Nationalized Health Care

[sailorseal]

Why do you oppose it?

[Serbia]

Nothing better to do.

[Phatscotty]

Why do you oppose it?

boredom

[GabonX]

Why do you oppose it?

In and of itself it would be a good thing, but the bottom line is that the terms of this particular plan are unacceptable to most Americans. Also, the fact that people are trying to cram the legislation down our throats despite this and despite the fact that MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT is cause for great concern.

If they could achieve some kind of system which would not cross the lines that we know this one does that would be fine, but it may not be possible.

[Phatscotty]

Why do you oppose it?

See, America has just had a LOT of things crammed down our throat we didn't want. We the citizens are standing up against it, fate and destiny in our own hands! DON'T TREAD ON ME!

[Frigidus]

MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT

Our system elects those that can run a campaign, not those that can run a country. It's depressing, but it's the truth.

[GabonX]

MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT

Our system elects those that can run a campaign, not those that can run a country. It's depressing, but it's the truth.

We can agree on that.

Interestingly enough, with the technology we have today we could feasibly create a TRUE and functioning democracy where people vote directly on the issues, though I don't think that debate is going to start in Washington...

[Phatscotty]

MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT

Our system elects those that can run a campaign, not those that can run a country. It's depressing, but it's the truth.

Spot on

[Frigidus]

MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT

Our system elects those that can run a campaign, not those that can run a country. It's depressing, but it's the truth.

We can agree on that.

Interestingly enough, with the technology we have today we could feasibly create a TRUE and functioning democracy where people vote directly on the issues, though I don't think that debate is going to start in Washington...

Certainly not. I've considered that as well, the original purpose of a representative democracy was to overcome the infeasibility of a true democracy. Now that we have the internet, it seems somewhat more realistic. Although there certainly would be problems with such a system (I imagine actions taken by a true democracy would be much more knee-jerky), I sometimes wonder how much worse it could be than the corrupt heap of fail we've got running the place right now.

[SultanOfSurreal]

MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT

Our system elects those that can run a campaign, not those that can run a country. It's depressing, but it's the truth.

We can agree on that.

Interestingly enough, with the technology we have today we could feasibly create a TRUE and functioning democracy where people vote directly on the issues, though I don't think that debate is going to start in Washington...

direct democracy is a fucking nightmare BEFORE you institute a method of voting that lets 4chan stuff the ballot box, let's not get carried away here democracy-man

[GabonX]

I'm glad to see that the two of you have a newfound appreciation for our Constitution

[PLAYER57832]

Why do you oppose it?

In and of itself it would be a good thing, but the bottom line is that the terms of this particular plan are unacceptable to most Americans. Also, the fact that people are trying to cram the legislation down our throats despite this and despite the fact that MOST LEGISLATORS HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT is cause for great concern.

This is just wrong. The truth is that when people read and understnad what is actually in the bill, as opposed to the right wing "translations", they really are in favor of this bill OR a far more socialized, single-payor system.

[ If they could achieve some kind of system which would not cross the lines that we know this one does that would be fine, but it may not be possible.

Which lines, specifically?

All I have heard from you are accusations that this will lead to some kind of socialized takeover of our country. Seems that was the cry back when Medicare was introduced. Funny how we haven't suddenly become communist as a result and most of our parents/grandparents (the generation who fought WWII, etc. -- not exactly liberal patsies!) were all pretty happy to have it!

[pimpdave]

[Serbia]

This is just wrong. The truth is that when people read and understnad what is actually in the bill, as opposed to the right wing "translations", they really are in favor of this bill OR a far more socialized, single-payor system.

It is impossible that I'll read or hear anything funnier than this at any point of the day.

[got tonkaed]

This is just wrong. The truth is that when people read and understnad what is actually in the bill, as opposed to the right wing "translations", they really are in favor of this bill OR a far more socialized, single-payor system.

It is impossible that I'll read or hear anything funnier than this at any point of the day.

Even i have to admit, typically when anyone says if only they understood better they would agree, its not usually a good sign. As you know, i am part of the pinko-fascist thought control group, so my lack of endorsement here should count for something.

[GabonX]

If they could achieve some kind of system which would not cross the lines that we know this one does that would be fine, but it may not be possible.

Which lines, specifically?

All I have heard from you are accusations that this will lead to some kind of socialized takeover of our country. Seems that was the cry back when Medicare was introduced. Funny how we haven't suddenly become communist as a result and most of our parents/grandparents (the generation who fought WWII, etc. -- not exactly liberal patsies!) were all pretty happy to have it!

