jfg wrote:OK, so what's the reasoning? Why is everybody all up in arms that our tax dollars are going to waste now? I am not a huge fan of the bill, but I think it's ridiculous how some have labeled this the decline of Western civilization. Why all of the sudden is this the tipping point?
Broadly speaking, the other misuses have always been so incremental. it's hard not to notice when 17% of your economy suddenly gets turned on its head. That's the stuff of banana republics, not civilized nations.
The public is now more aware than ever on how things proceed in our government and the so called 'back door deals', 'pork barrell spending' and the fact you don't actually have to have a majority to pass a major law like this are all part of the reason people are up in arms. Has this gone on before? Yes. Will it go on in the future? Probably but to what degree who knows. When it happened in the past, nobody was aware of it, or at least a smaller proportion were aware of just how crooked things get in politics. Add to that further governement regulations/takeover or whatever you want to call it over a health system that needs some fixing but they have not shown any ability to control up to this point ie Medicare/Medicaid and social security.
Is it really to pie-in-the-sky to hope for actual bipartisan agreement on something so large as the health care bill? The way this was rushed through before even knowing what is completely in it is just foolish.
The man was voted in office with a campaign centered on the message of change. Not very specific is it? Well, here's a change. I don't know how 'rushed in' it was. If Repubs had their way this wouldn't pass at all. So how long is the administration going to sit there and deal with one filibusterer after another? He's got four years to make progress from this mess or he's voted out. This will be his signature move before the next election and could define his legacy. I doubt it was haphazardly thrown together over a beer and game of dominoes.
I agree with JFG's post. Doesn't seem to be an attack against Republicans. If you feel that way perhaps you need to reevaluate what makes you so defensive. It's directed at the doomsday scenario some people have in regards to... well, just about anything Obama does. Again, he was voted in on a platform of change. He won by a significant margin presumably because that's what the nation needs. Now let him do his thing. Who's more qualified than the current administration to handle the situation?
jfg wrote:So this is finally the tipping point? After trillions of dollars we're finally going to say we've had it? I just don't get why we're supposed to be upset now, and I think most of it has to do with the fact that Obama's name is on it.
What you don't get is you are thinking about better ways to spend our tax dollars instead of realizing the fact that Obama just hit me (and many middle class Americans) with about a $500 per month ADDITIONAL tax on what I'm already paying. Now, if I (or anyone else) didn't have to pay that money, they used funds that were otherwise being wasted or not spent as well, then hey, all would be cool. But that is not what is happening and for whatever reason, you won't take your blinders off and see reality. Here's reality:
My personal household finances just took roughly a $500 per month hit. I'm not supposed to be ticked off about Obama stealing (oh, excuse me...."taxing") me an additional $500 per month for something that will not accomplish the goal of bringing down the cost of health care? Are you serious? Because that's exactly what he did. And yes, I am ticked off about it, and rightfully so.
I'd be just as ticked if it had been Bush, Palin, or any other brain dead idiot that passed this garbage. It has nothing to do with Obama, other than he's the one who forced this through and signed the bill.
urbanbreez wrote:The man was voted in office with a campaign centered on the message of change. Not very specific is it? Well, here's a change. I don't know how 'rushed in' it was. If Repubs had their way this wouldn't pass at all. So how long is the administration going to sit there and deal with one filibusterer after another? He's got four years to make progress from this mess or he's voted out. This will be his signature move before the next election and could define his legacy. I doubt it was haphazardly thrown together over a beer and game of dominoes.
I agree with JFG's post. Doesn't seem to be an attack against Republicans. If you feel that way perhaps you need to reevaluate what makes you so defensive. It's directed at the doomsday scenario some people have in regards to... well, just about anything Obama does. Again, he was voted in on a platform of change. He won by a significant margin presumably because that's what the nation needs. Now let him do his thing. Who's more qualified than the current administration to handle the situation?
Oh, he will certainly be remembered for this, but it will not be favorably. As time passes, the ramifications of this bill get worse and worse.
Since you like "campaign" so much, don't forget the fact that he campaigned that he was not in favor of a mandate on healthcare (in order to get votes), yet here we are with him going back on what he said (bold face lie? matter of opinion, but I vote yes).
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
What's even more telling about this bill is that those who support it cannot provide any benefits. All they say is "Shouldn't people have access to healthcare?" or some such nonsense. Everyone already has healthcare, no one is turned away at a hospital if they are dying. Even if those comments mean "insurance" instead of healthcare, please start giving some benefits to this bill. If it is so "good", then it should be simple to show how, right? So where are all these "wonderful" facts? Those against it have already shown:
Big business gets smacked with higher costs because they are required to provide insurance options to their employees. Employees get smacked with higher costs as their employers pass down some of those costs. Less jobs will be available due to it costing more to hire employees. Salaries will be down in order to compensate for the cost.
Everything under the sun will cost more, as businesses need to earn more in order to cover those extra expenses. The economy will suffer as less people can afford homes and cars, and just generally have less to spend. The middle class cannot afford this bill, so forclosures will rise, bankruptcies will rise, defaulting on car loans will rise, defaulting on credit cards will rise, less people will be able to afford their child support payments (don't tell me that didn't cross anyone's mind?), etc. The reach of that one thing is amazing if anyone truely thinks about where people will default on obligations in order to buy their mandated health insurance.
Health insurance rates will continue to climb. Insurance companies must accept pre-existing conditions, the lifetime cap on what they will pay out has been removed, and they cannot charge X% more to any one group of people. So the only way to cover those additional costs is to raise rates across the board every year and provide even less coverage each time around as well.
