are saying "Words are important." Too bad they didn't realize that beforehand, you ignored people before, now they want blood, what the hell do you expect, its kinda hard to ignore a guy when a shotgun is in your mouth. And that protest at the guys house, the lady said "Why don't they protest at the capital where they can be seen and heard?" BECAUSE THEY DID AND WERE IGNORED! I'm sorry that it has come to this but you reap what you sow.

Hopefully this URL works. This is the moronic backlash from some Republicans over the passing of the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36027892

 

I lol'd at the guy threatening to kill Stupak because he wasn't pro-life. Kinda ironic.

What I find funny is that they are saying "Words are important." Too bad they didn't realize that beforehand, you ignored people before, now they want blood, what the hell do you expect, its kinda hard to ignore a guy when a shotgun is in your mouth. And that protest at the guys house, the lady said "Why don't they protest at the capital where they can be seen and heard?" BECAUSE THEY DID AND WERE IGNORED! I'm sorry that it has come to this but you reap what you sow.

 

There is a difference between protesting an elected politician's decision and intimidating them at home. The people elect their politicians and then politicians are supposed to vote as they see fit based on their platform, if people don't want to elect those people then they don't need to vote for them. What you don't do is intimidate people, their children and their wider families in their homes - that is thuggery no matter what side of the political spectrum it comes from.

Lastly, I already said, there are more or less two countries with socialized health care, and they're Britain and Sweden. Finland can also be thrown into the mix, they're mostly public hospitals. Everywhere else relies on the private industry to do most of the work.

I assume you know that you've forgotten several countries that also has socialized healthcare?

 

France? Not socialized. Canada? Not socialized. Taiwan? Not socialized, and is in fact modeled after the US Medicare system.

 

Wanna count Greenland? Fine. India? Alright. I'm not sure about Israel. Denmark, alright. Germany? No, as it's employees are not government paid. Ireland? ok, but I count them as part of the UK. Italy counts, too.

 

I don't feel like going through every country, dude. The point is, just because it's funded by taxes and universal, it's not socialized. It's only socialized if most of the providers are government hospitals/doctors/nurses. This is not the case in a lot of European countries.

 

And the cartoon is from 1934, not 1994. It was attacking FDR's New Deal, and the Social Security proposal.

And that protest at the guys house, the lady said "Why don't they protest at the capital where they can be seen and heard?" BECAUSE THEY DID AND WERE IGNORED!

That's still no excuse for them to get right onto the guy's property. They're not really trying to make a point when they do something like that, they're just using intimidation to threaten those who agree with the bill.

 

edit: 1_man_army basically just said what I meant to say.

Hopefully this URL works. This is the moronic backlash from some Republicans over the passing of the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36027892

 

I lol'd at the guy threatening to kill Stupak because he wasn't pro-life. Kinda ironic.

What I find funny is that they are saying "Words are important." Too bad they didn't realize that beforehand, you ignored people before, now they want blood, what the hell do you expect, its kinda hard to ignore a guy when a shotgun is in your mouth. And that protest at the guys house, the lady said "Why don't they protest at the capital where they can be seen and heard?" BECAUSE THEY DID AND WERE IGNORED! I'm sorry that it has come to this but you reap what you sow.

 

So let me get this straight. You support the Patriot Act. You support the monitoring of terrorists; you support invading my rights for the sake of safety; and now, when there are literally far-right people who are being winked and nodded from their Republican leaders like John Boehner ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc1OWI4MjFkY2Y5YWQ5Y2MxMmYxZDc2MDM5N2QxNmM= ) and are actively committing acts of vandalism on people's private property to intimidate them...you actually support and wave them on rather than condemn them? You have got to be a troll. There's no other explanation.

 

Eric Cantor is a real life troll, though:

 

Cantor, meanwhile, said he has received e-mail threats and that a bullet struck the window of his campaign office building in Richmond. But Richmond police said the bullet apparently had been randomly fired skyward. It hit the front window of a building that houses Cantor's campaign office as it fell at a sharp downward angle around 1 a.m. Tuesday, police said.

 

Nonetheless, any threats like this should be taken seriously. These people are maniacs, and they're being cheered on by the likes of Glenn Beck. It's not going to be so cool when someone dies or gets shot, no matter what side of the aisle they're on.

Ireland? ok, but I count them as part of the UK.

 

Tell that to the Irish Republican Army and people who live in the Irish Republic.

 

That's like saying that America is part of the UK. ;)

Ireland? ok, but I count them as part of the UK.

 

Tell that to the Irish Republican Army and people who live in the Irish Republic.

