General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Vote McCain!
Retardism
 
Vote McCain!'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
It's not about helping your neighbor. Many people including myself believe that this will make the entire system worse for all of us.

It's about spreading out the risk posed by people with poor health, and switching from an emphasis on providing emergency care to preventative care, which costs less over time.
Old 11-10-2009, 12:20 PM Vote McCain! is offline  
Reply With Quote
#16  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vote McCain! View Post
It's about spreading out the risk posed by people with poor health, and switching from an emphasis on providing emergency care to preventative care, which costs less over time.

No, it's about spreading COMMUNISM!
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 11-10-2009, 12:59 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#17  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
It's not about helping your neighbor. Many people including myself believe that this will make the entire system worse for all of us.

A public health care system is not inherently flawed. Perhaps our implementation will be since the US has a great history of fucking shit up.
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 11-10-2009, 02:35 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#18  

SoulChaser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Lieberman has already said he wouldn't vote for a bill with a public option... so it stands pretty much at 59-41 in the senate. Expect this to get filibustered into oblivion.

15 percent (39 reps) of democrats in the house voted against it, right before the public abortion clause was changed they estimate 80 democrats would have voted against it.

I believe senators are far less likely to do what the party wants then the reps, it will come down to wether blue dogs think that supporting it will get them voted out of office when reelection comes.
Old 11-10-2009, 02:42 PM SoulChaser is offline  
Reply With Quote
#19  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulChaser View Post

I believe senators are far less likely to do what the party wants then the reps,

Ignoring the issue at hand, that's the way it's supposed to be. Senators are supposed to represent state governments, not the population.
Old 11-11-2009, 07:51 AM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#20  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vote McCain! View Post
It's about spreading out the risk posed by people with poor health, and switching from an emphasis on providing emergency care to preventative care, which costs less over time.

That's a reasonable idea but it's simply not valid in this case.
Americans' unhealthy lifestyle will not be changed with a simple piece of legislation.

Fat people don't get heart disease because they aren't told to lose weight.

Most people don't get cancer because they don't go to the doctor regularly. A conscientious man doesn't ignore colo-rectal exams because the doctor charges $100 for them.

People don't ignore vaccinations because they're too expensive.

I hate the cliche but you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Maybe there are a few situations in which people really do avoid these things due to monetary issues but I do not believe that to be the prevailing reason.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-11-2009, 09:03 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#21  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by :ninja: View Post
A public health care system is not inherently flawed. Perhaps our implementation will be since the US has a great history of fucking shit up.

In this reality, we're dealing exclusively with the American implementation of such a system.
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-11-2009, 09:04 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#22  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
The public option was dropped lmao
Old 12-10-2009, 10:23 AM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#23  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Ignoring the issue at hand, that's the way it's supposed to be. Senators are supposed to represent state governments, not the population.

Sure does make me sad to see direct representation at the federal level in a democracy. If only we could go back to the good old days of the State legislatures electing Senators so corrupt there was a popular movement to make them directly electable.
Old 12-10-2009, 10:25 AM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#24  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by curdledvomit View Post
say good bye to your freedom. say hello to the Marxists. Say hello to higher insurance, higher taxes and less coverage. I admit the insurance laws need to be reformed but this is nothing more than a huge raise for the trial layers. America will suffer. I can,t imagine this passing the senate. God help us all.

if you're gonna quote TV ads mindlessly we would prefer better ones.
Old 12-13-2009, 02:32 AM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#25  

louiethecat
 
I am by no means an expert on politics, so bear with me...

I have to say that I have mixed feelings about the bill. My first initial reaction was, "YAY! I CAN AFFORD MY OWN INSURANCE NOW!" but my other reaction was "HOLY SHIT MY TAXES ARE GOING TO SKYROCKET!"

I'm glad that the government is stepping in and reforming some of the that insurance companies put us through; Last year a friend's insurance refused to cover a dental filling because it was deemed "pre-existing", thus having her to live with a painful cavity in her tooth untill she could come up with enough money for the procedure.

