# Historic Health Care Bill Passes Congress: Just the Beginning



## Suzuku (Mar 21, 2010)

> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation Sunday night extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage.
> 
> Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote, with Republicans unanimous in opposition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

Goddamn, you made the thread before the voting was over and an article was up?


----------



## Weaboo (Mar 21, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Goddamn, you made the thread before the voting was over and an article was up?



Simply a revolutionary idea!


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 21, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Goddamn, you made the thread before the voting was over and an article was up?


I made it the second the vote was over. :3


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 21, 2010)

Im in favor of the bill, but I have a question? Will it be even harder to find jobs now since there will be lower wages and more taxes and such?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2010)

Looks like we better all get out slickers out, there's going to be a shitstorm tomorrow.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

typhoon72 said:


> Im in favor of the bill, but I have a question? Will it be even harder to find jobs now since there will be lower wages and more taxes and such?



That was exactly what Obama addressed yesterday in his speech to the House, it was pretty good too, he's back in campaign mode-type rhetoric.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2010)

Mider T said:


> That was exactly what Obama addressed yesterday in his speech to the House, it was pretty good too, he's back in campaign mode-type rhetoric.


What did he say?


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 21, 2010)

Do you know what he said? Or have a google link or something? (theres reps in it for ya)


----------



## Quincy James (Mar 21, 2010)

Fuck. Yes.


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 21, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What did he say?





typhoon72 said:


> Do you know what he said? Or have a google link or something? (theres reps in it for ya)


----------



## Ceria (Mar 21, 2010)

what the fuck were they thinking...  

right idea, wrong timing. fix our debts then we can talk about healthcare


----------



## T7 Bateman (Mar 21, 2010)

Watching the vote was so entertaining. You had yelling, clapping, and booing. All in all the bill passed. Now that's over let's see where we go from here.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

The one it George Mason was even more invigorating, which is to be expected since it was towards the people

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVGjflER9kI[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUHZFsQofeo&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuX44I0q9WI&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bender (Mar 21, 2010)

This bill giga drilled through the Repubs   pierced the heavens and came back down to Earth. 



And ya know what else? 






 It was fucking epic


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 21, 2010)

2 Cheers for Healthcare reform, but not 3.


----------



## Bender (Mar 21, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Looks like we better all get out slickers out, there's going to be a shitstorm tomorrow.



Bring it on 

Faux news all day tomorrow

I want baaaaaaaawing of epic proportions


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 21, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> what the fuck were they thinking...
> 
> right idea, wrong timing. fix our debts then we can talk about healthcare



The debt is directly connected to the healthcare Ceria  Its 1/6th of the economy


----------



## Oil Can (Mar 21, 2010)

Turn on Fox News.
Seriously.
There is so much Lul its ridiculous.


----------



## Shiron (Mar 21, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> what the fuck were they thinking...
> 
> right idea, wrong timing. fix our debts then we can talk about healthcare


People's health can't wait for debts to be fixed. Your priorities are mixed up if debts that will probably never be repaid are more important than people's health. Besides, the bill is supposed to fix a lot of wasteful spending that's going on in order to help pay for itself and save money, so it's hardly as big of a deal in that sense as it might seem.

In any case though, glad to see that this finally passed.


----------



## Chee (Mar 21, 2010)

My parents kept flipping it to Fox News during Breaking Bad. That enough made me hate Fox News, just the fact that it was interrupting my show and not their views.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

Here's the final Passage vote, no sweat, let's see who still tries to obstruct (like it'll be a surprise)


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2010)

All the people who don't like this... suck my balls. Haha! Let the negs begin.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Mar 21, 2010)

LULZ. who's ready to give obama permanent executive powers. he's doing it right. 
also... wouldn't it be easier to get jobs now that everyone will have healthcare? I seem to remember that being a major piss in the eye to the working man. benefits costing companies to much so they downsize... gross.


----------



## Bender (Mar 21, 2010)

I predict mass suicide from Tea partiers


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 21, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> what the fuck were they thinking...
> 
> right idea, wrong timing. fix our debts then we can talk about healthcare



Deficit spending is how you manage a depression. I, for one, would prefer not to see the economic tailspin into 25 percent unemployment.


----------



## iander (Mar 21, 2010)

Last vote passes, good game GOP


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

One side of the chamber in particular has already started clearing out


----------



## uchia2000 (Mar 21, 2010)

The GOP just got bitchslapped. About fucking time.


----------



## iander (Mar 21, 2010)

One dem voted against the bill but voted yes on the reconciliation vote.


----------



## Grandia (Mar 21, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> I predict mass suicide from Tea partiers



the sooner we kill off the bigoted old people the better


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

iander said:


> One dem voted against the bill but voted yes on the reconciliation vote.



Reality check, now he's pissed off his constituents gg if he's up for reelection this November.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Mar 21, 2010)

Ahem...


*Spoiler*: __ 




YES WE CAN! 








> For the first time in our nation's history, Congress has passed comprehensive health care reform. America waited a hundred years and fought for decades to reach this moment. Tonight, thanks to you, we are finally here.
> 
> Consider the staggering scope of what you have just accomplished:
> 
> ...



^ Showed up in my Inbox a few minutes ago.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

Robert Gibbs sure does tweet quickly


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Mar 21, 2010)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## spankdatbitch (Mar 21, 2010)

My Personal message to the GOP and Tea party chaps.


*Spoiler*: __ 



WHERES YOUR SCOTT BROWN NOW??????


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ[/YOUTUBE]



I wouldn't be surprised if we actually started seeing some Schoolhouse Rock on TV again soon, God knows we all need it.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Mar 21, 2010)

Mider T said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if we actually started seeing some Schoolhouse Rock on TV again soon, God knows we all need it.



I actually heard that they were remaking it. although I am of the last generation that actually experienced the pure win that was SHR, I don't want them to trash it. hopefully it will be good.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 21, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ[/YOUTUBE]



This is probably what the Republicans want to do with it.


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf2q66G3lmM[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Oil Can (Mar 21, 2010)

spankdatbitch said:


> My Personal message to the GOP and Tea party chaps.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Hey, Scott Brown had nothing to do with this. He's a good man. I support health care AND Scott Brown!


----------



## ANBUBooBoo (Mar 21, 2010)

Congrats America, feels good man.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2010)

You guys celebrate too much, didn't you learn anything from the blacks with OJ? When you celebrate too much the man comes around and takes what you have (or puts you in jail for stealing your own stuff).


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Mar 21, 2010)

Well Its time I brushed up on my German Cause I'm catching the 1st boat out of this nut house called America. In Europe when elected officials screw over constituants you don't re-elect them you terminate them.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 21, 2010)

Ehandz said:


> Hey, Scott Brown had nothing to do with this. He's a good man. I support health care AND Scott Brown!



Scott Brown is a good man, which is why he hasn't been strictly GOP as of late.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 21, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> Well Its time I brushed up on my German Cause I'm catching the 1st boat out of this nut house called America. In Europe when elected officials screw over constituants you don't re-elect them you terminate them.


Seems like you should have left about six years ago then.


----------



## iander (Mar 21, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> Well Its time I brushed up on my German Cause I'm catching the 1st boat out of this nut house called America. In Europe when elected officials screw over constituants you don't re-elect them you terminate them.



Rofl, do you know anything about the German healthcare system? If you don't like the healthcare reform just passed, I highly doubt you will like their healthcare system.


----------



## geG (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Seems like you should have left about six years ago then.


----------



## Weaboo (Mar 22, 2010)

It's days like today that remind me just how much I miss Simulacrum


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Dude that is awesome lol.


----------



## santanico (Mar 22, 2010)

Wow, I'm glad. I knew Obama was good on his promise, _maybe_ now people will back the hell off of that topic.


----------



## Bleach (Mar 22, 2010)

yet i still have no idea how it effects me. Does it just give insurance to those without it? If so, i could use some


----------



## Mider T (Mar 22, 2010)

Is Hinako still banned?  

I liked that bromance hand the two most powerful people in the country gave each other, Fox News tomorrow ought to be good.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Is Hinako still banned?
> 
> I liked that bromance hand the two most powerful people in the country gave each other, Fox News tomorrow ought to be good.





Sorry geg but I wanted to use it just once in my life.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

The health care bill is garbage.

I guess this means I have a few years before I need to immigrate out of the US...


----------



## Mider T (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The health care bill is garbage.
> 
> I guess this means I have a few years before I need to immigrate out of the US...



If this is why you're leaving then by all means, get the hell out.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

Mider T said:


> Is Hinako still banned?
> 
> I liked that bromance hand the two most powerful people in the country gave each other, Fox News tomorrow ought to be good.



Fox News is usually out of control, tomorrow I expect it to look something like the city of Dis...after their team loses the championship.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

The Kennedy's(RIP Ted,JFK)are extremely happy.


----------



## Shiron (Mar 22, 2010)

Bleach said:


> yet i still have no idea how it effects me. Does it just give insurance to those without it? If so, i could use some


This is a pretty good summary:



> American consumers, who spent a year watching Congress scratch and claw over sweeping health care legislation, can now try to figure out what the overhaul would mean for them.
> 
> The uninsured are clearly the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation, which would extend the health care safety net for the lowest-income Americans.
> 
> ...


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fox News is usually out of control, tomorrow I expect it to look something like the city of Dis...after their team loses the championship.



Might have to watch Fox. Its amusing to watch them cry.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The health care bill is garbage.
> 
> I guess this means I have a few years before I need to immigrate out of the US...





			
				Urbandictionary.com said:
			
		

> *Can I have your stuff*
> 
> A common quip on MMORPG, usually used in response to someone (the "quitter") childishly denouncing the game in a overdramatic fashion, especially if the "quitter" is claiming that they are going to move on to the next big thing in MMO's.



We can apply that here too.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 22, 2010)

So much so that Vicki is going to be on State of the Union w/ John King tommorrow.


----------



## Ceria (Mar 22, 2010)

dark messiah verdandi said:


> LULZ. who's ready to give obama permanent executive powers. he's doing it right.
> also... wouldn't it be easier to get jobs now that everyone will have healthcare?



fuck you, only republicans deserve palpatine status  they would do it right and responsibly, like george w. for example. 

how do you figure that it would be easier to find jobs? costs will rise due to this, even if they really don't the healthcare companies will find ways to make them rise. 

this is such an epic mistake...


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Mar 22, 2010)

Bleach said:


> yet i still have no idea how it effects me. Does it just give insurance to those without it? If so, i could use some



from what I am clear about it uses taxpayer money to pay for healthcare. that is why it isn't free, yet it is "affordable". cause it comes out of taxes. if I am wrong, someone please correct me.

if that is the case I am glad, since there are so many whom couldn't afford it, but can now. sure the middle class who already had health care are gonna bitch and whine, but the millions who didn't are going to cry tears of joy now that they can actually get treatment.

need to read the bill... to me it's the principle of it all that makes me happy. sure the details are going to have some things I don't like. that is the way of nature. nothing is perfect, but the closer it gets to GREAT, the better I feel.
individualism is just one of the things that I can't stand, and that is why I still feel bad vibes from the USA. we are just so obsessed with ourselves, that we make stupid decisions that keep the large majority of us in squalor even though we are supposed to be a rich country.

we have a very small sense of nationalism, virtue and community, and that is what causes the shitstorms we live in today. I want UTOPIA!


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

Mider T said:


> If this is why you're leaving then by all means, get the hell out.




I will.

And, I won't feel sorry for any of you when you wake up one day and realize _why_ some of us look upon this bill as being a bad policy.


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fox News is usually out of control, tomorrow I expect it to look something like the city of Dis...after their team loses the championship.


I can't wait to see Glenn tomorrow.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

Blue_Panter_Ninja said:


> The Kennedy's(RIP Ted,JFK)are extremely happy.



I don't think that bullets to the head or brain cancer are going to get any better coverage under this bill.

*Edit: *A Dead Kennedys Joke! DOUBLE JOKE SCORE.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think that bullets to the head or brain cancer are going to get any better coverage under this bill.



But it will be cheaper for people who don't have health care to afford the surgery.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 22, 2010)

Not for themselves of course, besides they're Health Care, provided by the Government or Private, was the best that money could buy.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think that bullets to the head or brain cancer are going to get any better coverage under this bill.




Pre-Reagan era a number of US industries were run by the government.

There's a reason why the shift from government takeover to free markets occurred.

And, it would be nice if Americans were educated and knowledgeable enough to understand the reason why.

But, unfortunately, they're not.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Well it seems not just Fox News got butthurt.

Extreme pro-choicers did too:


B'awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I will.
> 
> And, I won't feel sorry for any of you when you wake up one day and realize _why_ some of us look upon this bill as being a bad policy.


