<p>I thought CC was supposed to have educated people and therefore people who understand politics.</p>
<p>I guess you can be a nerd and get 2300 on the SAT with a 4.0 UW GPA or you could be attending some top 10 university, but you’ll still be ignorant of the real world useful crap.</p>
<p>You guys need to go and read what is in the bill instead of going hurrrrrrrrrr socialism derp.</p>
<p>Whether they live healthy lifestyles or not has little to do with whether or not they should be given health care. You also miss that not only poor people are overweight/obese.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that in socialism, everybody makes an equal amount of money. Even after this bill, the majority of wealth is still held within the top 10% of income-earners, and we remain a capitalistic society. You clearly DON’T know what socialism is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They will receive a large tax credit that will pay for 50% of the cost. In addition, it’s a basic responsibility that employers have to their employees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you, sir, are an uneducated hillbilly who has watched too much Glenn Beck. This bill is properly accounted for and will greatly improve the quality of living for ALL citizens of the United States. Two-thirds of this bill is ALREADY PAID FOR.</p>
<p>Why work hard? Because if you don’t, then you will end up on the streets without a home or food and will live a miserable life. People don’t lack health care because they are lazy, but because the rates are ridiculous or because they have been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. You would be surprised how many of the uninsured are actually more educated than yourself or are working two or even three jobs just to put food on the table.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drop your holier-than-thou attitude. You put about as much thought into your “argument” as a hamster does into running on the exercise wheel. The fact that you can’t even out-debate a group of high schoolers shows how dumb you really are.</p>
<p>I just find it ironic how an above poster exclaimed that not all obese people are poor, but then again poor people who ARE obese spent their money on food while they could have spent it on something worthwhile, like not food. :o</p>
<p>And you live in a city that’s how large? Whose Internet?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, Reagan reduced taxes. So he gave more money to people. That’s nice of him. He also had record deficits and is largely responsible for the enormity of the debt today. Now I presume that money went somewhere - someone received it. More socialism. Record amounts of socialism.</p>
<p>But in all seriousness, increasing government control isn’t socialist. With all due respect, that’s an idiotic assertion. That’s not to say you’re an idiot, but just think. If I said Mussolini was an anarchist I would fully expect to get flayed alive on here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand. What makes you think that throwing in ridiculous hyperbole is rhetorically effective? And for emotional effect? My gut right now thinks that you have all of the wisdom and perspective of a 5 year old. Next time, consider ethos too, ok?</p>
<p>Wait, what? This bill has nothing to do with government healthcare. The public option, one of the few defensible things in it, was taken out. The bill as it stands basically forces insurance companies to insure people who they will not profit by insuring, then makes up for it by giving them the right to rob people who normally wouldn’t need to buy full coverage.</p>
<p>My city: about 3000 people. My internet: Provided by a private company.</p>
<p>About the only things the government is good at are fighting wars, collecting taxes, and catching criminals. They used to be good at building roads, but that was before the economy went kaput.</p>
<p>That’s right. Increasing government control is moving towards Facism, not Socialism. Socialism is when the government runs industry, as opposed to Capitalism, where individuals each run their own businesses. A Facist Socialist government is what we are moving towards every day, under both the Democrats AND the GOP. I wrote a witty analogy here to explain this, but then erased it as y’all would probably think it was stupid.</p>
<p>“Wait, what? This bill has nothing to do with government healthcare. The public option, one of the few defensible things in it, was taken out. The bill as it stands basically forces insurance companies to insure people who they will not profit by insuring, then makes up for it by giving them the right to rob people who normally wouldn’t need to buy full coverage.”</p>
<p>so you care more abour health care companies making money than people having health insurance ? honestly you are so full of ****, please go get a decent government education. Insurance companies are allowed to drop patients if they get really sick - doesn’t that defeat the point of inusurance ? </p>
<p>Everyone complains about gov. programs being over budget - the reality is that the gov. is for public good - not being under budget. If the USPS didn’t exist do you think a private company would bring us our mail for cheap ? build roads ? who else is going to do this ? all conservatives do is <strong><em>ing complain but they have absolutely nothing to add or say. which is why they always go back to same </em></strong>** scare tactics.</p>
<p>I have a major problem with insurance companies being allowed to force me to buy their product whether it is worth buying or not. I believe I have a right to refuse to buy coverage if I’m not getting a fair value for my money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe. If the patients pay for coverage then the the company should definately give it to them. Also the company should be required to inform the customer exactly what they are getting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s your and my money they’re spending. If it’s over budget, the money will come from somewhere, and somewhere is our pockets, or our children’s pockets.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the roads can’t be built for the price people are willing to pay for them, they shouldn’t be built. Same with the mail. I’m sorry, but the government doesn’t actually have a magic hat to pull money out of.</p>
<p>We’re spending billions of dollars, and yet how can we say we’ve accomplished anything if…</p>
<p>a) we still have the most expensive health care per capita of any developed nation,
b) coverage is not yet (and will not be) universal,
c) no public option was included,
d) a woman’s JUDICIALLY-SANCTIONED RIGHT to abortion was further encroached for a mere SIX votes, and
e) health care is not significantly cheaper?</p>
This is extremely unlikely to work long-term unless it takes over the system and we get single-payer. I’d be cool with that, but let’s not try to pretend that we can have our cake and eat it too in this situation.
Two questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>How are the Bush tax cuts even remotely relevant?</li>
<li>In what ways does this bill enforce more cost-effective medical care (ie rationing)?
Uh, no. You could make a very strong case that the government is obligated to provide everyone with some basic level of healthcare, but employers strike a clear contract with their employees and are under no obligation to do anything of the sort.
Spending money != underestimating the amount things will cost and becoming unsustainably expensive.</li>
</ol>