Specifically the Bill is too damn long. I am for less bureaucracy and Government intrusion into my life, not 1000 pages more of it. I don't trust it because it is purposefully written in such a way so that we are not supposed to understand it. And for the record the fact that we have Medicare, and that the government is proposing to take MORE control, is evidence of increasing socialization in and of itself...

Give me a link to the bill. I've read portions before but I'm having trouble finding the document now.

[lgoasklucyl]

...I'm having trouble finding the document now.

Duh. How else would they make it even more difficult to read than simply hiding it from people?

[GabonX]

...I'm having trouble finding the document now.

Duh. How else would they make it even more difficult to read than simply hiding it from people?

By hiding key clauses among 999 other pages of garbage

By "amending" other pieces of legislation within the bill so that even if you read the whole thing you still cannot possibly understand what the proposal does

By using language that only lawyers and those with above average reading comprehension skills can understand

[Titanic]

...I'm having trouble finding the document now.

Duh. How else would they make it even more difficult to read than simply hiding it from people?

By hiding key clauses among 999 other pages of garbage

By "amending" other pieces of legislation within the bill so that even if you read the whole thing you still cannot possibly understand what the proposal does

By using language that only lawyers and those with above average reading comprehension skills can understand

To be fair, both parties do that in almost all of the bills that they pass. Its not just specific to this bill.

[GabonX]

No it's not.

It is a real problem.

[lgoasklucyl]

He's super cereal guys.

Super cereal! Bighiddenwords are a serious threat!

[PLAYER57832]

This is just wrong. The truth is that when people read and understnad what is actually in the bill, as opposed to the right wing "translations", they really are in favor of this bill OR a far more socialized, single-payor system.

It is impossible that I'll read or hear anything funnier than this at any point of the day.

Even i have to admit, typically when anyone says if only they understood better they would agree, its not usually a good sign. As you know, i am part of the pinko-fascist thought control group, so my lack of endorsement here should count for something.

True, though this was just an "in brief".

Specifically, the biggest objections have been "this will lead to a government takeover" or "this is socialism" and they are bad, regardless of the result.

Talk of everything from euthanasia (not you S., I admit) to the classic (cannot remember who) of someone saying "we don't need a death board", I just want someone to sit down and talk to [my grandmother], to give [my grandmother] options. Except -- that was exactly what the provision was about. Giving doctors payment for those talks AND creating some better guidelines that will get doctors dealing with terminal illness from thinking they have to do every last thing "possible" up to the very moment of death, whether it will really help the patient feel better or not.

Then, the ultimate red herring, that nationalized options will result in less research. Irony is most of the truly groundbreaking research is conducted by the NIH (national institute for health) in the US right now. Private companies come up with stuff like Viagra and medications for "illnesses" most people did not even realize were illnesses until the ads started.

I ask 4 basic questions.

1. Has the cost of your insurance gone up in the past 3 years?

2. Have your benefits gone down in the past 3 years?

3. What kind of care can you get before you exceed your lifetime limit?

4. What is the number one cost for healthcare providers today (hint-- it is not lawsuits! --- it is paperwork )?

Look at that list and explain how keeping insurance fully private will fix any of those issues.

Now, look at those countries that have various forms of private/public combinations or even fully national care and see if the results really and truly are so much worse than here. Truth is, they are not. Yes, you can find "horror" stories... and I can point you to far, far more having to do with insurance companies. Not just people left without insurance because they got sick, but people who have insurance, but have to wait to get "approval" until its really to late, who get denied claims that sure seemed like they were covered in company literature... etc.

[GabonX]

You fundamentally don't understand the issue.

This is not about health care, but rather what we have to give up for it and what the implications of the government being able to dictate things (anything) to us are.

Health care itself is only a secondary concern in this debate to the majority of people.

[PLAYER57832]

You fundamentally don't understand the issue.

This is not about health care, but rather what we have to give up for it and what the implications of the government being able to dictate things (anything) to us are.

Health care itself is only a secondary concern in this debate to the majority of people.

Seems like that was the argument under Truman, under Kennedy ... etc.

Seems like it really IS about health care, but since you have already said the bill is just too long for you to read, how can you possibly believe you understand what is in it?

[Frigidus]

You fundamentally don't understand the issue.

This is not about health care, but rather what we have to give up for it and what the implications of the government being able to dictate things (anything) to us are.

Health care itself is only a secondary concern in this debate to the majority of people.

Seems like that was the argument under Truman, under Kennedy ... etc.

Seems like it really IS about health care, but since you have already said the bill is just too long for you to read, how can you possibly believe you understand what is in it?

Yeah, I've got to say, it certainly is about healthcare for me. I don't think any of the bill's proponents are talking about how great it will be to dictate stuff to people.