All I hear is fear. If you want the bill to be stronger then work for changes instead of running away like a pussy. Besides, this bill is not nearly so bad to warrant leaving the country.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Mar 22, 2010)

Oh man, I can't wait to see the resulting shock wave of media and public outrage. And how that outrage dies down in the next few years as people realize how much better of they are. 

BTW, welcome to Universal Healthcare America. It's about bloody time.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Pre-Reagan era a number of US industries were run by the government.
> 
> There's a reason why the shift from government takeover to free markets occurred.
> 
> ...


Pre-Reagan era we had nearly no national debt.


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Pre-Reagan era a number of US industries were run by the government.
> 
> There's a reason why the shift from government takeover to free markets occurred.
> 
> ...


You're right, and health care wasn't one. Don't compare things that are completed unrelated to one another. There are things that the government should be involved in and things that it shouldn't, and the welfare of the people is certainly one that it should control. It's completely illogical to have the welfare of a society placed in private hands.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 22, 2010)

Now they're looking for the Congressman who called Stupak a baby killer and nobody seems to know...perhaps they're asking the wrong people?
And more outburst shenanigans, Hannity is probably going to call dude a patriot.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Pre-Reagan era a number of US industries were run by the government.
> 
> There's a reason why the shift from government takeover to free markets occurred.
> 
> ...



You realize that the US (like almost any other country on earth) already has several socialized systems in place right? I mean you don't have to pay your local fire department to put out your flaming house do you?


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Phancy Pants said:


> You realize that the US (like almost any other country on earth) already has several socialized systems in place right? I mean you don't have to pay your local fire department to put out your flaming house do you?



Fire departments are funded through the states which in actually, we kinda do pay for.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

Hannity is fucking clown shoes.


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Mar 22, 2010)

CeriaHalcyon said:


> fuck you, only republicans deserve palpatine status  they would do it right and responsibly, like george w. for example.
> 
> how do you figure that it would be easier to find jobs? costs will rise due to this, even if they really don't the healthcare companies will find ways to make them rise.
> 
> this is such an epic mistake...



republicans tarnish that name and don't deserve it. stick with GOP.
also, I figure because now that everyone has healthcare regardless, then companies don't have to spend so much on benefits that workers deem a requirement. 
I also feel that america will have its taste of socialized healthcare, and will like it. within the next ten years if we don't elect a tyrant out of of spite towards obama, we will have a single-payer healthcare.

this isn't a mistake at all. everyone else is doing it and has been doing fine with it. healthcare along with schooling and public services is one of the things needed to create a healthy society. without that, we fall into traps that kill off our productivity, thus decreasing the earning potential and safety of our living environments. its one of the foundational elements needed to create a strong society.

the problem is we did it TOO LATE. it is a grand idea, but since we were so rich during some of the earlier decades, we simply didn't care. its like trying to use antiseptic on a badly infected wound. the damage is already done, but if that precaution was taken earlier we could have prevented a disaster.

Capitalism is not a good idea in a democracy. it seems like it is, but it's too easy to start fucking over everyone around you for the sake of power. hell I don't think a democracy is a good idea. not in the modern sense anyway.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I will.
> 
> And, I won't feel sorry for any of you when you wake up one day and realize _why_ some of us look upon this bill as being a bad policy.



Unless you're a billionaire or a corrupt member of government who was bought out by insurance companies, it's because you've been brainwashed.


----------



## Weaboo (Mar 22, 2010)

Suzuku said:


> I can't wait to see Glenn tomorrow.



Oh man, I didn't even think about Glenn when I read this. Someone better upload his reaction on youtube


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 22, 2010)

Oh blaze.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> Well it seems not just Fox News got butthurt.
> 
> Extreme pro-choicers did too:
> 
> ...



Do those people know that Canada is the same as most country in Europe about health care?:ho


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

I can't wait to watch Glenn Beck tomorrow


----------



## dreams lie (Mar 22, 2010)

Ah well.  Politically speaking, it would have been absolutely damning if the Democrats failed this bill.  It is too early to judge, but I doubt the ramifications for reality are as positive.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 22, 2010)

To early to say much, but at this point, they would have had to pass it even if it was a steaming pile of Bantha poo.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Pre-Reagan era a number of US industries were run by the government.
> 
> There's a reason why the shift from government takeover to free markets occurred.
> 
> ...


Then why are government owned public corporations like the Tennessee Valley Authority still the most efficient industries in the United States?

It had a lot more to do with ideology and raiding the public trust to support political cronies then it had anything to do with efficiency or economics.


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Btw am I the only one livid at the bitch who wouldn't stand up and admit he said "Baby killer" during the healthcare debate? Dude, needed to man the fuck up.


----------



## dreams lie (Mar 22, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> To early to say much, but at this point, they would have had to pass it even if it was a steaming pile of Bantha poo.



Exactly what I was thinking.  It would have to be monstrously terrible if the Democrats abandon this bill.  Election season is coming up, and they do not have many factors working for them as it is.


----------



## A. Waltz (Mar 22, 2010)

someone called stupak a baby killer? LOL

wait why are they looking for the guy who said baby killer? o__0 what's wrong with that?


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

On a serious note Immortal Itachi why man... why? Don't fall for that crap the Repubs are spewing. Nothing but propagandic bullshit.


----------



## Koi (Mar 22, 2010)




----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

AznUchihaChick said:


> someone called stupak a baby killer? LOL
> 
> wait why are they looking for the guy who said baby killer? o__0 what's wrong with that?



Yep

Video in link



The person who said that has no balls whatsoever. Although, I think negatively of the Republicans I didn't think they'd stoop to crap this l- wait nevermind. I never thought Tea party antics would be seen in house.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Then why are government owned public corporations like the Tennessee Valley Authority still the most efficient industries in the United States?
> 
> It had a lot more to do with ideology and raiding the public trust to support political cronies then it had anything to do with efficiency or economics.



Qualify-the-statement-time:  The TVA is moderately efficient, not the most efficient corporation, in terms of net economic activity.  It is also operating in an industry well suited to large-scale, centralized operation (The production and delivery of electrical power).

Other government-owned corporations such as Amtrak, which is a perennial loser of funds, are not nearly as efficient or profitable.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Then why are government owned public corporations like the Tennessee Valley Authority still the most efficient industries in the United States?
> 
> It had a lot more to do with ideology and raiding the public trust to support political cronies then it had anything to do with efficiency or economics.




Well, well, well.  If it isn't the vivacious and charming mz Jello.  

Remember when you said issues relating to the US deficit, medicare and social security could "easily" be addressed by "raising taxes" or some such?  Well, this is a very similar issue.

Assuming some backwater, no-name, corporation like TVA is efficient, its by far the exception to the rule.  

The period when the government controlled the aviation and phone industries were by far eras of the least innovation, highest profiteering in the form of government backed monopolies and the highest respective consumer prices.  Au contraire, it has everything to do with economics and efficiency.

Compare the era when the Ma Bell / government monopoly of the phone industry rented rotary phones to the public to the present day era.  At one time, calling long distance was virtually unheard of as it was so expensive.  It was only Reagan era economic policies and expansion of free markets into the phone industry that led to the innovation and advancement of things like touch tone and cellular phones.  It was also Reagan era economics that led to the advancement of the telecommunications industry and paved the way for market competition to decrease prices enough to where long distance became affordable.  And, we all reap the benefits of this innovation on a daily basis without realizing it was Reagan who was largely responsible for a good deal of the advances we enjoy.

In short, you've been duped.  There are no advantages to a government takeover and history is rife with examples of negative attributes that are inherent in government run industries.

I challenge you or anyone to provide evidence to the contrary, but expect you to fail simply because there isn't any.

Have a nice night, gorgeous.


----------



## Grandia (Mar 22, 2010)

Welcome to socialism guys, its not so bad, we europeans bathe in it


----------



## A. Waltz (Mar 22, 2010)

tea party antics are the best though! ;~;

well they are all old white men i doubt they got balls unless they're the really cool old white guys with like hairy beard and stuff lol that beat up people on buses WHO THE MAN WHO THE MAN


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Grandia said:


> Welcome to socialism guys, its not so bad, we europeans bathe in it



But our socialism is better :33

Because our socialism includes dead babies 

pek pek


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 22, 2010)

Now we need to fix the bill, not just with the immediate fixes but future amendments, and then we will have what we need   Next is immigration reform, then, financial regulation, then climate policy


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> Now we need to fix the bill, not just with the immediate fixes but future amendments, and then we will have what we need   Next is immigration reform, then, financial regulation, then climate policy



Immigration reform? I'm an legal immigrant. System works fine bro.


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> Now we need to fix the bill, not just with the immediate fixes but future amendments, and then we will have what we need   Next is immigration reform, then, financial regulation, then climate policy



I think I'mma  thru those


----------



## dark messiah verdandi (Mar 22, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> But our socialism is better :33
> 
> Because our socialism includes dead babies
> 
> pek pek



Im down. babies only grow up to become terrible toddlers, then crazy kids, tyrannical teenagers, and ending it with asshole apathetic antagonistic adults.

Get those bothersome babies while they are young


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Wait guys did you forget? This goes into effect in 2014. the worlds gonna end in 2012. Everything is gonna be cool. So relax Republican supporters. You're gonna be A-ok!


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal Itachi that means you don't have to leave


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

This is a historical example of what typically happens with government run industries in the US.

Its labeled under a term known as -- government sanctioned monopolization.

Under these types of monopolies consumers typically pay the highest prices, product innovation is low to non-existent and there is little in the way of market competition to drive prices down and quality of service/product, up.

In short, its a bad idea and is often the end result of government run industries in the United States:



> In 1934, the government set AT&T up as a regulated monopoly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission,[6] in the Communications Act of 1934.
> 
> As a result, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves. This allowed Bell to prohibit their customers from connecting phones not made or sold by Bell to the system without paying fees. For example, if a customer desired a type of phone not leased by the local Bell monopoly, he or she had to purchase the phone at cost, give it to the phone company, then pay a 're-wiring' charge and a monthly lease fee in order to use it. An oft-heard remark at the time was "Ma Bell has you by the calls".[citation needed]
> 
> ...



.  /boring



Blaze of Glory said:


> 1mmortal Itachi that means you don't have to leave



Uh, I don't.  Ok!


----------



## iander (Mar 22, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Immigration reform? I'm an legal immigrant. System works fine bro.



What about the millions of people in the shadows in this country who have no legal status?  What about the millions who have to wait decades to come legally?  What about the billions of dollars spent on border patrol, deportations, prisons, raids, etc? What about the millions of people who lose out on jobs to underpaid workers? What about all the employers that exploit the system illegally to make a profit?

The system is quite broke.


----------



## A. Waltz (Mar 22, 2010)

wtf 2014? ugh!

too far away

i guess obama is thinking he'll serve two terms?


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Btw you guys who do you thinks going to be more ultimate lulz tomorrow?

Glenn Beck or the Tea party?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Qualify-the-statement-time:  The TVA is moderately efficient, not the most efficient corporation, in terms of net economic activity.  It is also operating in an industry well suited to large-scale, centralized operation (The production and delivery of electrical power).
> 
> Other government-owned corporations such as Amtrak, which is a perennial loser of funds, are not nearly as efficient or profitable.


It produces electrical power more cheaply then any of its competitors, receives, ironically, less government support than private corporations do, and involves much more than just electrical power generation.

Amtrak isn't meant to be profitable. It's meant to provide a public service, and per passenger mile, it receives far less economic support than car drivers do. It's prohibited from diversifying (unlike the TVA) and is forced by statute to stick solely to passenger service, an industry that the private sector was more than happy to see nationalized.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Well, well, well.  If it isn't the vivacious and charming mz Jello.
> 
> Remember when you said issues relating to the US deficit, medicare and social security could "easily" be addressed by "raising taxes" or some such?  Well, this is a very similar issue.
> 
> Assuming some backwater, no-name, corporation like TVA is efficient, its by far the exception to the rule.


Backwater? The TVA is a multi-billion dollar institution. 


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The period when the government controlled the aviation and phone industries were by far eras of the least innovation, highest profiteering in the form of government backed monopolies and the highest respective consumer prices.  Au contraire, it has everything to do with economics and efficiency.
> 
> Compare the era when the Ma Bell / government monopoly of the phone industry rented rotary phones to the public to the present day era.  At one time, calling long distance was virtually unheard of as it was so expensive.  It was only Reagan era economic policies and expansion of free markets into the phone industry that led to the innovation and advancement of things like touch tone and cellular phones.  It was also Reagan era economics that led to the advancement of the telecommunications industry and paved the way for market competition to decrease prices enough to where long distance became affordable.  And, we all reap the benefits of this innovation on a daily basis without realizing it was Reagan who was largely responsible for a good deal of the advances we enjoy.


