Healthcare Passes 219-212

• bigmanbt

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard201.html Article about current healthcare.
  
  http://lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe21.html Article about healthcare from 1993! It still relates today, not surprisingly.
• Sage

  

  And no, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing.
  
  It's a Common Sense vs. Stupidity kind of thing.
  
  It's refreshing to be the ones fucking for once after 8 years of being strong-armed by George Bush.
  
  -----------------------------------------
  
  It won't be a perfect switch and the new system won't be perfect. It will, however, be much better than our current system, which is unresponsive to millions of Americans. I look at health care as a civil right, so yea.
  
  ------------------------------------------
  
  Also, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ENDORSED THIS PLAN. Think about that for one second. Put your keyboard down and actually process that information. Then get back to me.
• BCSbunk

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: We are? Please show me evidence to back this ridiculous claim.

  To call the possiblity of bankruptcy ridiculous, only shows your ignorance concerning our long term financial situation. If we stay our course without making significant changes to reduce spending or increase some taxes then we will eventually be brought to that milestone.
  
  Well known economists and politicians alike are sending out the warning.
  
  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/10/movement_warns_of_us_bankruptcy/
  
  This article was written in July, 2008 Since this time the federal debt has increased 30%.
  

  WASHINGTON - A new nationwide campaign is warning Americans that unless the federal government puts its financial house in order, the country could be bankrupt in a generation.
  
  The project, organized by Peter G. Peterson, an investment banker who served as commerce secretary in the Nixon administration, and David M. Walker, the former comptroller general of the United States, aims to build grass-roots support for wholesale changes to the federal budget - though the overhaul would require middle- and upper-income Americans to give up some cherished government benefits.
  
  Peterson and Walker said yesterday that the campaign, sponsored by the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation in New York, will kick off next week with a documentary called "I.O.U.S.A," the first salvo in an aggressive, multimillion dollar effort that will include television advertisements and Internet outreach.
  
  Peterson, the foundation president, and Walker, the chief executive, said the widening gap between government revenues and spending will eventually destroy the confidence in the American economy that has led international lenders to continue to finance the national debt.
  
  "We are going to get a crisis like most Americans have never seen," Walker said during a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
  
  The national debt is now more than $9 trillion.
  
  Government budget analysts predict, however, that at the current pace of government spending the national debt could balloon to more than 250 percent of the gross domestic product by 2040.
  
  Entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare simply will not be able to keep pace with the estimated 77 million members of the baby boomer generation now beginning to retire, Peterson and Walker contend.
  
  About 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security benefits each day for the next two decades, and the government already spends more than $4 on older Americans for every dollar spent on children's education, healthcare, and other basic needs.
  
  If changes are not made soon, new generations of Americans face either crippling tax increases or Draconian cuts in government programs, Peterson and Walker warned. And the result will be sharply higher interest rates; a weaker dollar; higher prices for oil, food, and other necessities; and greater unemployment, according to a new foundation publication called "The State of the Union's Finances - A Citizen's Guide."
  
  Government programs that are required by law, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps, account for more nearly two-thirds of the federal budget. In other words, "62 percent of the budget is on autopilot and it increases every year," said Walker.
  
  The mandatory spending on entitlement programs is ballooning so quickly that "there is no discretionary spending left in 20 to 25 years," Walker said, for needs such as highway maintenance and defense programs.
  
  Heading off disaster will require reining in wasteful and lower priority programs, Peterson said, pointing out that government benefits were originally designed as a safety net for the poorest Americans and that more prosperous Americans who have also grown accustomed to them will have to make sacrifices.
  
  A big target for change must be bringing down the cost of healthcare, a major contributor to higher Medicare costs, according to Walker who as comptroller general oversaw the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
  
  Peterson and Walker said they hope their message will echo on the presidential campaign trail this year.
  
  The foundation plans to meet with advisers to John McCain and Barack Obama and will be evaluating the candidates' policy proposals.
  
  "We are going to do our best to try to make sure it is an issue in the presidential campaign," Walker said.

  Move those goalposts a little further why don't ya?
  
  The post that I responded too made a claim that we are going bankrupt.
  
  I stated to show evidence of that.
  
  Now you move the goalpost from we are going bankrupt to It is possible that we can go bankrupt. That is a fail.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: 2. Why should we be thankful for socialized medicine?

  Let me expand on this a bit.
  