 

That's like saying that America is part of the UK. ;)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

 

Wasn't talking about the Republic Of Ireland. :)

Hopefully this URL works. This is the moronic backlash from some Republicans over the passing of the bill: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#36027892

 

I lol'd at the guy threatening to kill Stupak because he wasn't pro-life. Kinda ironic.

What I find funny is that they are saying "Words are important." Too bad they didn't realize that beforehand, you ignored people before, now they want blood, what the hell do you expect, its kinda hard to ignore a guy when a shotgun is in your mouth. And that protest at the guys house, the lady said "Why don't they protest at the capital where they can be seen and heard?" BECAUSE THEY DID AND WERE IGNORED! I'm sorry that it has come to this but you reap what you sow.

 

So let me get this straight. You support the Patriot Act. You support the monitoring of terrorists; you support invading my rights for the sake of safety; and now, when there are literally far-right people who are being winked and nodded from their Republican leaders like John Boehner ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTc1OWI4MjFkY2Y5YWQ5Y2MxMmYxZDc2MDM5N2QxNmM= ) and are actively committing acts of vandalism on people's private property to intimidate them...you actually support and wave them on rather than condemn them? You have got to be a troll. There's no other explanation.

 

Eric Cantor is a real life troll, though:

 

Cantor, meanwhile, said he has received e-mail threats and that a bullet struck the window of his campaign office building in Richmond. But Richmond police said the bullet apparently had been randomly fired skyward. It hit the front window of a building that houses Cantor's campaign office as it fell at a sharp downward angle around 1 a.m. Tuesday, police said.

 

Nonetheless, any threats like this should be taken seriously. These people are maniacs, and they're being cheered on by the likes of Glenn Beck. It's not going to be so cool when someone dies or gets shot, no matter what side of the aisle they're on.

You conveniently ignored the part where I said, I'm sorry it had to come to this, and I believe earlier where I said I DON"T SUPPORT THEM. There are some basic things which I believe to be true about humanity which I think most people don't get. The human race is VIOLENT we always have been and by my estimation always will be. Violence is the oldest way in the book to solve a problem. Is it right probably not. Does it work/ Look in a history book. I'm not cheering them on I'm saying, "WHAT THE [bleep] DID YOU EXPECT?!" As for invading your rights, they are my rights too so I'm also consenting to that. I honestly dare you to name one big problem that hasn't at some point or in some from degraded to violence. Another truth which applies to all political things is that people want to see black or white. I try really hard to be objective and I'm not afraid to say that probably for the large majority of the time I fail. And bringing the Patriot Act into this? What the hell does that have to do with this topic? You're trying to swing people's opinion of me right off that bat. And I'm sincerely waiting for someone to get shot or die because I believe the [cabbage] will hit the fan and I honestly don't know what will happen. And always you bring up Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, do you think that Republicans are just mindless zombies, and that they can't come to the same conclusion without outside bias, that somehow the only way we can have an opinion is if we hear it from them? I really believe America is in for a jolt, because I think for the first time the fact that the real world is not flowers and sing-alongs is brought crashing down on the average American. It's easy to watch riots and shootings in the Middle East and Asia but when it happens it your city it suddenly matters. I've honestly stopped giving a [cabbage] about sounding radical, if you don't want to accept that this was pretty much inevitable that's your business. I have no doubt you are going to use my clear anger and the way I say things against me so do your worst.

So this is reform just for the sake of reform? Just playing around with trillions of dollars trying something new?

 

If you read what i posted, and not what you wanted to read, you would find my argument to be that any broken system needs reform to be fixed, because it is by definition a systematic breakdown. A step in the right direction leaves a less broken system. Then again, the whole american system is outdated, broken and unethical. you have to start with reform somewhere. A broken legal system protecting rights and ideals over people and their actual cases ensures the need for a reformed constitution, or completely new practice by the supreme court. The political system ensures inequality, and complacency: there is little room for changing anything due to the convoluted system currently in place. like the neccessary, real and meaningful reform the discontent american populous want can ever pass through the legal system, or the political system...

This new system doesn't work. The reason the current one doesn't is because there is no connection between cost and the consumer. Because employers pay for insurance there's no need to self-ration care, and no self-rationing means overusage of healthcare, and overusage means increased costs. This bill not only expands the problem, but makes it worse by having the government pay for it rather than the consumer. Taxes will increase so people will want there money's worth and will use this new government system even more. Costs can only go up because of this.

 

The old and new systems have their greatest flaw in the right to sue people over things they are not actually responsible for. why are few politicians or people even mentioning the economic havock current litigation laws are causing.