On the contrary, neither of these things were ever government monopolies. They were regulated private natural monopolies. To suggest that cell phones came about because of the break up of Ma Bell is patently absurd. The two are completely independent events.

Telephone is still heavily regulated by state governments and the federal government. It's just not a single monopolistic corporation. So try again.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> In short, you've been duped.  There are no advantages to a government takeover and history is rife with examples of negative attributes that are inherent in government run industries.
> 
> I challenge you or anyone to provide evidence to the contrary, but expect you to fail simply because there isn't any.
> 
> Have a nice night, gorgeous.


What tickles me to death is that you're so blissfully unaware of the irony here. The privatization of the railroads in Britain is a textbook example of the blatant falseness of the superiority of free markets. When the railroads were privatized, fares went up, service went down. The same was true of the coal industry, the steel industry, and every other nationalized industry in Britain.

Private capital proved, time and time again, that they were incapable of properly managing these vital industries. And when they were put back in private hands for pennies on the dollar, costs went up, service went down.

The fastest growing economies in the world right now depend heavily on state owned enterprise. Chile's chief industry, copper, is totally state owned. Chile's "economic miracle" was made possible by its nationalized copper industry. The same is true of Brazil; Brazilian economic development is made possible by the state owned steel industry.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

immortal itachi is delusional.:ho
Some state owned industries can be veryyyy good.


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Blue_Panter_Ninja said:


> immortal itachi is delusional.:ho



Why?

 

All we did was pass a bill that kills right wing babies...  

I don't see what's wrong with it...


----------



## Knivezz (Mar 22, 2010)

It all sounds good on paper but what about the doctors? Lower Pay? More Patients? Higher Risk of Malpractice? Do you think that sounds good to them? I know a ton of doctors that are planning on getting out of the game if this billed passed. I know a bunch of fellas in med school that said they were going to go the plastic surgery route so they could actually make good money and not have a shitty life style. I know kids in undergrad that are pre-med and said they will change there major if this went through. People need to understand, this is not just "Millions more getting health care", but a trade off of quality for quantity.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Backwater? The TVA is a multi-billion dollar institution.



Market cap ≠ prestige.



Sama'el said:


> On the contrary, neither of these things were ever government monopolies. They were regulated private natural monopolies. To suggest that cell phones came about because of the break up of Ma Bell is patently absurd. The two are completely independent events.



I think the term is _government sanctioned monopolies_ which is close enough to be acceptable.  

Its not absurd if you understand the telecommunications industry and the lack of innovation and advancement during the time it was government operated, in stronger terms.  

The US phone industry was a monopoly from around the 1940's to the 1980's.  During this time there were virtually no advancements and no innovation.  That's close to 4 decades of stagnation.

In the 1980's after Reagan's policies went into effect and after the telecom monopoly was broken, immediately we see advancement and innovation in the industry.  Touch tone phones are available as are customized phones.  New entrants to the market who were previously barred invite market competition which results in greater service and cheaper prices.  People for the first time have the option of purchasing their own phone as opposed to renting one from the phone company at an exorbitant fee.

Blah, right?



Sama'el said:


> Telephone is still heavily regulated by state governments and the federal government. It's just not a single monopolistic corporation. So try again.



Its gone from "government takeover" to being more of a free market and the implications from such a paradigm shift do apply.  The point has to do with differences relating to introduction of market competition -- something the proposed health care bill is lacking.



Sama'el said:


> What tickles me to death is that you're so blissfully unaware of the irony here. The privatization of the railroads in Britain is a textbook example of the blatant falseness of the superiority of free markets. When the railroads were privatized, fares went up, service went down. The same was true of the coal industry, the steel industry, and every other nationalized industry in Britain.



Free markets responsible for this / how?  



Sama'el said:


> Private capital proved, time and time again, that they were incapable of properly managing these vital industries. And when they were put back in private hands for pennies on the dollar, costs went up, service went down.



Lack of management ≠ flaw in free markets



Sama'el said:


> The fastest growing economies in the world right now depend heavily on state owned enterprise. Chile's chief industry, copper, is totally state owned. Chile's "economic miracle" was made possible by its nationalized copper industry. The same is true of Brazil; Brazilian economic development is made possible by the state owned steel industry.



Not necessarily.  Your examples do not provide points of reference to compare them to.  



Blue_Panter_Ninja said:


> immortal itachi is delusional.:ho



I'll consider that a compliment.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

Killing right wing babies?

Can be better.:ho


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

iander said:


> What about the millions of people in the shadows in this country who have no legal status?  What about the millions who have to wait decades to come legally?  What about the billions of dollars spent on border patrol, deportations, prisons, raids, etc? What about the millions of people who lose out on jobs to underpaid workers? What about all the employers that exploit the system illegally to make a profit?
> 
> The system is quite broke.



I don't know. Seems fine to me. If you want to become a citizen, do it the right way. I did. It was hard as hell but its worth every minute of it.


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 22, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> Now we need to fix the bill, not just with the immediate fixes but future amendments, and then we will have what we need   Next is immigration reform, then, financial regulation, then climate policy


Uh, I would prefer if they did climate and financial reform first.  Way more important.



Hand Banana said:


> Immigration reform? I'm an legal immigrant. System works fine bro.


We have millions of illegal immigrants.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> I don't know. Seems fine to me. If you want to become a citizen, do it the right way. I did. It was hard as hell but its worth every minute of it.



iander makes some points.  Severe enforcement is needed to stop employers from picking up your local Mexican and screwing an American out of a job for less money and worse conditions.  There needs to be a more efficient way of processing immigrants without some unnecessary song and dance.  However iander, do remember...Americans come first, then illegals.

We need to deal with the immigration problems in a better manner.  Perhaps maybe making Mexico less shitty could help? 

As for the health care, actually there were several anti-abortion concessions made.  This pissed off the pro-choice extremes but fuck them anyway.  You can be pro-choice to them so long as you're pro-abortion.  If you *choose* to want to give birth instead of abort watch them turn on you.  Hypocrisy...ho!


----------



## Utopia Realm (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Looks like we better all get out slickers out, there's going to be a shitstorm tomorrow.



Of course there will be. Been waiting for it to come for the past few days actually.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> iander makes some points.  Severe enforcement is needed to stop employers from picking up your local Mexican and screwing an American out of a job for less money and worse conditions.  There needs to be a more efficient way of processing immigrants without some unnecessary song and dance.  However iander, do remember...Americans come first, then illegals.
> 
> We need to deal with the immigration problems in a better manner.  Perhaps maybe making Mexico less shitty could help?



Because Mexicans are the only illegal people in this Country. I didn't say the system was perfect. I said its fine as it is. But if there is room for improvements, then I can contradict myself and say by all means. And i'm not Mexicans so don't bunch me with them.


----------



## hehey (Mar 22, 2010)

Hhhmm, i hear that this doesn't kick in until 2014, so with that said, lets say the republicans win the presidency come 2012 and congress. Couldn't they just undo it all 2 years before its suppose to happen, whats stopping them?


----------



## Axl Low (Mar 22, 2010)

Well atleast the US government admitted to its people being stupid to the world that stereotyped them as such 

Al Coholic Gets into a car drunk and into an accident killing 2 teenagers?
He's covered! :33

Johnny Xgames jumping off stairs to an 18 foot drop and breaking his leg?
He's covered! :33

Angry Allen brings a gun to school and shoots 3 classmates and police while he is shot by police/SWAT in the process?
They are all covered if they survive! :33


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Because Mexicans are the only illegal people in this Country. I didn't say the system was perfect. I said its fine as it is. But if there is room for improvements, then I can contradict myself and say by all means. And i'm not Mexicans so don't bunch me with them.



I didn't say you were Mexican but if you look long and hard at the principle area where most of this illegal immigration drama is happening, it seems to be happening south of the Rio Fucking Grande, does it not?

You can account for the Chinese in California or the Cubans in Miami or the Puerto Ricans in NYC, but at the end of the day, severe drug/human trafficking, crime, and an apparent culture clash the size of Montana is down in the Southwest and Texas.  Like it or not, it's there.

As for the system, I know you said it's not perfect and pretty much the only thing I agree 100% with iander on is the employer regulation enforcement.  People b'awwwww so much about the government getting involved and well, when we don't people start smuggling illegals in and screwing citizens.  How about breaking a skull or two as a deterrent?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I think the term is _government sanctioned monopolies_ which is close enough to be acceptable.
> 
> Its not absurd if you understand the telecommunications industry and the lack of innovation and advancement during the time it was government operated, in stronger terms.
> 
> ...


You've got a very myopic view of advancement then. To suggest that there was no advancement, or that it was even stagnant is simply false. The phone carrier system itself was revolutionized several times from the 40s to the 80s. It went from being an entirely manual system to an automated, computer directed system. In that time period, the total data bandwidth increased exponentially.

Cell phones and touch tone phones simply were not possible until computer and transistor technology matured to the level it was in the 1980s. It had nothing to do with Ma Bell's monopoly over landline communication. The companies that started cellular technology had no connection to the phone industry.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Free markets responsible for this / how?


Private industry can't manage the trains, the coal mines, or the steel foundries as efficiently as the government can, apparently. And when those vital bedrock industries falter, the whole economy falters.

I gave you what you wanted: an example of the state running something more efficiently then a free market. Now are you going to be intellectually honest and concede the point, or are you going to be a Glenn Beck?



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Lack of management ≠ flaw in free markets


And according to market dogma, someone else will figure out how to do it better, and they'll increase their market share. Didn't happen. Still hasn't happened. The trains still don't run on time, and they're still overpriced. The application of market principles hasn't done any of the things that market advocates say it would.



1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Not necessarily.  Your examples do not provide points of reference to compare them to.


Yeah, there are. Just look for them. Countries that follow neo-liberal market reforms remain underdeveloped compared to those that adopt social democratic economic programs.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

hehey said:


> Hhhmm, i hear that this doesn't kick in until 2014, so with that said, lets say the republicans win the presidency come 2012 and congress. Couldn't they just undo it all 2 years before its suppose to happen, whats stopping them?



it first has to go through a repeal process, Please learn about the Legislative Branch.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Well atleast the US government admitted to its people being stupid to the world that stereotyped them as such
> 
> Al Coholic Gets into a car drunk and into an accident killing 2 teenagers?
> He's covered! :33
> ...



What you just said is fucking stupid.

You do realize the alcoholic, "Allen" or the skateboarder might already be covered, right?  

Actually, what the fuck do these three incidents have ANYTHING to do with covering the uninsured?

You don't deny someone coverage based upon what happened.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 22, 2010)

Finally I can breath again


----------



## Axl Low (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> What you just said is fucking stupid.
> 
> You do realize the alcoholic or the skateboarder might already be covered, right?
> 
> Actually, what the fuck do these three incidents have ANYTHING to do with covering the uninsured?



Stupid?
Whoops! I'm an American 
Must be something about that education I'm not getting 

Well who cares! They are definitely now! 

It takes away the need for self-responsibility 

500 lb person eating fast food and cannot pay for those sky rocketing costs cause he is also a smoker?
This bill has his back. His entire back and the folds in it. 

EDIT: BTW
I dont have health insurance 
BUT NOW I DO! 
This bill makes me superman as long as I make it a hospital!
Stabbed in the stomach?
I dont have insur-- 
This bill is going to be exploited by people like me
Because hey
Why not?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> iander makes some points.  Severe enforcement is needed to stop employers from picking up your local Mexican and screwing an American out of a job for less money and worse conditions.  There needs to be a more efficient way of processing immigrants without some unnecessary song and dance.  However iander, do remember...Americans come first, then illegals.
> 
> We need to deal with the immigration problems in a better manner.  Perhaps maybe making Mexico less shitty could help?
> 
> As for the health care, actually there were several anti-abortion concessions made.  This pissed off the pro-choice extremes but fuck them anyway.  You can be pro-choice to them so long as you're pro-abortion.  If you *choose* to want to give birth instead of abort watch them turn on you.  Hypocrisy...ho!


So long as capital can move freely across the border, while labor cannot, there is going to be illegal immigration. The only just and orderly outcome is to apply the same standard to both capital and labor. If we're going to have NAFTA, then we need to have free immigration or else citizens on both sides of the border will suffer while the corporations profit.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Stupid?
> Whoops! I'm an American
> Must be something about that education I'm not getting
> 
> ...



Ummmmmmmmmmm...wow.

Ever heard of DUIs, murder charges, and jail?

That's why what you said was fucking stupid.  You claim now with this bill that a person now has MORE incentive to drive drunk or shoot classmates.

Had you brought up the fatty then I wouldn't have called you out, but you didn't and instead introduced God-awful examples.