My main concern is that this will lead to an influx of douchebags leeching off of the rest of us...not unlike how people tend to leech off of the welfare system. However, on the other hand, this will hopefully lead to more healthcare jobs...of which I am currently looking for.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the public healthcare option gives coverage for mental health care as well? That is one thing that I honestly hope DOES happen.

Oh god, the hospital is going to turn into a DMV though.
__________________
oh my dog... oh long john... oh long johnson... oh don piano... why i eyes ya... all the live long day...

damnit, all logic does is make threads like this uninteresting, why'd you have to go and be logical?
-I <3 EFI CARB SUCKS
Old 12-13-2009, 10:18 PM louiethecat is offline  
Reply With Quote
#26  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Sure does make me sad to see direct representation at the federal level in a democracy. If only we could go back to the good old days of the State legislatures electing Senators so corrupt there was a popular movement to make them directly electable.

yes, people doing a bad job of electing their state legislatures are sure going to do a great job of electing their congressional senators!

and you grossly overestimate how popular that movement actually was. then again, it's not like we have any other form of directly elected representation in government that's inherently designed to represent the people by population

whew. crisis averted
Old 12-13-2009, 11:22 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#27  

dovvie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
That's a reasonable idea but it's simply not valid in this case.
Americans' unhealthy lifestyle will not be changed with a simple piece of legislation.

Fat people don't get heart disease because they aren't told to lose weight.

Most people don't get cancer because they don't go to the doctor regularly. A conscientious man doesn't ignore colo-rectal exams because the doctor charges $100 for them.

People don't ignore vaccinations because they're too expensive.

I hate the cliche but you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Maybe there are a few situations in which people really do avoid these things due to monetary issues but I do not believe that to be the prevailing reason.

Wow, this is beyond retarded. Have you ever even met someone that isn't (upper) middle class or didn't graduate college? In a country where single parents work 3 jobs just to pay the rent and feed their children, do you really think long term health is a priority?
There's a lot of evidence in favour of free/cheap primary care and its positive effects on community health are well documented.
Old 12-14-2009, 11:30 PM dovvie is offline  
Reply With Quote
#28  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dovvie View Post
Wow, this is beyond retarded. Have you ever even met someone that isn't (upper) middle class or didn't graduate college? In a country where single parents work 3 jobs just to pay the rent and feed their children, do you really think long term health is a priority?
There's a lot of evidence in favour of free/cheap primary care and its positive effects on community health are well documented.

I disagree; particularly because free clinics are pervasive already for these situations and knowledge of "healthy habits" are widespread.
People in the United States know that BigMacs are unhealthy. They know that smoking is unhealthy. They know that alcoholism is unhealthy. Otherwise you must be contending that the single parents working 3 jobs just to pay the rent and feed their children are stupid or otherwise unwilling to see the obvious. In which case nothing short of forcing them to get treatment will affect their "long term health"

If you're going to call me "beyond retarded" I think I'm entitled to some counter-examples and rationale as to how you think "free" health-care will keep people from living sedentary lives and result in more physical exercise.
__________________
09 F9

Last edited by Zangmonkey; 12-14-2009 at 11:47 PM..
Old 12-14-2009, 11:42 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#29  

Trachei
 
Trachei's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
I disagree; particularly because free clinics are pervasive already for these situations and knowledge of "healthy habits" are widespread.
People in the United States know that BigMacs are unhealthy. They know that smoking is unhealthy. They know that alcoholism is unhealthy. Otherwise you must be contending that the single parents working 3 jobs just to pay the rent and feed their children are stupid or otherwise unwilling to see the obvious. In which case nothing short of forcing them to get treatment will affect their "long term health"

If you're going to call me "beyond retarded" I think I'm entitled to some counter-examples and rationale as to how you think "free" health-care will keep people from living sedentary lives and result in more physical exercise.

Because it's free. Duh.
Old 12-15-2009, 12:43 AM Trachei is offline  
Reply With Quote
#30  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.