Well, it passed
- Thread starter agentmanningctu
- Start date
Let's just say this. I will be voting in the 2012 election. It's either gonna be anyone but Obama, or mickey mouse... we'll see. 😛
and how do you figure it will help the economy? Small businesses will be mandated to provide insurance to their employees, which will probably rise in costs, thus burdening them. also the increased taxes will decrease the commerce of the country in general.
and how do you figure it will help the economy? Small businesses will be mandated to provide insurance to their employees, which will probably rise in costs, thus burdening them. also the increased taxes will decrease the commerce of the country in general.
More people going to doctors = more need for nurses, medical staff, doctors. Also more transportation helping companies who make ambulances, helicopters and medical equipment. As well as common necessities in a built up hospital such as pillows/blankets for that industry as well as architecture
Chain reaction :lol:
Chain reaction :lol:
D
Deleted member 1609
Let's just say this: I'll be voting in the 2010 election, and it will be to re-elect the liberal Democrat from my district who supports a public option.
@Snobo: Well okay then. Do remember what happened with Scott Brown in Massachusetts though. :lol:
@THT: Eh, I'm not sure the hospitals can even stand such a large increase in patients. There is talk that doctors would stop making money altogether and the wait times for things like this are already extremely long. As I said, you can wait for 7 hours at the emergency room.
A bill like this will either increase the quality of health care while increasing the costs, or decrease the quality of healthcare while decreasing the costs. It is impossible to magically fix both problems.
@THT: Eh, I'm not sure the hospitals can even stand such a large increase in patients. There is talk that doctors would stop making money altogether and the wait times for things like this are already extremely long. As I said, you can wait for 7 hours at the emergency room.
A bill like this will either increase the quality of health care while increasing the costs, or decrease the quality of healthcare while decreasing the costs. It is impossible to magically fix both problems.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
cosmic said:
So... what you're saying is because this will create more work for doctors and nurses and fill up hospitals, causing longer wait times and inconveniences, so we should go ahead and let people be uninsured and non treated. Sounds absolutely logical.
Things happen. Liberals think that we can fix all the problems of the world and make some sort of ridiculous utopia. This is not possible because humans are flawed. You can not insure everyone and still hold quality. It is impossible. You either do one thing or the other. I assure you, if we add MILLIONs of people to health care quality will drop. This is america. You can get care if you are sick. Doctors will not push you away at the ER because you do not have insurance. Heck, they will not even check if you are a US citizen. One of my relatives died from low quality care and he was insured. This nation is IN AN ABSURD DEBT. We CANNOT afford this healthcare. Us, and the next two or three generations, will be burdened by the debts we put on them. We cannot just destroy this nation by over spending. This nation needs to elect conservative people to the government to make conservative decisions which take the constitution into account. We need to decrease the debt by decreasing spending.
Healthcare can be fixed. the system does need some work, but this is not the way to fix it.
Healthcare can be fixed. the system does need some work, but this is not the way to fix it.
el canadiano
Paragon
Cosmic said:
Your govenment is barely getting in revenue (don't blame that on Obama, the reason is high-class tax cuts). When was the last US president exactly who made a surplus? I didn't think it was Bush. During bad times, how could you not get into red ink? You're telling me you have to cut taxes while cutting spending? As if the American government actually spends.
Clearly with better regulations on what you can and cannot cover, maybe your relative might have gotten a more quality coverage. Condolences to you if it was recently. Mind you, maybe you should show some empathy. How would you feel if you could not get access to health care, especially if the only thing you could afford is fast food and not store-bought organic food?
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
Alright, then go tell all the people who are going to get treated for their cancer because of this bill that they can go screw themselves.Cosmic said:
Nextmastermind
Reputable
I am happy about this news. Without this plan, I would have a really hard time getting health care due to my asthma, flat feet, heart murmur, etc.
D
Deleted member 1609
Yeah. Those health insurance companies NEVER terminated anyone's coverage simply because they got sick. That would be immoral.Cosmic said:
I am very curious indeed as to what ramifications this will have on the "working poor". Rather then get in a pompous "debate" between liberal/conservative, republicans/democrats, etc that will truthfully go nowhere(this is not the first long-winded debate thread on this topic I have seen); I want to see the impact this will have on the one demographic on which this will have the greatest impact. I am talking about the people who live paycheque-to-paycheque and barely "just get by".
The state I live in (Oregon) has amongst the highest income taxes in the country (we do enjoy no sales tax however). My current taxable income fits right between the middle-class and the lower-middle class. That is a position where a dramatic increase in taxes could really put a tailspin on the family budget. For me personally, taxes take up about 20% of my income and the premiums I pay for my employer-subsidized take about 5%. Bear in mind I am an individual with no family or dependents and I maintain fairly minimal coverage.
I may have been looking in the wrong places, but I have yet to find an article that explicitly states what the actual cost for the individual taxpayer will be. I believe that healthcare should be universally available, but I think if people were given an idea on what the actual cost in their day-to-day lives will be, many more will be on board (nearly every article/report I have seen quotes some ambiguous figure ranging in the billions of dollars that truly has no meaning to the average Joe).