			
				Because I liked Jello's name before Sam said:
			
		

> So long as capital can move freely across the border, while labor cannot, there is going to be illegal immigration. The only just and orderly outcome is to apply the same standard to both capital and labor. If we're going to have NAFTA, then we need to have free immigration or else citizens on both sides of the border will suffer while the corporations profit.



I still believe in harsh enforcement.  Of course it's private industry most of the time and it'll be near suicide for the government to get completely involved.

But such is the price of allowing industries to do this.  GM is a classic example with their exodus from Michigan.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 22, 2010)

GREETINGS COMRADES!

The glorious health care reform bill has passed and now millions of workers whoa re insured can get it!  I am truly happy to be a citizen of the united soviet union err america!

Now to send all of the people who voted against it to slave camps in alaska!


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> I didn't say you were Mexican but if you look long and hard at the principle area where most of this illegal immigration drama is happening, it seems to be happening south of the Rio Fucking Grande, does it not?
> 
> You can account for the Chinese in California or the Cubans in Miami or the Puerto Ricans in NYC, but at the end of the day, severe drug/human trafficking, crime, and an apparent culture clash the size of Montana is down in the Southwest and Texas.  Like it or not, it's there.
> 
> As for the system, I know you said it's not perfect and pretty much the only thing I agree 100% with iander on is the employer regulation enforcement.  People b'awwwww so much about the government getting involved and well, when we don't people start smuggling illegals in and screwing citizens.  How about breaking a skull or two as a deterrent?




Immigration is still the same no matter what target group is doing it the most. Also a large (but not larger) number of drugs that come into this country comes from Southeast Asia. Drug smuggling and Immigration are two different things.

And don't treat Immigrants so harsh. After all America was founded on immigration.


----------



## Axl Low (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> Ummmmmmmmmmm...wow.
> 
> Ever heard of DUIs, murder charges, and jail?
> 
> ...



Legal bullshit that you get off if smile and dont talk back to the guards enough 
or if you have that extra money since you arent spending it on health insurance 

And Yes. People now have more incentive to be stupid which goes in hand with the cruddy education system 

"Timmy touched the barbeque and has 3rd degree burns!"
Its all good baby! 

More incentives to not give a shit about making people smarter or being responsible! 

Baby just fell out a window!
Get out of paid insurance free card has gotcha 

I mean shit. DUI is just a lulz kinda thing unless YOU die.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> *Legal bullshit that you get off if smile and dont talk back to the guards enough*
> or if you have that extra money since you arent spending it on health insurance
> 
> And Yes. People now have more incentive to be stupid which goes in hand with the cruddy education system
> ...


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Legal bullshit that you get off if smile and dont talk back to the guards enough
> or if you have that extra money since you arent spending it on health insurance
> 
> And Yes. People now have more incentive to be stupid which goes in hand with the cruddy education system
> ...



How is that any different than his parents having insurance already?



> More incentives to not give a shit about making people smarter or being responsible!
> 
> Baby just fell out a window!
> Get out of paid insurance free card has gotcha



So only the rich can be stupid with their money?



> I mean shit. DUI is just a lulz kinda thing unless YOU die.



Or become paralyzed.


----------



## Alien (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Legal bullshit that you get off if smile and dont talk back to the guards enough
> or if you have that extra money since you arent spending it on health insurance
> 
> And Yes. People now have more incentive to be stupid which goes in hand with the cruddy education system
> ...



What the hell.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> You've got a very myopic view of advancement then. To suggest that there was no advancement, or that it was even stagnant is simply false. The phone carrier system itself was revolutionized several times from the 40s to the 80s. It went from being an entirely manual system to an automated, computer directed system. In that time period, the total data bandwidth increased exponentially.



I could argue that was neither advancement nor revolution.  

Switching from a manual system to an automated one in an effort to cut out the middle man and decrease jobs -- and associated costs, does not necessarily constitute advancement.

Advancement may be measured primarily in terms of how the consumer benefits.  Primarily back end changes that save a corporation $$$ and result in no change of service for the consumer may be considered advancement in dubious terms.

Data bandwidth, likewise.  It may be more representative of the natural progression from telegraph lines to phones or other such paradigm shifts that don't necessarily imply success or a sound working model.



Sama'el said:


> Cell phones and touch tone phones simply were not possible until computer and transistor technology matured to the level it was in the 1980s. It had nothing to do with Ma Bell's monopoly over landline communication. The companies that started cellular technology had no connection to the phone industry.



Touch tone phones were likely technologically feasible from the 1950's, onwards.  A button such as a key on a cell phone isn't a complex device requiring transistors or other such advancements.  Its a simple on/off switch.  And, those were in ready supply.  



Sama'el said:


> Private industry can't manage the trains, the coal mines, or the steel foundries as efficiently as the government can, apparently. And when those vital bedrock industries falter, the whole economy falters.



That's what they said during the collapse of the Soviet Union.  



Sama'el said:


> I gave you what you wanted: an example of the state running something more efficiently then a free market. Now are you going to be intellectually honest and concede the point, or are you going to be a Glenn Beck?



Honestly, I don't know what TVA is.  Note the difficulties associated with admitting to something I'm ignorant about?  But, the government does has these tendencies to make ridiculous claims regarding how "efficient" it is.

I have never seen nor heard of TVA winning a business of the year award or other such prestige / distinctions.  Its likely an over-embellishment on the part of the government as opposed to something that is real or representative of how the gov does business.

No Glenn Beck required, hopefully.  



Sama'el said:


> And according to market dogma, someone else will figure out how to do it better, and they'll increase their market share. Didn't happen. Still hasn't happened. The trains still don't run on time, and they're still overpriced. The application of market principles hasn't done any of the things that market advocates say it would.



Railroads are prone to being localized and localization is prone to resulting in monopolies.  Its not necessarily a result of free markets so much as it is a result of a concentration of too much power and influence in a small area.



Sama'el said:


> Yeah, there are. Just look for them. Countries that follow neo-liberal market reforms remain underdeveloped compared to those that adopt social democratic economic programs.



They remain undeveloped as they have little or no growth potential not as a result of the policies or hierarchy they follow.  

The fact that China has high growth potential isn't due to its government being socialist, its a result of low labor prices and excess of rare earth magnets and other factors.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Legal bullshit that you get off if smile and dont talk back to the guards enough
> or if you have that extra money since you arent spending it on health insurance
> 
> And Yes. People now have more incentive to be stupid which goes in hand with the cruddy education system
> ...



it's hilarious thinking.  The incentive to not get sick or injured is not being sick or injured   LOL, but now that I can get the government via my universal coverage, i'm gonna dismember my appendages off one by one and have them reattached in turn! hope i don't get committed after the first one though, cause nobody is gonna notice i'm cutting my own limbs off!


----------



## Will Smith (Mar 22, 2010)

Obama truly is the hero of the people.


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 22, 2010)

Tekken said:


> Obama truly is the hero of the people.



He's not socialist enough for my tastes..but baby steps first. The Second Renaissance is a long campaign which will span 100 years.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Honestly, I don't know what TVA is.



LOL sorry I had to stop reading there to laugh.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Well atleast the US government admitted to its people being stupid to the world that stereotyped them as such
> 
> Al Coholic Gets into a car drunk and into an accident killing 2 teenagers?
> He's covered! :33
> ...



Uh Axl Low, thats been true for a long long time now. Doctors are not supposed to render moral judgments on the patients they treat. After a shootout the doctors are supposed to treat both the shooter and the victims equally. They can't just deny medical care to one because one is a criminal. Thats like Medical Ethics 101.

Also, its been the law that hospitals can't block treatment - especially in emergency cases - just because the patient can't pay for a while now. The only difference was that it would be the hospital that would pick up the costs of treatment. If its a public hospital, then the taxpayers would foot the bill anyway. If it is a private hospital, then they would have to take this as personal losses.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 22, 2010)

^ don't bother using commen sense with axl low, he's found the best route to git this socialist government: self inflicted injuries!!  

Now go git em axl, you start the revolution by cracking ur shit.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

There are way to many smilies being used here, and it's getting in the way of effective communication...


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> He's not socialist enough for my tastes..but baby steps first. The Second Renaissance is a long campaign which will span 100 years.



GEoM is required.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 22, 2010)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvvT9o_Wt_s[/YOUTUBE]

This was a pretty dramatic moment in the debate.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 22, 2010)

LouDAgreat said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvvT9o_Wt_s[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> This was a pretty dramatic moment in the debate.



for one year this bill was debated, altered, rewritten, etc, the whole time repubs whining cause they want to write it instead.  Then half way thru they began wasting time by calling for starting from scratch.  The dumbass repubs that didn't get their way ruined themselves.


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Mar 22, 2010)

Fox News should be entertaining.

Might actually watch it.


----------



## SageMaster (Mar 22, 2010)

LOL. Can't you get you're getting trolled?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Mar 22, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> for one year this bill was debated, altered, rewritten, etc, the whole time repubs whining cause they want to write it instead.  Then half way thru they began wasting time by calling for starting from scratch.  *The dumbass repubs that didn't get their way ruined themselves.*



While, it may be true Republicans screwed themselves with this vote,there are voters who will see these guys as heroes; as defenders of liberty and property. As defenders of capitalism and free-enterprise. They will see them as the defenders the ideals of the founding fathers and the American dream. They will be seen as the defenders of the majorities interests and real American values. 

It's possible Democrats may be screwed... it's too early to tell. We're in March, elections aren't till November. A lot can happen in between to help or hurt either party.


----------



## Darc (Mar 22, 2010)

Now for a KFC on every block!


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 22, 2010)

Good thing that it passed !


However, if it is not in effect until 2014 and Republicans for some reason get even more power....that would be horrible !!!!



If it passes for real, at least I know that my taxes would be going for a good cause.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Mar 22, 2010)

Very funny the reactions to this. Some people are saying they won't comply cuz they won't fund abortion.  

Um... yes you will. You'll pay for abortion or go to jail.


----------



## Nodonn (Mar 22, 2010)

Only in 2014?
Does that mean that the republicans can cancel it if they get into power?


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Mar 22, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> GREETINGS COMRADES!
> 
> The glorious health care reform bill has passed and now millions of workers whoa re insured can get it!  I am truly happy to be a citizen of the united soviet union err america!
> 
> Now to send all of the people who voted against it to slave camps in alaska!



ugh, that's so annoying.  Conservatives often throw around the word socialism as if it's a horrible thing in of itself.  Socialism and Capitalism operate under a spectrum it isn't just one or the other.  Any public schooling, housing, transportation and mail service IS SOCIALIST! You need to realize that.  You know that there is something wrong with our country when our own 9/11 rescue workers have to go to Cuba for medical treatment. People are dying and all some people care about is that one extra car, or vacation. THAT IS A PROBLEM. If you don't see that than you simply don't care about your fellow American.

Ronald Reagen during his presidency once said "If even one American child is forced to go hungry at night...that is a national tragedy, we are too generous a people to allow that", The very same man who in his first term cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development by nearly 66 percent! In the words of historian Michael Ignatieff, "When men confront each other as men, as abstract universals, one with power, the other with none, then man is certain to behave as a wolf to his own kind."   It is unfortunate and sad that this is the current situation of America and until we as Americans take emphasis away from the "I" and place it on the "Thou" nothing will change. As Obama said, too many simply talk the talk.

Maybe US citizens should start organizing terrorist attacks on our capital, at the very least they'll have better health care in Guantanamo Bay than most of the US...


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 22, 2010)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> ugh, that's so annoying.  Conservatives often throw around the word socialism as if it's a horrible thing in of itself.  Socialism and Capitalism operate under a spectrum it isn't just one or the other.  Any public schooling, housing, transportation and mail service IS SOCIALIST! You need to realize that.  You know that there is something wrong with our country when our own 9/11 rescue workers have to go to Cuba for medical treatment. People are dying and all some people care about is that one extra car, or vacation. THAT IS A PROBLEM. If you don't see that than you simply don't care about your fellow American.
> 
> Ronald Reagen during his presidency once said "If even one American child is forced to go hungry at night...that is a national tragedy, we are too generous a people to allow that", The very same man who in his first term cut the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development by nearly 66 percent! In the words of historian Michael Ignatieff, "When men confront each other as men, as abstract universals, one with power, the other with none, then man is certain to behave as a wolf to his own kind."   It is unfortunate and sad that this is the current situation of America and until we as Americans take emphasis away from the "I" and place it on the "Thou" nothing will change. As Obama said, too many simply talk the talk.
> 
> Maybe US citizens should start organizing terrorist attacks on our capital, at the very least they'll have better health care in Guantanamo Bay than most of the US...



I think he was kidding around...


----------



## axellover2 (Mar 22, 2010)

I  just wish I knew what the damn bill was about. I have heard some doctors and nurses talk about pay cuts and at Cardinal Health they've decided oto not give their 3% pay raise.