 

again, look at the example of Maryland: you can quite easily defy this apparent contradiction, and achieve the same high quality coverage for more people while paying less. It just means sticking up to the corporations that effectively run the US at this point in history. Similarly, considering only the facts: look at the gun lobby and the harm it causes, religious lobbies and their interest in education, millitary lobby, lobby, lobby lobby. Where did the common voter reassign their power to the corporations, rather than their own votes? Corporatism requires strict lobby regulation, and obviously this is not the case, so reform is neccessary. For a lobbyist, the right to free speech does not amount to a right to the bribery of politicians. I doubt such an argument would pass through the Supreme court though. That's the mess the american legal system is in.

Do y'all have some links about this? Tried Googlin' and didn't find anything. I've only seen this new system compared to Massachussettes, and that one doesn't work.

 

There is a post earlier in this thread about it, citing a graphical statistic. That statistic is all you need to see to see the implications of this meaningful change. However, the mechanisms of cost, and the right to universal healthcare as a part of our human rights (Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.)

 

The human rights of 32 million people who will due to the reform have a right to health care, are non-negotiable. This has nothing to do with cost. that is a seperate issue of the bill, where bipartisan constructive cooperation should be a given: who wants to campaign for expensive health care?

I wonder how long america can retain its position as the flaws of its political system are made clear by polerization between the two parties. The EU is also in trouble, it is just a question before the east takes over unless vast reform takes place. In a conservatist enviornment, that's nigh on impossible.

Doesn't Europe do what the US Government's trying to do...? Europe is sinking economically because it's moved so far left and socialist, while countries like China and India which remain relatively free-market economically are flourishing.

 

I don't know where you live, but i'm assuming it's not europe. The american influence over proceedings here have declined dramatically the last 15 years. Most Europeans look to Europe, because they see themselves as a century ahead of consumerist, egocentric, conservative, selfish, inhumane, individualist, greedy, polluting, fat, torturing, illiberal americans. Did you know it's harder to get asylum in Europe than in the US, because there are more applicants who wish to go to Europe? Maybe america has forgotten about the progress during the last fifty years in the rest of the world? The democrats are a semi-right wing party in European terms. The republicans are right extremists compared to european politics, who are easily compared to neo-nazis due to their extreme rightist views (!) I think americans have become too imersed in their own country to see the global setting in which we all live today.

On that point, in this current global economic system, doctors go to the US for jobs in true innovation; the people who look for new ways to combat cancer and heart disease come to the United States. More doctors immigrate to the US for work than any other nation. If the US goes socialist like the rest of the Western world, where do those doctors go? Where does the drive for innovation go?

 

The most recent research here shows a significant decline in the importance of the US for applicable medican research. Drugs come from the US, new treatments, scanners and progressive use of existing technology often comes from Europe. Concrete examples: new generation CAT scanners, new generation ultrasound scanners, new generation prosthetics, the European Heart Associations dominance in the heart research of exercise as treatment for heart failure etc. Productivity per researcher is significantly higher in Norway, than in the US. It was not like that 10 years ago

 

Have the americans rested on past successes? probably.

I don't know where you live, but i'm assuming it's not europe. The american influence over proceedings here have declined dramatically the last 15 years. Most Europeans look to Europe, because they see themselves as a century ahead of consumerist, egocentric, conservative, selfish, inhumane, individualist, greedy, polluting, fat, torturing, illiberal americans. Did you know it's harder to get asylum in Europe than in the US, because there are more applicants who wish to go to Europe? Maybe america has forgotten about the progress during the last fifty years in the rest of the world? The democrats are a semi-right wing party in European terms. The republicans are right extremists compared to european politics, who are easily compared to neo-nazis due to their extreme rightist views (!) I think americans have become too imersed in their own country to see the global setting in which we all live today.

 

Finally, someone else sees it. The Republicans are extreme-far-right wingers. The Democrats have a few left-wingers, a lot of centrists, and a few conservatives.

 

The most recent research here shows a significant decline in the importance of the US for applicable medican research. Drugs come from the US, new treatments, scanners and progressive use of existing technology often comes from Europe. Concrete examples: new generation CAT scanners, new generation ultrasound scanners, new generation prosthetics, the European Heart Associations dominance in the heart research of exercise as treatment for heart failure etc. Productivity per researcher is significantly higher in Norway, than in the US. It was not like that 10 years ago

 

YEP! As I said, Americans are great at putting out new drugs...except most of these new drugs are barely improvements on their predecessors. They just tweak the drug slightly, and get decades of patent protection keeping the drug high. Patent protection is important in R&D, but this is why the government should be setting prices on drugs. We pay literally 4-6x, sometimes 10x, what Europeans and Canadians pay for the same drugs...just because the drug companies can get away with it here.

hey yall forgot holland

shame on you