Health care reform on the way?

KelinciHutan wrote:

By the way, for anyone who is pro-life and reading this, for all that there have been protestations that no federal money will be used to fund abortions, which is nice to hear, as things stand now, there's no reason federal money from this bill can't be used to fund abortions.

I know! It’s like women are federal citizens with a full complement of human rights or something.

KelinciHutan wrote:

You keep conveniently forgetting that premise of opposing abortions is that all humans, regardless of size, development, location, or whatever else you want to throw out there, are people.

Except for women, whose status devolves to that of livestock once they’re pregnant. Dirty little sluts who want an easy way out from the consequences of their filthy whoring by callously murdering a helpless baby, instead of bearing the child and living the rest of their lives away from respectable society, taking the shame of their fornication with them.

Quote :

I'll make you guys a deal. Call your congresspeople--all three of them--and tell them that you want an amendment like the Hyde amendment added to this bill, post their phone numbers so that if you lie to me I at least know you had to google for it, and I'll call mine--all three of them--and tell them I want them to vote for it, provided that kind of language is in there.

And here we have a compulsory pregnancy advocate threatening to hold a healthcare bill hostage until it ensures that a menstruating woman’s right to bodily autonomy is forfeit once there’s a blastocyst in her uterus.

Quote :

If I thought that legislation that banned abortion in all cases but ones where the life of the mother was threatened had a reasonable chance of getting passed, yes I'd be behind it.

At least you’re honest enough to admit you don’t give a flying fuck about pregnant women at all.

Quote :

Given that this eliminates over 90% of abortions

LOL

Quote :

You're clearly not worried about how all this would play out outside of an academic discussion, anyway.

Just as you’re not worried about stripping women of their bodily autonomy.

gaijinguy wrote:

Ceres wrote:

Soooo... you bitch against health care for everyone, yet call yourself pro-life? I guess human life is only important when it's inside mom's belly. But what if mom herself doesn't have health insurance, what about that? Well, I guess it doesn't really matter. Once the little fuckers are born, they should just learn to deal, right?

Spoiler:

I'd like to give everyone good healthcare. I'd also like to snap my fingers and make global warming disappear, chew a stick of gum to solve the Israel-Palestine problem, and maybe do the hokey pokey to get rid of AIDS, just to cap things off.

However, it's not that simple. The Obama administration is already spending money like a drunk sailor on shore leave, only worse, because this sailor has access to his (not to mention everyone else's) credit cards. No stopping when the wallet runs dry here, no siree.

There's no such thing as free healthcare. Everything has to be paid for somewhere, and wanting the already wildly overcommited government to handle it is just plain stupid, especially when you consider the budget entropy that government agencies are prone to. The attempts to stimulate the economy aren't working, so their solution is to keep throwing money at it, without even stopping to consider if the right things are being unstimulatable. After all, look at the state of the tax cuts; they're entirely dependent on the current prevailing political wind, so is any tax cut, at this point, a true permanent change in income, or rather a momentary advantage to be exploited before Washington see-saws back in the other direction? So if you want to bitch about irresponsibility, why not start with the part where you want the entire country to underwrite your grade-school world-saving fantasies, the costs be damned?

English Major Version: We can't pay for this shit.

Since when did that make it not a worthwhile investment?

Bamshalam wrote:

Since when did that make it not a worthwhile investment?

You know what's a worthwhile investment? A million shares of Microsoft. A metric ton of gold. A trillion-dollar mutual fund. Any one of those things would pretty much set me up for life.

But guess what, I can't pay for any of them, not without incurring a level of debt that would make me worse off than before in the final accounting. Yes, it's an excellent investment, but that doesn't matter; the fact that we can't pay for it makes the whole thing moot.

so, how are those Goverment-run health care systems working out for you?

Cyberwulf wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We've had this discussion before. I think you don't care about the people you'd be killing, you think I don't care about the people this would force to carry pregnancies to term. You know what I'd say next, and I know what you'll say after that. I'm just going to skip to the end of it where we still disagree with each other.

Nihilist wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

Maximilia wrote:

WOW! I think this is a record. Health care wank turning into abortion wank in less than 2 pages?

I did post a warning.

PUNCH THOSE ROCKS LIKE YOU MEAN IT

You're right. Next time, I'll spoiler tag it, too!

I stand by my deal. If one American here in support of this bill will call their three congress people and ask that something like the Hyde amendment be added to it (or, rather, maintain the status quo with regards to federal funding of abortions) and post their numbers so I will know that if you did lie you at least did a Google search beforehand, I will call mine and ask them to support this bill with no ifs, ands, buts, riders, or qualifications but for this one (or, rather, I'll surrender all my other objections). I'm dead serious.

KelinciHutan wrote:

you think I don't care about the people this would force to carry pregnancies to term.