It honestly dosent seem like alot people supported this bill,and who can blame them.Governemt run programs are often crap and can be easily exploited.Guess we'll see how it plays out.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Only in 2014?
> Does that mean that the republicans can cancel it if they get into power?



It has to go through an appeal process first. I said this shit already in this same thread. Please take some time out to learn about the legislative branch.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 22, 2010)

Axl Low said:


> Well atleast the US government admitted to its people being stupid to the world that stereotyped them as such
> 
> Al Coholic Gets into a car drunk and into an accident killing 2 teenagers?
> He's covered! :33
> ...


Nfp Oster Has an annuerism after reading this post?

They're covered!


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

grrm said:
			
		

> I watched the House pass the health care bill earlier tonight. The talking heads all claimed it had the votes to pass, but I still found myself a case of nerves as the numbers piled up oh-so-slowly. The feeling of relief when the count hit 216 was palpable.
> 
> A great night for Obama, for the Democrats, for America.
> 
> ...





> Well atleast the US government admitted to its people being stupid to the world that stereotyped them as such
> 
> Al Coholic Gets into a car drunk and into an accident killing 2 teenagers?
> He's covered!
> ...



They So is the mother of five with ovarian cancer.

And this is the exact same argument people use against free speech.


----------



## iander (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> iander makes some points.  Severe enforcement is needed to stop employers from picking up your local Mexican and screwing an American out of a job for less money and worse conditions.  There needs to be a more efficient way of processing immigrants without some unnecessary song and dance.  However iander, do remember...Americans come first, then illegals.
> 
> We need to deal with the immigration problems in a better manner.  Perhaps maybe making Mexico less shitty could help?



I agree that you can't ignore the problems of either group.  They are both important.  When you solve the issues of both groups, its better for everyone.  So for example, illegal immigrants cannot get access to many things in the US without legal status and can be arrested, imprisoned, deported and so forth.  That is bad for them.  However, it is also bad for Americans because a lot of money is being wasted on immigrations prisons, deportations, fences, walls, security technologies, and so forth.  Also, many of them don't pay taxes so the government is losing out on that revenue.  So, if the immigrants were given a path to legalization, it would solve the problems of both groups.

I think people get bogged down with demonizing either group which solves nothing.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

Champagne Supernova said:


> Fox News should be entertaining.
> 
> Might actually watch it.



It's already a "freak" circus.:ho


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 22, 2010)

iander said:


> I agree that you can't ignore the problems of either group.  They are both important.  When you solve the issues of both groups, its better for everyone.  So for example, illegal immigrants cannot get access to many things in the US without legal status and can be arrested, imprisoned, deported and so forth.  That is bad for them.  However, it is also bad for Americans because a lot of money is being wasted on immigrations prisons, deportations, fences, walls, security technologies, and so forth.  Also, many of them don't pay taxes so the government is losing out on that revenue.  So, if the immigrants were given a path to legalization, it would solve the problems of both groups.
> 
> I think people get bogged down with demonizing either group which solves nothing.



Well there is one but it can be difficult. Jumping the border and then making under the table wages is cheating the system though.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I will.
> 
> And, I won't feel sorry for any of you when you wake up one day and realize _why_ some of us look upon this bill as being a bad policy.


Where are you going to go if you don't mind me asking?

Every civilized nation in the world has some sort of universal health care system.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Lack of management ≠ flaw in free markets



So wait...you can say something like this when it serves your argument, but on the other hand you can talk about how the government previously ran other programs and did badly?



Grandia said:


> Welcome to socialism guys, its not so bad, we europeans bathe in it





Blaze of Glory said:


> But our socialism is better :33
> 
> Because our socialism includes dead babies
> 
> pek pek



Our socialism includes fire arms. AR-15s for all!


----------



## Kensei (Mar 22, 2010)

A good article on the misconceptions tea partiers have about tax rates. It's from Forbes so there can be no complaints about liberal bias.

I feel this is appropriate since this is the group that opposes health care reform. If they are so misinformed on taxes, it's no surprise they are misinformed on health care reform.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Kensei said:


> A good article on the misconceptions tea partiers have about tax rates. It's from Forbes so there can be no complaints about liberal bias.



This unfortunately won't work with Tea Partiers because they don't know of numbers, only of rhetoric.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

sadated_peon said:


> Where are you going to go if you don't mind me asking?
> 
> Every civilized nation in the world has some sort of universal health care system.



Nvm.  Baw time is over.

If I did leave, though, I'd probably visit Japan.

My best friend lives there and I haven't seen him in awhile.. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So wait...you can say something like this when it serves your argument, but on the other hand you can talk about how the government previously ran other programs and did badly?



Yes.  Despite government claims to the contrary, it cannot manage nor run programs as well as the private sector.  Medicare is looking like it will fail, social security, likewise.  Prisons are being forced to release prisoners because state governments don't have the funds necessary to keep hold them.  State workers -- police, firefighters, librarians, etc are being.laid off because the state doesn't have the funds to keep them employed.

These issues are indicative of a government that is intrinsically ill suited to run these types of programs.  It all boils down to one main issue -- the government is unable to cut costs or re-structure itself to become more efficient.  

Corporations can do it, big business can do it.  They engage in "re-structuring" and find ways to bring their costs and spending down.  The US government, never does it, ever.  As a result government costs only increase over time.  

Thus el deficito.

That's what the government needs to address before it can be expected to run a health care program, realibly, with a higher than 0 chance of success.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> *Corporations can do it, big business can do it.  They engage in re-structuring and begin laying people off and find other ways to bring their spending down.*  The US government, never does it, ever.  As a result government costs increase as time passes.  Seldom if ever do they move in the opposite direction.  That's possibly one of the main reasons for the deficit, and for social security and medicare issues.  And, that's what the government needs to change before it can be expected to run a health care program realibly.



Yeah but corporations have that ugly tendency to fuck over the little guy no matter how hard he works in their restructuring.

I'll take my humanitarian viewpoint thank you.

Besides, what do you think the US should stop spending in?  I keep hearing the slogan but with little for ideas that make sense.  Pacifists will say military spending but they're a rather illogical bunch.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> Yeah but corporations have that ugly tendency to fuck over the little guy no matter how hard he works in their restructuring.
> 
> I'll take my humanitarian viewpoint thank you.
> 
> Besides, what do you think the US should stop spending in?  I keep hearing the slogan but with little for ideas that make sense.  Pacifists will say military spending but they're a rather illogical bunch.




Eh..Its a complicated issue.

I think its actually too late to cut costs in a way that will make a big difference.  Medicare and social security costs consume a larger percentage % of the budget, every year.  Eventually, they'll consume the entire budget.  We haven't reached that point, yet, but according to projections by the GAO(government accountability office), we most definitely will.

Its not so much about cutting a defense budget or cutting education or something else.  It has more to do with the government's approach to budgets and how it implements its programs.  There is no cost cutting mechanism.  Even now, politicians are unwilling to entertain the notion that they need to address cost issues, even though states are going bankrupt right before their eyes.

It needs to re-structure and maintain transparency.  That -- the bare minimum required for it to be competitive with the private sector. 

Blah.  I'm trying to think of a way to say this that will enable me to get my puny attempt at a point across.  Drawing a blank...


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I could argue that was neither advancement nor revolution.


You could. But then again, you could also say that the sky is green. The truth values of either are the same: you'd be a lying sophist for saying it.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Switching from a manual system to an automated one in an effort to cut out the middle man and decrease jobs -- and associated costs, does not necessarily constitute advancement.


So a system that cut down connection times from minutes to microseconds isn't an advancement?


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Advancement may be measured primarily in terms of how the consumer benefits.  Primarily back end changes that save a corporation $$$ and result in no change of service for the consumer may be considered advancement in dubious terms.
> 
> Data bandwidth, likewise.  It may be more representative of the natural progression from telegraph lines to phones or other such paradigm shifts that don't necessarily imply success or a sound working model.


It's still advancement, and you'd have to be a sophist to claim otherwise. You're only argument is that "Well, there was no paradigm shifts during the period of government regulated monopoly, so the monopoly must have been holding back progress." I've already explained to you why you have foolish, unreasonable expectations. Take it or leave it, but all you've got to stand on is a pretty flimsy correlation-equals-causation argument.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Touch tone phones were likely technologically feasible from the 1950's, onwards.  A button such as a key on a cell phone isn't a complex device requiring transistors or other such advancements.  Its a simple on/off switch.  And, those were in ready supply.


Touch tone phones are a complicated electronic device. They require circuit boards, and even microprocessors. They didn't exist because the technology wasn't advanced enough to make them affordable.

And cell phone networks are even more complicated. Cell phones are advanced 2 way radios that have to gather signal data from multiple transmission points;, and cell networks themselves are similarly complicated. It requires sufficiently advanced computer technology, and microprocessors to work. Cell phones came out in the 80s because technology had finally advanced enough to make the system possible.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> That's what they said during the collapse of the Soviet Union.



These figures aren't adjusted for inflation, but I think they drive the point home. Standards of living still haven't reached what they were under the USSR, 20 years later.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Honestly, I don't know what TVA is.  Note the difficulties associated with admitting to something I'm ignorant about?  But, the government does has these tendencies to make ridiculous claims regarding how "efficient" it is.
> 
> I have never seen nor heard of TVA winning a business of the year award or other such prestige / distinctions.  Its likely an over-embellishment on the part of the government as opposed to something that is real or representative of how the gov does business.
> 
> No Glenn Beck required, hopefully.




The TVA is hated by the business community because it represents everything they hate and is most threatening to their ideology: it's a well-managed, successful government enterprise. 


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Railroads are prone to being localized and localization is prone to resulting in monopolies.  Its not necessarily a result of free markets so much as it is a result of a concentration of too much power and influence in a small area.


Sorry, but the market can't dodge responsibility for this one. Rail is a natural monopoly, and the market has proven time and time again it should have no business in the management of natural monopolies.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> They remain undeveloped as they have little or no growth potential not as a result of the policies or hierarchy they follow.
> 
> The fact that China has high growth potential isn't due to its government being socialist, its a result of low labor prices and excess of rare earth magnets and other factors.


Then how do you explain the fact that countries that have adopted social democratic policies experience growth and increased standards of living while they adopt these policies, but when these policies are repealed in favor of neo-liberal free markets, these countries inevitably stagnate and poverty explodes? I refer you to Mexico since the signing of NAFTA. Poverty has exploded since the old system of social democratic planning was overturned in favor of free trade and economic liberalism. The massive wave of illegal immigration to the United States is proof positive of this.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Yes.  Despite government claims to the contrary, it cannot manage nor run programs as well as the private sector.  Medicare is looking like it will fail, social security, likewise.  Prisons are being forced to release prisoners because state governments don't have the funds necessary to keep hold them.  State workers -- police, firefighters, librarians, etc are being.laid off because the state doesn't have the funds to keep them employed.


Funny, the private sector just needed a big old bail out from the federal government because of something... hmm, what was it again? Oh yeah, AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION. 

Programs like Medicare and Social Security are not doomed to fail. They've been run efficiently for decades, far more efficiently than the private sector. Medicare's administrative overhead is less than one half of one percent. In the private insurance market, it's around forty percent. If someone were to say that Medicare is one hundred times more efficient than the private sector, it wouldn't be much of an exageration.

Time and time again, people have shown their satisfaction with these state run programs that you say can't be run properly. Your ideology is at variance with reality.

We're in the middle of an economic depression right now. Tax revenues are depleted because the private sector has melted down. And fiscally irresponsible conservative government are cutting corners rather than keeping the infrastructure of the state in working order to drive an economic recovery.

In no uncertain terms, this crisis is the fault of the private sector and ideologues like yourself. They're the ones who deregulated, privatized and otherwise attempted to starve the beast known as Good Government. And here we are, with 10+ percent unemployment, declining real wages, and the prospect of it getting worse in the future. 

Shame on you for blaming government for this. Government is to blame so far as it was complicit with the aims of ruthless market ideologues, and only that far. Countries that had responsible social democratic politicians aren't faring as badly as we are. If that's not proof enough for you that you should reevaluate your priorities, I don't know what is.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> These issues are indicative of a government that is intrinsically ill suited to run these types of programs.  It all boils down to one main issue -- the government is unable to cut costs or re-structure itself to become more efficient.
> 
> Corporations can do it, big business can do it.  They engage in "re-structuring" and find ways to bring their costs and spending down.  The US government, never does it, ever.  As a result government costs only increase over time.


Can you be any more facile about this? A government program and a private, for-profit corporation exist in entirely different universes. The former provides a public service, the latter exists only to provide a profit to its shareholders. These are two diametrically opposed paradigms.