  Why should we be thankful for government expansion?
  Why should be be thankful that the government will cut enormous amounts of cash from already existing programs to put toward their new bill?
  Why should we be thankful that the government is willing to fine/jail the American people in order to coerce them to do its bidding?
  Why should we be thankful that a bloated government, who has never been able to handle any of it's self-given governance programs appropriately, even more power to be ineffecient at?
• QuakerOats

  bigmanbt wrote: And we are going bankrupt from that, and this might be worse.

  
  We are? Please show me evidence to back this ridiculous claim.
  [/quote]
  
  Are you serious? That's why we are even having this whole healthcare debate, because Medicare and Medicaid have made healthcare premiums rise, at a major cost to the American taxpayer. We're only $12 trillion dollars in debt, let's spend more and tax more, so we have even less businesses opening up.
  
  Another thing I don't think anyone has brought up, but it's a good cause and effect relationship. We mandate that you can't deny someone based on pre-existing conditions, and businesses have to provide health insurance or they get fined. Since people with pre-existing conditions will cost more, businesses won't hire them. So now people with pre-existing conditions can get healthcare, but won't be able to get a job. What exactly did we solve?
  [/quote]
  
  Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
• Swamp Fox

  I think the "self-executing rule" is only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court finds it as such. I don't think that has happened yet. (Not to say that it couldn't happen down the road). The point in this instance is now moot anyway, considering that the Democrats elected not to pass it that way, and as I said before, I was very glad they did not go through with that tactic.
• tk421

  

  Sage wrote: And no, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat thing.
  
  It's a Common Sense vs. Stupidity kind of thing.
  
  It's refreshing to be the ones fucking for once after 8 years of being strong-armed by George Bush.
  
  -----------------------------------------
  
  It won't be a perfect switch and the new system won't be perfect. It will, however, be much better than our current system, which is unresponsive to millions of Americans. I look at health care as a civil right, so yea.
  
  ------------------------------------------
  
  Also, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ENDORSED THIS PLAN. Think about that for one second. Put your keyboard down and actually process that information. Then get back to me.

  Keep dreaming. Your health care is no responsibility of anyone else but yourself. This bill won't do a single thing to make our "system" better. That's what is wrong with liberals today, they think that everything should be a civil right provided for by the government, paid for by everyone. I disagree.
• Sage

  

  
  [size=large]DONT TELL REPUBLICANS BUT WE'RE ALREADY BANKRUPT[/size]
• tk421

  

  Sage wrote:
  [size=large]DONT TELL REPUBLICANS BUT WE'RE ALREADY BANKRUPT[/size]

  Well, gee, it makes a lot of sense to expand the government into 1/6th of our economy then, doesn't it? You liberals have no sense at all.
• bigmanbt

  ^^ Lol. Learn some economics will ya. That article was in July 2008, since then we have added $3+ trillion to the deficit, a deficit that cannot be repaid unless we cancel our current spending, which we haven't done cause we are adding $2.5 trillion more onto it this year. We are dangerously close to the deficit levels that Greece has, and look at the financial trouble they are in.
  
  I get it, you're a progressive, and you want to help people. But giving people handouts isn't helping them, it's making them sub-servient. If you really want to help people, you have to give them the freedoms to do what they want, not redistribute the wealth.
  
  Edit: was for BCSbunk
• Sage

  

  I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.
  
  Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.
• tk421

  

  Sage wrote: I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.
  
  Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.

  You THINK we can afford this? Are you purposely obtuse? What exactly leads you to believe we can afford this? Is it the good way the government currently deals with the budget? Is it the very efficient handling of our tax dollars? Maybe the low cost of Medicare/Medicaid? What exactly, besides your blind faith in the Democratic leaders?
  
  Despite what you think, this bill will not make anyone less likely to face bankruptcy due to medical bills. There is no utopia in this country. There never will be.
  
  I could be dying in the middle of the street and I still wouldn't think this bill is a good one. If health care is a right, what about food, water, shelter, clothing? We must give everyone health care, but let's let them starve and be homeless? Where is your democratic compassion for that? Or is it just because the government can't really take over the food/housing industry just yet.
• OneBuckeye

  

  Sage wrote: I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.
  
  Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.

  You are right, this is not the right solution though.
• fish82

  

  I'm glad sage finally spoke up and eased my fears about the country being able to afford this. I feel all better now.
• bigmanbt

  ^Then why not move to one of those countries that provide central economic planning and socialized healthcare? See how long those countries last.
  