A larger percentage of the population is forced into welfare by accepting a government handout in order to purchase their mandated health insurance. Less incentive for people to work hard and succeed. Make $85K per year and get a government handout for your insurance? Don't get a raise! The added salary won't make up for the loss in insurance premiums! That's exactly how food stamps and other government programs for the poor are set up. You move up in the world, but are actually worse off. Yet here's another program to continue that trend rather than fix that whole sad situation. Regardless, it's still yet another negative about this health bill.
The government has already proven they cannot navigate anything as financially massive as this. The budget, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc, has proven the government's track record for failure when it comes to managing money.
The bill does nothing to address the actual costs of healthcare. Mandating insurance does not bring the actual cost down.
Hospitals/doctors will spend even less time with patients since they won't be making as much profit per person, so healthcare (what this is all about) will suffer in both quality and accessibility. Not to mention that those with their "new" health insurance policies will be jamming up the hospitals. I myself have more than one thing I'll be getting checked out if I'm forced to buy insurance. Nothing I can't live with and chalk up to getting older, but if I'm forced to buy insurance, I might as well use it and I'm certainly not the only one who is in that boat.
The #1 cause for filing a bankruptcy is medical bills, and 78% of those people have health insurance.
So there you go. A nice big string of negative effects of this bill, and that's not even all of them, just some basics that jump out. So where's the big list of benefits? Surely if this bill is such a wonderful thing, the list of positives would dwarf this list of negatives I popped off the top of my head.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Saw this conversation and thought I'd chime in. The Washington Post has an interactive tool to tell what the bill will do to you personally. I thought it was interesting.
jfg wrote:OK, so what's the reasoning? Why is everybody all up in arms that our tax dollars are going to waste now? I am not a huge fan of the bill, but I think it's ridiculous how some have labeled this the decline of Western civilization. Why all of the sudden is this the tipping point?
Broadly speaking, the other misuses have always been so incremental. it's hard not to notice when 17% of your economy suddenly gets turned on its head. That's the stuff of banana republics, not civilized nations.
979 billion has been spent on war since 2001... that's incremental?
yeah, war spending is frequently spent as part of multiple supplemental spending bills, so it doesn't get noticed anywhere near something like this. Its incrementally implemented.
Saw this conversation and thought I'd chime in. The Washington Post has an interactive tool to tell what the bill will do to you personally. I thought it was interesting.
What the bill means for your insurance coverage: There will be no change to your insurance coverage.
If you have children, you will be able to keep them on your insurance until they are 26. If you have adult children who don't have access to health insurance through an employer and are between the ages of 22 and 26, you will be able to put them back on your plan beginning in late September.
What the bill means for your taxes: You will not pay any additional taxes.
What the bill means for your insurance coverage: There will be no change to your insurance coverage.
If you have children, you will be able to keep them on your insurance until they are 26. If you have adult children who don't have access to health insurance through an employer and are between the ages of 22 and 26, you will be able to put them back on your plan beginning in late September.
What the bill means for your taxes: You will not pay any additional taxes.
Well, hard to call either of those benefits. Lies is more what they are. Much of this bill reflects Obama's hatred of insurance companies. It's almost like he wants to see them put out of business so health care can only come from the place health care is intended to come from: the government. With all these additional benefits insurance companies are required to provide, are there any liberals naive enough to think their rates won't go up? Don't answer that. So this statement:
There will be no change to your insurance coverage.
should read:
There will be no change to your insurance coverageother than it's going to cost you a hell of a lot more
If you define money the government requires you to pay as not being a tax, then the second statement is partially true. For now. Like all social programs, the cost will soon balloon and you'll see Obama on TV announcing another tax increase to pay for his "enormously successful" program.
I hesitate to jump into this thread 12 pages in, but I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breath to know what I think, so here you go: it won't be as good as supporters claim or as bad as detractors claim, and until huge, sweeping changes are made to the very nature of our health care system, health care in this country will continue to be expensive and inefficient. Those changes, though, will most likely never be made because there is no financial incentive to make them. Currently, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't make money by keeping people from becoming sick, they make money by treating sick people. Until someone can figure out how to pay health care providers for the people that they keep well and don't treat instead of just those that get sick and get treated, we'll continue to have an expensive and inefficient 'sick care' system instead of a health care system.
Art Vandelay wrote:I hesitate to jump into this thread 12 pages in, but I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breath to know what I think, so here you go: it won't be as good as supporters claim or as bad as detractors claim, and until huge, sweeping changes are made to the very nature of our health care system, health care in this country will continue to be expensive and inefficient. Those changes, though, will most likely never be made because there is no financial incentive to make them. Currently, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't make money by keeping people from becoming sick, they make money by treating sick people. Until someone can figure out how to pay health care providers for the people that they keep well and don't treat instead of just those that get sick and get treated, we'll continue to have an expensive and inefficient 'sick care' system instead of a health care system.
Wait, wait, wait. Do you mean to say that this bill will neither bankrupt the middle class NOR completely fix the problems with the current health care system? What are you tryin to pull here, mister...?
Art Vandelay wrote:I hesitate to jump into this thread 12 pages in, but I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breath to know what I think, so here you go: it won't be as good as supporters claim or as bad as detractors claim, and until huge, sweeping changes are made to the very nature of our health care system, health care in this country will continue to be expensive and inefficient. Those changes, though, will most likely never be made because there is no financial incentive to make them. Currently, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't make money by keeping people from becoming sick, they make money by treating sick people. Until someone can figure out how to pay health care providers for the people that they keep well and don't treat instead of just those that get sick and get treated, we'll continue to have an expensive and inefficient 'sick care' system instead of a health care system.
Wait, wait, wait. Do you mean to say that this bill will neither bankrupt the middle class NOR completely fix the problems with the current health care system? What are you tryin to pull here, mister...?
i think he's trying to bring logic into a pollitical argument, which initself is illogical
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by urbanbreez » Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:42 am 