Corporations cut costs by firing people, or shutting down departments that aren't profitable. Government doesn't have that luxury because it provides services that cannot be done in the private sector. Why else do you think that it is the state that builds and maintains roads? There's no profit to be had in private ownership of the roads. 

You're comparing apples and oranges, and you know it.


----------



## geG (Mar 22, 2010)

Why did Stewart and Colbert have to take this week off 

I want to see Fox News's reaction without actually having to watch Fox News


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> In short, you've been duped.  There are no advantages to a government takeover and history is rife with examples of negative attributes that are inherent in government run industries.
> 
> I challenge you or anyone to provide evidence to the contrary, but expect you to fail simply because there isn't any.
> 
> Have a nice night, gorgeous.



My country's rail service would like to have a word with you.

Edit: Already brought up I see.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 22, 2010)

good day in our countries history. A deficit reducing bill has just passed the house, hope the senate takes it to the finish line.


----------



## Seisokumaru (Mar 22, 2010)

States are already suing about how the Federal Government doesn't even have the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, which is what this bill amounts to if you're not on Government Cheese.

Regardless of the outcome, this is irrationality in the face of objective reality.  We can't pay for the shit we have, so lets add more shit.  Bloody brilliant.


----------



## Nodonn (Mar 22, 2010)

Geg said:


> Why did Stewart and Colbert have to take this week off
> 
> I want to see Fox News's reaction without actually having to watch Fox News



Something awesome always happens when they do


----------



## Enclave (Mar 22, 2010)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> Well Its time I brushed up on my German Cause I'm catching the 1st boat out of this nut house called America. In Europe when elected officials screw over constituants you don't re-elect them you terminate them.



You are of course aware that much of the EU has socialised medicine.


----------



## Black Wraith (Mar 22, 2010)

Seisokumaru said:


> States are already suing about how the Federal Government doesn't even have the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, which is what this bill amounts to if you're not on Government Cheese.
> 
> Regardless of the outcome, this is irrationality in the face of objective reality.  We can't pay for the shit we have, so lets add more shit.  Bloody brilliant.



You could also look at it another way:

This can help people who are able to work but can't because of health and also can't afford it.

The American mentality on this subject is surprisingly stupid and the funny thing is most of the people complaining won't know shit about the actual thing and might even come in contact with some of the good effects of the bill.


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm not so sure about this bill anymore... It feels like there's an ulterior motive behind it.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> I'm not so sure about this bill anymore... It feels like there's an ulterior motive behind it.



Pelosi's communenvironmentalism.


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> Pelosi's communenvironmentalism.



What? 

What's this?


----------



## Final Fantasy VII (Mar 22, 2010)

Well I was fired for giving dirty dvds to my friends at work after working there 8 years and the my assistant managers who asked me for movies only got final warnings so simple enough to say im about  to get my first unemployment check after about 8 weeks of waiting and this cheaper healthcare sounds really good right about now. I just wonder how much the insurance will cost a month and how much money the coverage will cover.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2010)

The USA is on the run for another bankruptcy.

Paying E130.- a month is quite nice.:ho


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 22, 2010)

Blue_Panter_Ninja said:


> The USA is on the run for another bankruptcy.



But we'll still be better than your Country.


----------



## Final Fantasy VII (Mar 22, 2010)

maybe blue panter but this bill will make more americans have more money to save or spend each month instead of giving it to the greedy insurance companies such as blue cross and cobra etc.   more money in the consumers pockets and not the companies pockets which only go to the ceos of the companies is a good thing.  ceos dont spend money and help the economy they donate it for tax breaks and save the rest in the bank. Point is us normal workers who arent ceos and presidents of companies will have more money each month to help the economy get better. The rates hospitals charge are outraegous really if the rates go down at all that will be good for us normal people.doctors are highly over paid making half a million each year. im sure if they only made 200,000 to 400,000 they would manage somehow lol

if every american saves 100 dollars off their medical insurance a month thats 1200 dollars a year each american has available to spend and help the economy. this is bill is costing 960 billion over the next ten years.  1200 a year to spend  x 170,000,000 or so people 18 and over with coverage. in one year the usa will have made back more than what it spent on the bill and we may save more than 100 dollars a month.


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Nvm.  Baw time is over.
> 
> If I did leave, though, I'd probably visit Japan.
> 
> My best friend lives there and I haven't seen him in awhile..



But Japan has universal health care much more than U.S. how can you cry about U.S. and promote Japan....


----------



## Final Fantasy VII (Mar 22, 2010)

because japan is the home of manga and anime and ps3 and square enix is im guessing are immortals reasons.oh and the panty vending machines lol.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)




----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Limabaugh says he's leaving the US...looks like this is a very special day indeed.



Where the Hell is he going to go that doesn't have some form of universal health care that's _more_ radical than the US? Somalia might be the only place he can go to without being a hypocrite.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Where the Hell is he going to go that doesn't have some form of universal health care that's _more_ radical than the US? Somalia might be the only place he can go to without being a hypocrite.



Can we send him on an experimental shuttle to Venus?


----------



## Deleted member 174958 (Mar 22, 2010)

Seriously? He's going to leave? To some country that is FAR worse than our own. I'm not sure where I stand with this bill but I know this country is the better to live in. 

France possible is second best.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 22, 2010)

So the conservative agenda now says they're aiming to repeal the measure, how cute ..so...how do you repeal giving access to healthcare to 30 million Americans?


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 22, 2010)

So Rush is leaving the US, giving up on your country doesn't sound very patriotic.


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Rush Limbaugh leaving the U.S has just made my day great. 




Inuhanyou said:


> So the conservative agenda now says they're aiming to repeal the measure, how cute ..so...how do you repeal giving access to healthcare to 30 million Americans?



Let them try as they might. All their efforts are futile.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> So Rush is leaving the US, giving up on your country doesn't sound very patriotic.



Rush is merely moving to transplant the seeds of Amuricann freedomz and demokracee to far away lands as Jesus Christ had instructed him.


----------



## TDM (Mar 22, 2010)

Even as a joke, I can't believe people are saying they'd _leave_ the country.





Sama'el said:


> Where the Hell is he going to go that doesn't have some form of universal health care that's _more_ radical than the US? Somalia might be the only place he can go to without being a hypocrite.


No kidding - I don't think people understand just how against the grain the US Healthcare system is.


----------



## Kael Hyun (Mar 22, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> So Rush is leaving the US, giving up on your country doesn't sound very patriotic.



He's leaving the country because its going to be to expensive to run a business here now that Taxes are going to inflate to in operable proportions. Really we shouldn't have this bill and cutting funding to other programs (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WITH THE STIMULUSES.). I swear, Cut taxes and Spending by 50%, and we may end up like Japan if were Lucky.


----------



## αce (Mar 22, 2010)

Fina-fucking-ly.

Now I can watch Fox News with 50% more fun.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

MyNindoForever said:


> *He's leaving the country because its going to be to expensive to run a business* here now that Taxes are going to inflate to in operable proportions. Really we shouldn't have this bill and cutting funding to other programs (AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WITH THE STIMULUSES.). I swear, Cut taxes and Spending by 50%, and we may end up like Japan if were Lucky.



It'll just be more expensive for his pain meds that he pops irresponsibly, that's why he's leaving.

He won't have much fun elsewhere with his propagana.

Cut taxes and spending by 50%?  Seriously?  In what might I ask you?  Defense?  Nah...still need to fight imaginary threats right?  Education?  Doing bad enough already and in fact needs more money.

I love how people like you espouse all these values of the Constitution yet turned a fucking blind eye from 2001-2008.  Turned a fucking blind eye when even the GOP and these pre-Tea Partiers would bend over for China or Saudi oil.  Some measures like Afghanistan were necessary but afterwards it became quite a clusterfuck.  I'm also willing to bet 75%+ of these Tea Party pseudo-patriots never read the Constitution.


----------



## Aleph-1 (Mar 22, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Limabaugh says he's leaving the US...looks like this is a very special day indeed.



HALLELUJAH!


----------



## αce (Mar 22, 2010)

GOP is gonna repeal this?

David Frum summed this up nicely. You can't tell a 26 year old "too bad, get your own insurance" now that it's passed.

And David Frum is pretty conservative...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG817BJzh4U[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Kael Hyun (Mar 22, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> GOP is gonna repeal this?
> 
> David Frum summed this up nicely. You can't tell a 26 year old "too bad, get your own insurance" now that it's passed.
> 
> ...



Sure you can Tell them to get a Job im 20 years old going on 21 with no Job, If anything this bill is AIMED at me if those idiots think thats how the world works someone needs to give them a kick in the ass


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2010)

MyNindoForever said:


> Sure you can Tell them to get a Job im 20 years old going on 21 with no Job, If anything this bill is AIMED at me if those idiots think thats how the world works someone needs to give them a kick in the ass



Well if maybe your leaders had listened to reason and compromised as their predecessors did instead of listen to the dumb fucks in the Tea Party and the Rush/Beck/Hannity Trio, then this butthurt wouldn't be happening.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 22, 2010)

MyNindoForever said:


> Sure you can Tell them to get a Job im 20 years old going on 21 with no Job, If anything this bill is AIMED at me if those idiots think thats how the world works someone needs to give them a kick in the ass



The lack of jobs is due to rampant capitalism, not government spending, it's affected parts of my country in terrible ways as it has yours, there's areas here where people haven't had work for a generation, thank you conservatives. :33


----------



## Kael Hyun (Mar 22, 2010)

Mael said:


> Well if maybe your leaders had listened to reason and compromised as their predecessors did instead of listen to the dumb fucks in the Tea Party and the Rush/Beck/Hannity Trio, then this butthurt wouldn't be happening.



Compromise isn't what's needed and stop insulting my intelligence if you want to have a conversation



Xyloxi said:


> The lack of jobs is due to rampant capitalism, not government spending, it's affected parts of my country in terrible ways as it has yours, there's areas here where people haven't had work for a generation, thank you conservatives. :33



No its due to the *Lack* of Capitalism. You want more jobs? Lower Taxes for growing corporations they create jobs. You want Health insurance prices to go down? Open up the state lines for were people can get there Insurance, and the free market will force the prices to go down. It's not that hard, it's simple Economics

edit: oh yeah and Goverment spending is the reson why were in this Its the National Debt that were worryed about.


----------



## iander (Mar 22, 2010)

Good luck finding a job in your 20s with decent healthcare benefits that wont bankrupt you if you get sick.  You are better off going under your parent's till you have a good enough job.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 22, 2010)

MyNindoForever said:


> Compromise isn't what's needed and stop insulting my intelligence if you want to have a conversation
> 
> 
> 
> ...



America having a lack of capitalism? Are you trolling me or are you that stupid? Government spending should be beneficial to all, as in not an unnecessary war, which on the grand scale of things has not vastly improved the situation in Iraq, not that it was much of a threat anyway. Would you like to see the product of rampant capitalism? People have fewer jobs as corporations are hardly ethical at all as they care about profit before anything else whereas the public sector often provides a service or something which private companies cannot run efficiently enough. 

I could state any economic theory with enough large words that formed a coherent sentence and it'd sound the same really, Reagan and Thatcher are why supply side economics are not a good idea.


----------



## emROARS (Mar 22, 2010)

So basically, is America getting it's own NHS?

And people are getting mad why?


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 22, 2010)

You know all those jobs we used to have in America which are now in Mexico and China? That's the face of capitalism. That's what happens when capitalism continues to grow unfettered with no government restraints. They don't give a damn about the American worker..they only care about lining their wallets with the American dollar while we have none.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 22, 2010)

emROARS said:


> So basically, is America getting it's own NHS?
> 
> And people are getting mad why?



Because it's taking away their freedoms and Obama is a socialist.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Mar 22, 2010)

emROARS said:


> So basically, is America getting it's own NHS?
> 
> And people are getting mad why?



I'll admit I'm not intricately familiar with the NHS, but from what I know and understand the US really isn't getting anything like the NHS.

This is not so much a healthcare bill as a health insurance bill, which addresses a symptom rather than the causes.


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Fina-fucking-ly.
> 
> Now I can watch Fox News with 50% more fun.



I'm watching Glenn Beck right now. dude, is fucking stupid 

"We've lost the battle but the war is not over." 

Umm yeah crackpot it is. It is. 



			
				Xyloxi said:
			
		

> So Rush is leaving the US, giving up on your country doesn't sound very patriotic.



Maybe he should take Glenn Beck with him.


----------



## Stalin (Mar 22, 2010)

I honestly can't tell if is this is a bad thing or a good thing.


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> Because it's taking away their freedoms and Obama is a socialist.



Obama is*MY* socialist and don't you forget it.


----------



## niyesuH (Mar 22, 2010)

Does this include the shortening of the ridiculous patent rights of the health industry?