  Cancer rates are on the decline by the way, bet you didn't know that.
  
  Progressives, changing and ruining America one piece of legislation at a time.
  
  Edit: to sage
• I Wear Pants

  http://factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/
  

  It’s government-run health care.
  
  Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. These “government-run” claims have also included heavy criticism of health care in the U.K., such as the outrageous assertion by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that seniors would be “too old” to qualify for artificial joints and pacemakers in the U.K. The majority of those getting joint replacements and pacemakers in the U.K. are, not surprisingly, seniors.

• tk421

  

  fish82 wrote: I'm glad sage finally spoke up and eased my fears about the country being able to afford this. I feel all better now.

  Yeah, it's nice to finally know from the liberals on the huddle that we can afford this massive bill. I was worried, but now that they have spoken, I'll breathe easier.
• Sage

  

  We're the richest country in the world guys. I think we can afford it.
  
  Also, love how you're all fiscal conservatives now. I must have missed that call during the Iraq War drum up and the subsequent tax-cuts.
• bigmanbt

  I wish we could stop calling them liberals, they are not liberals in the true definition of the word. They are progressives. As a member of today's libertarian party, and the 1800's version of liberal, I take offense to these people being labeled liberal. Call them what they are, they are progressives plain and simple.
• tk421

  

  Obama lives in a complete fantasy land. Saying that the government is, and I quote,

  "This is what change looks like," Obama said later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of "change we can believe in."
  
  "We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."

  A complete fantasy land. Where exactly does he think this is the will of the people? Can he not read? Nothing like having to go onto the road and try to get the public to like a bill after it's already passed. What's the freaking point?
  
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
• majorspark

  

  BCSbunk wrote: Move those goalposts a little further why don't ya?
  
  The post that I responded too made a claim that we are going bankrupt.
  
  I stated to show evidence of that.
  
  Now you move the goalpost from we are going bankrupt to It is possible that we can go bankrupt. That is a fail.

  There is evidence everywhere that if the federal government does not make significant changes in spending and continue the course it is on. It will go bankrupt and not be able to meet its financial obligations. Maybe the poster you responded to has lost all hope than the feds are going to change. Therefore he believes it is inevitable.
  
  Why don't forget about your little goalposts and provide some evidence showing us that the federal government is not on a course for bankrupcy and a failure to meet is finacial obligations.
• bigmanbt

  Sage wrote: We're the richest country in the world guys. I think we can afford it.
  
  Also, love how you're all fiscal conservatives now. I must have missed that call during the Iraq War drum up and the subsequent tax-cuts.

  Typical, uneducated response. Pick up a book and read sometime. Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek would be a good place to start. All about central economic planning and socialism, which is what this is.
  
  For the record, I hate overseas spending on military as well. We can't afford ANY of it right now.
• tk421

  

  Sage wrote: We're the richest country in the world guys. I think we can afford it.
  
  Also, love how you're all fiscal conservatives now. I must have missed that call during the Iraq War drum up and the subsequent tax-cuts.

  I've been a fiscal conservative since I could vote. And the richest country in the world better seriously start tackling the deficit and paying down the debt, or that position will not last much longer. Liberals wouldn't know anything about that though, because money grows on trees in D.C.
  
  Why should we worry about adding massive debt to an already massive one, cutting Medicare when 70 million baby boomers are going to be using it, etc. It's all good, because Sage said so.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  People will now be less likely to be forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills. Instead they will be forced in bankruptcy because they won't take home enough of their pay to cover their bills.
  
  We are not the richest country in the world. We live like we are because we have a credit card that we thought had no limit. People don't have any clue how bad things will be when we find out their was a limit.
• tk421

  

  majorspark wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: Move those goalposts a little further why don't ya?
  
  The post that I responded too made a claim that we are going bankrupt.
  
  I stated to show evidence of that.
  
  Now you move the goalpost from we are going bankrupt to It is possible that we can go bankrupt. That is a fail.

  There is evidence everywhere that if the federal government does not make significant changes in spending and continue the course it is on. It will go bankrupt and not be able to meet its financial obligations. Maybe the poster you responded to has lost all hope than the feds are going to change. Therefore he believes it is inevitable.
  
  Why don't forget about your little goalposts and provide some evidence showing us that the federal government is not on a course for bankrupcy and a failure to meet is finacial obligations.

  I don't see how anyone could have hope that the government is going to have such a fundamental change and cut back spending to pay off the debt after what they just did in ignoring the will of the public.