The state I live in (Oregon) has amongst the highest income taxes in the country (we do enjoy no sales tax however). My current taxable income fits right between the middle-class and the lower-middle class. That is a position where a dramatic increase in taxes could really put a tailspin on the family budget. For me personally, taxes take up about 20% of my income and the premiums I pay for my employer-subsidized take about 5%. Bear in mind I am an individual with no family or dependents and I maintain fairly minimal coverage.
I may have been looking in the wrong places, but I have yet to find an article that explicitly states what the actual cost for the individual taxpayer will be. I believe that healthcare should be universally available, but I think if people were given an idea on what the actual cost in their day-to-day lives will be, many more will be on board (nearly every article/report I have seen quotes some ambiguous figure ranging in the billions of dollars that truly has no meaning to the average Joe).
@SIO: As no one read the bill until it passed, we are just now getting to analyse it. These articles will exist, but not just yet. Also I'm not even sure the government has that figured out themselves. I think it's very possible that we will get a value added tax on all levels of productions in addition to current taxes, as this has been discussed quite a bit recently. A value added tax would tax a certain percent every time someone added value to an item, so at each step of manufacturing an item this tax would be extracted. This invisible tax would only be seen in store prices.
cityStatic
Seasoned Veteran
Add a few digits before that zero and you're correct. :great:Cosmic said:
In 2006, the amount of people with any form of invasive cancer was 11,028,000. We can assume that 75 percent of these people will have their coverage dropped. That number is now 8,271,000. One third of people with invasive cancer will die of it. This means that 2,729,430 people will die because their coverage was dropped. I believe that ninety percent of people with invasive cancer will have their coverage dropped. If that is the case, 3,275,316 people will die because their coverage was dropped. However, the odds of surviving cancer are lower without any health care, so I'll say fifty percent of people with cancer and no coverage will die of that cancer. In that case, 4,962,600 people will die because insurance companies don't want to pay for expensive surgeries. When malignant people get health care, we can stop most of these deaths because insurance companies can no longer be greedy.
Greedy? They have a 3% profit margin. They will not exist after they are forced to do these things. Do you think they are soulless monsters who say "hmm let's see. Who should I randomly sentence today hehehe". No, they are not. Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is something that costs big $$$ and nothing is free. The government cannot be expected to pay all of your bills because if they do that, please elaborate how they will pay their bills. You guys seriously have no sense of how much peril this country is in. We are going down the bottomless pit of debt and are now 13 trillion feet under. Will falling faster help us come out on top? Of course not! The government cannot pay for what they are promising!
It's funny how the evil soulless cigar chomping executives are always to blame for everything in the minds of liberals. What if the evil soulless cigar chomping congressmen are actually to blame? May I remind you that Barrack Hussein Obama spent half of his life listening to that nut-job Jeremiah Wright? Well, he said this:
"Gob bless america? No, no, no! God Damn America!"
So tell me. How is being financially conscious "evil"? You will probably say "Health care is a right!!! Money is nothing compared to lives!!!!!!!!". Well, tell me then, who will pay for this? I have the answer for you. The ones who will pay for this are our children, our grandchildren, and their children. they will cear the yolk of out of control spending for decades to come.
And trust me, these people will not actually get treated.
It's funny how the evil soulless cigar chomping executives are always to blame for everything in the minds of liberals. What if the evil soulless cigar chomping congressmen are actually to blame? May I remind you that Barrack Hussein Obama spent half of his life listening to that nut-job Jeremiah Wright? Well, he said this:
"Gob bless america? No, no, no! God Damn America!"
So tell me. How is being financially conscious "evil"? You will probably say "Health care is a right!!! Money is nothing compared to lives!!!!!!!!". Well, tell me then, who will pay for this? I have the answer for you. The ones who will pay for this are our children, our grandchildren, and their children. they will cear the yolk of out of control spending for decades to come.
And trust me, these people will not actually get treated.
cityStatic
Seasoned Veteran
Cosmic said:
Not greedy? Americans spend about 2 trillion dollars per year on health insurance. If the companies have a three percent profit, they (combined) make around $60,000,000,000 (sixty billion) a year. Sixty billion dollars! If you take the amount of people who have cancer whose insurance was dropped and paid for different kinds of surgery for each of them, the companies would still make money! Sure, they would make less money, but they would still be in the black. Also, if you say we're paying for this in taxes, the health care companies might make more profit, even if they pay for the treatment of the cancer patients. Currently they make a three percent profit, maybe they'll make a five percent profit.
How pitiful. You resort to the argument against Obama in a topic debating health care reform.
Financially conscious? They refuse to help someone even though they can be helped and they should be helped. For another thing, you'd rather be rich and dead than poor and alive? Although generations to come will pay for this, at least they won't die of a mysterious disease because they don't have health insurance. Money > Life? You'd rather have material objects than human life? Have you seen a baby be born? Life is beautiful and is equivalent to no amount of money, no material objects. We only have one life to live, and you seem to be happier with money than life.
How do you know they won't be treated? Maybe they won't be the first time around, but the government might fine them? I'm sure they'd rather help humans and lose a small amount of money than lose billions because they wouldn't help anyone.
el canadiano
Paragon
Cosmic said:
3% actually is a lot compared to a lot of other companies. When I was working at my McDonald's, our profit margin was barely 1-2%, after you counted in salaries, hydro, water, wages, supplies, etc. As a matter of fact, we were struggling to make a profit even when we were company-owned.
Affiliates