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 22, 2010)

Geg said:


> Why did Stewart and Colbert have to take this week off
> 
> I want to see Fox News's reaction without actually having to watch Fox News



They took this week of because they are not needed this week.

Fox news will give more than enough laughs and comedic value that having these two to top it off will create a storm of violent laughter that could cause massive health issues for all concerned.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

MyNindoForever said:


> No its due to the *Lack* of Capitalism. You want more jobs? Lower Taxes for growing corporations they create jobs. You want Health insurance prices to go down? Open up the state lines for were people can get there Insurance, and the free market will force the prices to go down. It's not that hard, it's simple Economics
> 
> edit: oh yeah and Goverment spending is the reson why were in this Its the National Debt that were worryed about.


Sorry, but your views are simply at odds with objective realities. The countries that are faring best right now are the ones with strong state sectors. 

Taxes have no net effect on job creation. Corporate income tax is a tax on profits. Money reinvested in the corporation or paid out in payroll isn't taxed. Lowering taxes will only serve to weaken the polity, without actually having any net effect on the economy.

Economics is anything but simple. The kind of microeconomic philosophy you espouse does not work on the macroeconomic scale. Cutting spending during a depression is a mistake, and tax cuts will only result in increased savings. Aggregate demand will continue to fall, and the economy will continue to recess. That's what Keynes demonstrated in his _magnum opus_, _The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money_. Keynes' theories have served as the bedrock of public policy since the Great Depression, and have been responsible for the longest periods of uninterrupted, stable economic growth in recorded history. What must be precisely done is government deficit spending to stimulate aggregate demand, to increase employment, and drive increases in production. 

Frankly, the deficit is not that great of a concern. Even with current spending levels, by 2015, the economy will likely have grown sufficiently to reduce the deficit to well below the rate of economic growth. And even now, America's public debt is only 70% of GDP. At the end of WW2, it was ~150% of GDP, but because of economic growth, even though the government continued deficit spending, it was down to ~20% of GDP by 1970.


----------



## iander (Mar 22, 2010)

One thing the bill should have included was negotiations between government and doctors to fix healthcare prices.  Its what most good healthcare systems have done to cut prices drastically.  This bill only has a recommendation board which is not nearly the same thing as they are guidelines not rules.

Problem is, conservatives would be frothing at the mouth even more.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> I'll admit I'm not intricately familiar with the NHS, but from what I know and understand the US really isn't getting anything like the NHS.
> 
> This is not so much a healthcare bill as a health insurance bill, which addresses a symptom rather than the causes.



Well, here's the cliffnotes version of the NHS. Single payer insurance model combined with major government ownership of hospitals and other centralized health care providers. So yeah, nothing like NHS. 

A number of critics have accused the bill of "paving the way" for a system like the NHS, but that's a slippery slope argument. You can bet though, by 2016, this policy is going to be up for major review, and the left will likely try to make a push for single-payer.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> *You know all those jobs we used to have in America which are now in Mexico and China?* That's the face of capitalism. That's what happens when capitalism continues to grow unfettered with no government restraints. They don't give a damn about the American worker..they only care about lining their wallets with the American dollar while we have none.



Um, Yes... That's called, they have less income taxes in other countries and no minimum wage. 


*Spoiler*: __ 








I would say that we should lower corporate taxes in order to encourage companies to relocate and hire people here... But I don't think anybody here would go for that, because it seems we're all about gouging companies so they can't afford to hire more of our workers ^_^.


----------



## Toby (Mar 22, 2010)

^ That listing doesn't have China on it unfortunately. 

Also, I enjoy having lower corporate taxes in my socialist paradise than in your socalled capitalist paradise. Makes me wonder how conservative we are in Norway when we are pushing for lower corporate taxes.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> Um, Yes... That's called, they have less income taxes in other countries and no minimum wage.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Corporate income taxes are taxes on profit. They encourage reinvestment in the firm, and have no effect upon the firm's employment calculus. So try again.


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 22, 2010)

Ishinoue said:


> Seriously? He's going to leave? To some country that is FAR worse than our own. I'm not sure where I stand with this bill but I know this country is the better to live in.
> 
> France possible is second best.



Ewww... You can keep him or send him to Belgium (/jk), France has a decent health care system, that sucks, but that is still better than what the US has up until now.

See, Obama wants to turn the US health care system into the direction most countries in the EU are. Sarkozy wants it to be more like in the USA. So I think there's a middle ground there somewhere...


----------



## Black Wraith (Mar 22, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Ewww... You can keep him or send him to Belgium (/jk), France has a decent health care system, that sucks, but that is still better than what the US has up until now.
> 
> *See, Obama wants to turn the US health care system into the direction most countries in the EU are. Sarkozy wants it to be more like in the USA. So I think there's a middle ground there somewhere...*



Send the French to America and Americans to France


----------



## iander (Mar 22, 2010)

And we all saw how much the French like Sarkozy in the latest French elections


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Corporate income taxes are taxes on profit. They encourage reinvestment in the firm, and have no effect upon the firm's employment calculus. So try again.



Wages are part of a company's cost dynamics... Those profits are used to reinvest into the firm (I.E. if they need to increase production capacity or want to expand into a new sector of the market, thus providing more jobs). 

Revenue - Cost (Including wages) = Profit. That profit is then put back into the company in order to either improve quality, increase production, etc. Either way, if a company has little profit, it can't afford to hire more workers than it started out with.

Where does that money to hire more workers come from if it doesn't come from its profit? That profit is used to increase revenue. Of course, if a company can, it WILL reduce costs in order to increase profit. So, if there is a job that is useless, then they'll get rid of it... Or if they can replace manual labor with machines, they will do it.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 22, 2010)

As I see a lot of people talking about jobs, The reason people don't want to hire our workers is because of capitalism. I suppose you could also call it good money management.(Not capitalism that is) The very system we have promotes companies finding the best bargain, which today is shipping our jobs off to other countries for pennies on the dollar. Great Success!


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> Wages are part of a company's cost dynamics... Those profits are used to reinvest into the firm (I.E. if they need to increase production capacity or want to expand into a new sector of the market, thus providing more jobs).
> 
> Revenue - Cost (Including wages) = Profit. That profit is then put back into the company in order to either improve quality, increase production, etc. Either way, if a company has little profit, it can't afford to hire more workers than it started out with.
> 
> Where does that money to hire more workers come from if it doesn't come from its profit? That profit is used to increase revenue. Of course, if a company CAN, it WILL reduce costs in order to increase profit. So, if there is a job that is useless, then they'll get rid of it... Or if they can replace manual labor with machines, they will do it.



What you're doing is casually redefining profit as surplus value. The two are not the same thing. Profits are the part that are paid to shareholders as dividends. Money from gross revenue that is reinvested in new factors of production, or is used to hire new workers, isn't taxed. 

A corporate income tax doesn't affect these parts of the production process because it involves what is left over after all the stages of production are accounted for. It's as simple as that.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> What you're doing is casually redefining profit as surplus value. The two are not the same thing. Profits are the part that are paid to shareholders as dividends. Money from gross revenue that is reinvested in new factors of production, or is used to hire new workers, isn't taxed.
> 
> A corporate income tax doesn't affect these parts of the production process because it involves what is left over after all the stages of production are accounted for. It's as simple as that.



However, what would have happened to all of that money that was sucked up by the corporate income tax? The simple fact of the matter is that there is less money in the possession of the company than was there before. 

Are you suggesting that if a company hires more workers, it's taxed less? I don't believe that this is the case, otherwise, the government wouldn't be discussing offering tax credits for hiring more workers.

Edit: 
Hold on, just thought of something, you might be right. Let me do some more research on the issue.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 22, 2010)

T4R0K said:


> Ewww... You can keep him or send him to Belgium (/jk), France has a decent health care system, that sucks, but that is still better than what the US has up until now.
> 
> See, Obama wants to turn the US health care system into the direction most countries in the EU are. Sarkozy wants it to be more like in the USA. So I think there's a middle ground there somewhere...



You'll find that politicians often want to modify health care to be more like the Americans private system.  Thing is though, it's pretty much always insanely unpopular with voters because voters don't WANT to have to pay insane premiums to insurance companies.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> Are you suggesting that if a company hires more workers, it's taxed less? I don't believe that this is the case, otherwise, the government wouldn't be discussing offering tax credits for hiring more workers.


Yes. It's also why corporations that are in the red for a year aren't taxed into oblivion; if there are no profits, there are no corporate income taxes.

Obviously, they pay all other sorts of taxes. Mineral fees, property taxes, excise taxes, etc., The point of tax credits for hiring new workers is to provide an extra incentive to employ more people. It offsets the reduction in profits that comes with increasing employment levels.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Mar 22, 2010)

Just the begining ?


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Yes. It's also why corporations that are in the red for a year aren't taxed into oblivion; if there are no profits, there are no corporate income taxes.
> 
> Obviously, they pay all other sorts of taxes. Mineral fees, property taxes, excise taxes, etc., The point of tax credits for hiring new workers is to provide an extra incentive to employ more people. It offsets the reduction in profits that comes with increasing employment levels.



But I'm thinking, wouldn't just lowering the income tax have the same effect as offering tax credits? 

Either way, if I was a company, I would hire workers based on need, not "tax credit incentives". If I believe that it would be beneficial to expand into a new market sector or to increase production, I'll hire more workers. It's based on demand.

If there is no market demand, then I can't afford to hire more workers because there's no guarantee that I'll acquire the revenue necessary to fund them. 

We seem to have differences in what we consider "profit" and what is done with that profit. I can't help but think that profits are a necessary entity in increasing the size of a company, considering that wages are considered as a part of the costs of running a corporation. If there was no profit for reinvestment, I see the size of a company remaining relatively static.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> But I'm thinking, wouldn't just lowering the income tax have the same effect as offering tax credits?



Lowering income tax adds to gross profits but not to more jobs.  Tax credits for hiring more employees adds to gross profits while also adding more jobs.

The logic is rather insanely simple actually.  Surprised you didn't catch it.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Lowering income tax adds to gross profits but not to more jobs.  Tax credits for hiring more employees adds to gross profits while also adding more jobs.
> 
> The logic is rather insanely simple actually.  Surprised you didn't catch it.



No, I thought about it... And the logic doesn't make sense. 

If I'm a business owner, and I don't have the need to hire another employee, I'm not going to hire him, tax credit or not. 

That's like stealing the income that I would have otherwise used to buy a car... And then telling me that you'll hand the money back if I buy a car. Except, the difference is that an employee is a constant cost... as long as that employee works for my company, he's going to be a drain on my revenue. A car will eventually be paid off, but you can't finish "paying off" an employee.... you can only fire them. 

I'm just saying, offering a one-time tax credit for hiring an employee isn't going to cover the costs of that employee... Not to mention that it's just going to be a drain given that the employee wasn't needed in the first place... You don't create demand by hiring people, you create demand by having a good product that people can afford to buy.. If nobody can afford to buy your product, then you won't have the revenue necessary to hire people.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Mar 22, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Pre-Reagan era a number of US industries were run by the government.
> 
> There's a reason why the shift from government takeover to free markets occurred.
> 
> ...



It would be stupid not to learn from the flaws and mistakes when certain industries were privatized. 
Privatization has not in all cases led to a cheaper/better service condition. Especially seeing the monopolies formed and the main aim is to make the most money....not provide the cheapest/best/fairest service


Really Its funny you complain about a change to something not nearly as far as is commonplace in Europe. 
Try to paint the change as spelling Doom for the country....yet many ""socialist"" healthcare is outperforming yours...and costing less....


The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> Um, Yes... That's called, they have less income taxes in other countries and no minimum wage.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Pretty crazy how some countries some people are sending 50% of their earnings to the government.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> No, I thought about it... And the logic doesn't make sense.
> 
> If I'm a business owner, and I don't have the need to hire another employee, I'm not going to hire him, tax credit or not.
> 
> ...



Yeah, except no.

Companies often are short handed and could benefit from a larger employee base but do not expand their employee base to save a few bucks and in turn work their current employees harder to make up for the lack of required manpower.


----------



## dreams lie (Mar 22, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> What you're doing is casually redefining profit as surplus value. The two are not the same thing. Profits are the part that are paid to shareholders as dividends. Money from gross revenue that is reinvested in new factors of production, or is used to hire new workers, isn't taxed.



What?  Maybe accounting uses different jargon, but from what I learned, the federal income tax is a direct tax on the profits.  It is fairly convoluted the way it is set up into different levels, but I have no idea what you are talking about when you said the government does not tax net income.  And no, amazingfunksta is right in that the retained earnings (after taxes are recorded and dividends are declared) could be used in expanding the business.  