I know you don't care about them. You admitted it.

Quote :

I stand by my deal. If one American here in support of this bill will call their three congress people and ask that something like the Hyde amendment be added to it (or, rather, maintain the status quo with regards to federal funding of abortions) and post their numbers so I will know that if you did lie you at least did a Google search beforehand, I will call mine and ask them to support this bill with no ifs, ands, buts, riders, or qualifications but for this one (or, rather, I'll surrender all my other objections). I'm dead serious.

IOW, make sure to restrict women's rights and you'll vote to give Americans a better shot at healthcare and health insurance.

Did you know that currently insurance companies count rape and domestic abuse as "pre-existing conditions"? Oh wait, you only care about teh precious ickle baybies. Battered women who can't get health insurance can suck it, you need that ban on federal funding.

Sick.

Cyberwulf wrote:

moar words

See? I didn't even have to say my bit, and you still made it to your next line on cue and with flair. Seriously, enough is enough. You're never going to bend on this and neither will I.

KelinciHutan wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] See? I didn't even have to say my bit, and you still made it to your next line on cue and with flair. Seriously, enough is enough.

As an advocate of compulsory pregnancy, I know your deepest wish is to be able to control the actions of all women everywhere to ensure they conform to your view of morality, but since it hasn't come true yet I think I'll harp on this as long as I please, thank you.

gaijinguy wrote:

English Major Version: We can't pay for this shit.

THINK OF THE WALLET, BENEFITS BE DAMNED!

Listen, I won't preach morality, the ethical way, compassion, or the right to be healthy, because I don't believe republicans are capable of understanding any of those things.

No, I want to tell you that being against UHC (or its variants or step towards it) means you are against small businesses. It's simple, small business can not afford employee health insurance, or if they offer it anyway, are at risk of bankruptcy if the premiums go up.

What does that mean? It means large corporations pretty much have a monopoly on good educated labor, with their (shitty) employee blackmailhealth care, while small businesses get to eat shit.

If you had UHC, you economy would improve.

unskilled78 wrote:

so, how are those Goverment-run health care systems working out for you?

Quite nice, thank you. Excuse me, while come into any walk-in clinic, flash my OHIP and visit a doctor completely for free and get medication for pittance.

Also, I can match every one of the 100 poor shlubs who got screwed by NHC(AHAHAHAH no, more than half of stories sound like doctor incompetence, which is everywhere) with 10 who didn't and 20 who got screwed by private insurance. (Or can I? Yes I can, it will take too long)

gaijinguy wrote:

English Major Version: We can't pay for this shit.

But you (general US you) can't afford to pay for what you have now - you're paying in terms of things like the life expectancy of the poor, and your treatment of people with disabilities.

Look at the figures; 15% of your gross domestic product goes on healthcare. That's a huge expenditure on the part of every man, woman and child in the US and the US ranks at 37th. For that level of expenditure, that's a poor outcome.

The best healthcare in the world, according to the World Health Organisation, is provided by the French and they spend 11% of their GDP. The UK comes 18th and they spend 8%.

The question then becomes not can you afford it, but can you afford not to reform?


Sources
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

unskilled78 wrote:

so, how are those Goverment-run health care systems working out for you?

Despite the claims in your document, absolutely fine, actually. My doctor visits are free and as I pay for my medicines on a pre-pay system I pay £10 a month for them, (about $15) however many are dispensed. Last time I needed to go to the hospital I waited 2 months and I see a different specialist every two months, all for free.

Nobody has yet tried to prevent me from seeing anyone I've needed to on the grounds that I have pre-existing conditions. And, boy, do I have pre-existing conditions.

My 84 year old mother, kept in her own home (which is her wish) by the NHS says the same, btw. She gets home visits from her doctors when she needs them - how many people in the US can claim that?

gaijinguy wrote:

But guess what, I can't pay for any of them, not without incurring a level of debt that would make me worse off than before in the final accounting. Yes, it's an excellent investment, but that doesn't matter; the fact that we can't pay for it makes the whole thing moot.

You do realize that very, very few people would be in college right now if they subscribed to that mindset, right?

And ignoring that, this isn't just about this presidential term, or the next eight years, or even our generation. We have an oppurtunity now to give our children, and their children, something better than the bullshit we've got now.

Bamshalam wrote:

You do realize that very, very few people would be in college right now if they subscribed to that mindset, right?

Don't be ridiculous; college is a time-value-of-money question, banking on the future earning potential provided by a degree as opposed to the the reduced present earning potential now. Beyond a certain threshold, more money in the future is in fact worth more than less money now.

Bamshalam wrote:

And ignoring that, this isn't just about this presidential term, or the
next eight years, or even our generation. We have an oppurtunity now to
give our children, and their children, something better than the
bullshit we've got now.

"Something better" isn't a commodity; it's not something we can strip for value when the bills start falling due. Somehow I doubt that future generations will appreciate us leaving them bankrupt, either.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario.

Incidentally, Lexin, that goes for you too. Bear in mind, the United States is a country plagued by it's illegal immigration issues and unfunded mandates. I definately agree that reform is necessary, but "reform" and "letting the government do everything" aren't the same thing, especially in a country where it's the lack of government control that so heavily burdens the system in the first place.

Quick, Psy, get me some smugdog, STAT!

I think that in the circumstances, an NHS for the USA would be great but the best part is the restrictions on the Insurance Industry.

Sorsa A. Jänis wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Raine wrote:

theweirdkind wrote:

Raine wrote:

Why is this in the awful section...? I'm confused.

Because it controversial.

But... Australia already has Medicare. Don't you guys want to be like your bestest friend Australia? All the cool kids are doing it.

Well, it's not like you're going to use it for anything cool anyway... like after a hard day of wrestling crocodiles, punching sharks and battling deadly spiders. Yes, even Aussies need to go down to the hospital after a day like that - only to ask for a bandaid though, of course.

I should point out that the Brits have it too: this is for when we cut ourselves on a teacup or get hit by a cricket ball.

We Finns have it too: It's for when we get beaten up by a bear after we have wrestled with it or when we accidentally hit a tree after practising rally driving.

Sweden has public health care too - it's for when we drink too much during big holidays and need to, you know, go in and get a new liver and every now and then. Unlike Finns, who have to go in every weekend to get a new one - crazy alcoholics, the lot of them. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am not well-read enough on this subject to really chime in with any well-grounded opinion, but to me, opposing a bill that would give almost all Americans decent health care is hard to believe. Here, the only people who DON'T have access to decent health care are those illegal, paperless refugees/immigrants who are invisible to the system at large. Anyone and everyone else does, though. Mind you, we do have high taxes, which help pay for all of this.

frostflowers wrote:

Mind you, we do have high taxes, which help pay for all of this.

If you add the cost of paying for healthcare (copays and the cost of insurance) to their taxes, so do most people in the US. They just don't think of it that way.

In the case of rape or incest, just how do you think that's going to work, KelinciHutan? A little check box, check one or both? Do you have to have someone prosecuted for it, in which case the baby is already born? Does it have to be reported, in which case women in a situation where they CANNOT report it are SOL? Do they have to give extremely personal information about an incredibly traumatic event to someone who then arbitrarily decides if they were 'really' raped or not?

Babies and children are dying or very sick RIGHT NOW because they cannot get adequate health care. Oh, I forgot, they've already been born, so fuck 'em. e_e

gaijinguy wrote:

Quick, Psy, get me some smugdog, STAT!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Delivered.

A free healthcare system would mean you no longer paid for an ambulance ride, or had to rely on insurance companies who will find any reason to not pay up, "Oh, we can't pay for your new liver because you didn't tell us about the time you broke your toe".

(And they don't pay the whole amount either, if they can help it at all)

Thing about free healthcare, is that if it's free, if those insurance bastards want to stay in business, they'll have to give better deals and not be such absolute fuckers about paying up.

Free healthcare doesn't get rid of health insurance. It just gives those fuckers a good kick in the balls.

And it's not like here in the U of K the NHS pays for everything. It doesn't pay for cosmetic surgery, and it doesn't pay for experimental drugs. And it doesn't pay for pharmaceutical drugs (unless you've got a repeat prescription) or experimental procedures.

But at least you don't pay for your ambulance ride or cancer treatment or your epilepsy medication.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You're all a bunch of morons.

You guys. I stop going on the forum for A DAY because I'm busy and THIS happens.

Fuck you all. I always miss the juiciest wank.

Psy-4 wrote:

Listen, I won't preach morality, the ethical way, compassion, or the right to be healthy, because I don't believe republicans are capable of understanding any of those things.

You'd best be trollin'.

Cyberwulf, your arguments would work better if you actually addressed what the other person was saying directly. I tend to understand your points (mostly because I think I probably agree with you? Maybe?) but you need to actually put forth counterarguments rather than just yelling.

WANK ON
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

unskilled78 wrote:

so, how are those Goverment-run health care systems working out for you?

How is that for-profit health care working for you?

Dr. Professor Science wrote:

Cyberwulf, your arguments would work better if you actually addressed what the other person was saying directly. I tend to understand your points (mostly because I think I probably agree with you? Maybe?) but you need to actually put forth counterarguments rather than just yelling.

Well Doc I didn't write those rants for the lieks of [/MELISSA]

Nihilist wrote:

PUNCH THOSE ROCKS LIKE YOU MEAN IT

YAY WANK PARTY