> A corporate income tax doesn't affect these parts of the production process because it involves what is left over after all the stages of production are accounted for. It's as simple as that.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Yeah, except no.
> 
> Companies often are short handed and could benefit from a larger employee base but do not expand their employee base to save a few bucks and in turn work their current employees harder to make up for the lack of required manpower.



If I didn't like my job because I was being overworked and that my talents weren't being appreciated, I would find another one behind their back... and then quit. Problem solved. 

If I can't find another job at the time, I'll be glad that I at least have one by which I can support myself and my family if I have one. If I were to quit, I'm sure there will be someone that would love to have my job. 

If I ran a business, I would be extremely concerned about company morale. If my employees are not happy, then I am not happy. Anyways, I don't accept the concept that businesses need the government to tell them to hire people for their own good. In fact, if I ran a business, I would be very pissed that a few select lawyers in Washington think they would know how to run a business better than I, who makes a living running a business everyday.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 22, 2010)

Oh well, the Bill is going to be defeated in Court when the States sue anyways!


----------



## dreams lie (Mar 22, 2010)

strongarm85 said:


> Oh well, the Bill is going to be defeated in Court when the States sue anyways!



I heard they were going to sue, but I was uncertain if they actually see this as a viable measure.  I noticed that a number of the GOP are running for a repeal of the law, and if Obama loses his reelection, then that will become a strong possibility.  Unless, of course, the Democrats filibuster.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

Wouldn't suing just be costly and cause immediate spending of tax dollars as opposed to the reform which won't kick in until like 2016?

Also, they're technically suing themselves.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> I heard they were going to sue, but I was uncertain if they actually see this as a viable measure.  I noticed that a number of the GOP are running for a repeal of the law, and if Obama loses his reelection, then that will become a strong possibility.  Unless, of course, the Democrats filibuster.



Yeah, quite a few states are going to sue on account of the health insurance mandate. However, I doubt they'll be able to have any lasting impact on the bill itself... They'll more than likely be able to declare the mandate as unconstitutional, but the rest of the bill will still stand. 

Without the mandate, health insurance companies won't be able to afford their consumer base assuming that they can't deny based on pre-existing conditions. That health insurance mandate would be the only thing keeping health insurance companies in business... However, paying the fine is cheaper than buying a health insurance policy, and since health insurance providers can't deny you based on a pre-existing condition, you could just wait until you come up with an illness to buy an insurance package and the insurance company would be required to pay for it. Assuming this is true, it wouldn't be hard to see a scenario in which private insurance companies go out of business, thus paving the way to a single payer healthcare system.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> But I'm thinking, wouldn't just lowering the income tax have the same effect as offering tax credits?



How do you figure?  If you lower income tax then they get that money no matter what they do, if you offer tax credits for hiring employees then they actually HAVE to hire someone in order to get that money.



amazingfunksta said:


> Either way, if I was a company, I would hire workers based on need, not "tax credit incentives". If I believe that it would be beneficial to expand into a new market sector or to increase production, I'll hire more workers. It's based on demand.
> 
> *If there is no market demand, then I can't afford to hire more workers because there's no guarantee that I'll acquire the revenue necessary to fund them. *
> 
> We seem to have differences in what we consider "profit" and what is done with that profit. I can't help but think that profits are a necessary entity in increasing the size of a company, considering that wages are considered as a part of the costs of running a corporation. If there was no profit for reinvestment, I see the size of a company remaining relatively static.



I don't think anyone is saying a company that's about to go under would hire people for the tax credit, but if the company is doing fairly well and considering the possibility of hiring people this offers one extra incentive to hire people.  I fail to see how an extra incentive to create jobs is a bad thing.



amazingfunksta said:


> Yeah, quite a few states are going to sue  on account of the health insurance mandate. However, I doubt they'll be  able to have any lasting impact on the bill itself... They'll more than  likely be able to declare the mandate as unconstitutional, but the rest  of the bill will still stand.



I'm not sure how exactly the mandate is unconstitutional.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 22, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> I heard they were going to sue, but I was uncertain if they actually see this as a viable measure.  I noticed that a number of the GOP are running for a repeal of the law, and if Obama loses his reelection, then that will become a strong possibility.  Unless, of course, the Democrats filibuster.



Actually it is a viable measure. The Constitution only allows congress to regulate Interstate Commerce. Health Insurance is Intrastate Commerce, meaning that it can only be purchased within the state that you live in. The Congress has no legal grounds to regulate insurance in the way that they are attempting to do so. In fact the constitution expressly states that they cannot. This exactly what destroyed Bill Clinton's Assault Weapons ban in the Supreme Court and it was much less specific in the various regulations.

The Legislatures who voted for this probably forgotten that the checks and balances in our government do not just exist between the three branches of the federal government, but also between the State Governement and the Federal Government. This bill is clear violation of states right and it when it reaches the Supreme Court it will not stand, especially given previous rulings made by the court and when you consider who it is that is on the Supreme Court.


----------



## dreams lie (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> Without the mandate, health insurance companies won't be able to afford their consumer base assuming that they can't deny based on pre-existing conditions. That health insurance mandate would be the only thing keeping health insurance companies in business... However, paying the fine is cheaper than buying a health insurance policy, and since health insurance providers can't deny you based on a pre-existing condition, you could just wait until you come up with an illness to buy an insurance package and the insurance company would be required to pay for it. Assuming this is true, it wouldn't be hard to see a scenario in which private insurance companies go out of business, thus paving the way to a single payer healthcare system.



Again, I would not mind it if we set up single payer healthcare.  I do mind the current system, especially now that the mandate gifted the insurance companies with so many unwilling customers.  To be more concise, I hope everything you just said comes true.  The mandate was the one issue that truly bothered me about this bill.  



> Actually it is a viable measure. The Constitution only allows congress to regulate Interstate Commerce. Health Insurance is Intrastate Commerce, meaning that it can only be purchased within the state that you live in. The Congress has no legal grounds to regulate insurance in the way that they are attempting to do so. In fact the constitution expressly states that they cannot. This exactly what destroyed Bill Clinton's Assault Weapons ban in the Supreme Court and it was much less specific in the various regulations.
> 
> The Legislatures who voted for this probably forgotten that the checks and balances in our government do not just exist between the three branches of the federal government, but also between the State Governement and the Federal Government. This bill is clear violation of states right and it when it reaches the Supreme Court it will not stand, especially given previous rulings made by the court and when you consider who it is that is on the Supreme Court.



Interesting interpretation of the events, although I would not be too optimistic.  I had erroneously assumed the bill had died out two months ago and that Obama lost too much political capital to regain his momentum.  What happened yesterday was still a bit of an annoying shocker.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

But isn't anyone scared we're suing ourselves.


----------



## geG (Mar 22, 2010)

dreams lie said:


> I noticed that a number of the GOP are running for a repeal of the law, and if Obama loses his reelection, then that will become a strong possibility.


That's one thing I worried might happen, due to the fact that a lot of the bill's effects won't go into effect until after the 2012 election.

I mean, I know some provisions go into effect in like 6 months, but what's the point in waiting until 2014 for others? Wouldn't there then be a chance to repeal it before most of it even goes into effect?


----------



## Enclave (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> If I didn't like my job because I was being overworked and that my talents weren't being appreciated, I would find another one behind their back... and then quit. Problem solved.
> 
> If I can't find another job at the time, I'll be glad that I at least have one by which I can support myself and my family if I have one. If I were to quit, I'm sure there will be someone that would love to have my job.
> 
> If I ran a business, I would be extremely concerned about company morale. If my employees are not happy, then I am not happy. Anyways, I don't accept the concept that businesses need the government to tell them to hire people for their own good. In fact, if I ran a business, I would be very pissed that a few select lawyers in Washington think they would know how to run a business better than I, who makes a living running a business everyday.



You leave, then they hire somebody else.

You'd be surprised how many people are willing to be overworked at their job.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Enclave said:


> You leave, then they hire somebody else.
> 
> You'd be surprised how many people are willing to be overworked at their job.



Eeeexactly! Like I said. 



amazingfunksta said:


> If I can't find another job at the time, I'll be glad that I at least have one by which I can support myself and my family if I have one. If I were to quit, I'm sure there will be someone that would love to have my job.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 22, 2010)

But that just reaffirms my point.  Enticing a company to hire another employee works better than simply giving them a tax break


----------



## Bender (Mar 22, 2010)

Now, Obama HAS to win the 2012 election.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Mar 22, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Yeah, except no.
> 
> Companies often are short handed and could benefit from a larger employee base but do not expand their employee base to save a few bucks and in turn work their current employees harder to make up for the lack of required manpower.



Interestingly, productivity-to which wages are theoretically tied-has been raising by such at such a rate that workers should be getting much more money for their services know. But as anyone who has worked a low wage job knows employers resist wage increases with every trick they can think of and every ounce of strength that they can summon.



Razgriez said:


> Pretty crazy how some countries some people are sending 50% of their earnings to the government.



Yeah, but those countries generally offer FAR better public services than the US offers to it's people.  The problem with the US is the definition of poverty that our country uses. It doesn't accurately let policy makers know who is poor and who isn't. It defines an individual earning over 7.35$ an hour well out of poverty but many who've tried to live on those wages can tell you, I'm sure, that is not enough to live on.  Using a more accurate definition something like 29% of US families are living in what could more reasonably be defined as poverty. The US is extremely flawed. This Health Care reform is meant to right some of the injustices that we allow to go on here in the US. I think it's hysterical that republicans have any amount of confidence that this will be overturned. Almost NOBODY in the US, maybe except the top 20% of earners, will vote to overturn this policy.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 22, 2010)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I'm not sure how exactly the mandate is unconstitutional.





> Article X:
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



That's one example right there.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 22, 2010)

States do not supersede federal law 

That and, nobody can repeal Healthcare once it is reinstated, telling 30+ million Americans who will gradually be put into this risk pool "you can't have insurance" is a death sentence. That and, Obama will have a second term, as long as he completes real financial regulation within the next two years 

As David Frum said yesterday, the conservative agenda as they are, will not be a major force in this country for many years to come if they continue as they are


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 22, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> States do not supersede federal law
> 
> That and, nobody can repeal Healthcare once it is reinstated, telling 30+ million Americans who will gradually be put into this risk pool "you can't have insurance" is a death sentence. That and, Obama will have a second term, as long as he completes real financial regulation within the next two years
> 
> As David Frum said yesterday, the conservative agenda as they are, will not be a major force in this country for many years to come if they continue as they are



That just shows complete ignorance as to what the Constitution actually says on the issues. There are some areas of where the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to pass laws and regulations laid out by the Constitution, and the Constitution trumps ALL FEDERAL LAW.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Mar 22, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> That's one example right there.



The commerce clause says congress can regulate commerce between states and specifies no limits, I'd make the argument that mandating insurance (the way states like Massachusetts have) would fall under that heading.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 23, 2010)

strongarm85 said:


> That just shows complete ignorance as to what the Constitution actually says on the issues. There are some areas of where the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to pass laws and regulations laid out by the Constitution, and the Constitution trumps ALL FEDERAL LAW.



Uhuh, what were you saying Mr Propaganda?


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Mar 23, 2010)

I think it's hilarious that many conservatives who are so completely against abortion aren't against allowing the US (the richest country in the world) to have the second highest infant mortality rate in the modern world...As long as they don't have to dish out a few extra dollars, I guess...


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Mar 23, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> States do not supersede federal law
> 
> That and, nobody can repeal Healthcare once it is reinstated, telling 30+ million Americans who will gradually be put into this risk pool "you can't have insurance" is a death sentence. That and, Obama will have a second term, as long as he completes real financial regulation within the next two years
> 
> As David Frum said yesterday, the conservative agenda as they are, will not be a major force in this country for many years to come if they continue as they are



Right...the conservative agenda that forced the Democrats to beg and plead their party-members for every last vote?  I don't think anyone can seriously pretend that this was an easy political victory.  As for the Conservatives being finished, I recall some folks on my side saying the same thing about the Democrats and the Truthers not too long ago.

Two years is an eternity in political time.

Insurance is specifically intra-state as per Carran-McFerguson.  Didn't expect them to contemplate a commerce clause challenge though.  That might actually get rid of the mandate.  Not because of states rights or any silly shit like that, but because of existing precedent.

You're also going to run into anti-trust issues by opening it up across state lines if you do.  Health insurers are currently exempt from anti-trust regulations.  

With Mandate:  Insurers raise rates to cover "the additional costs" (And because they can)
Without Mandate:  Insurers raise rates to cover "the additional costs" (And because they can)

Bad:

Insurance Mandate
No Public Option  <--Already gone into why this is a gift to insurers in combination with a legal requirement to purchase health insurance.  There's too much Baucus-flavor in this bill for my taste.
Lots of $$$

Good

Expands some coverage
Gets some people health-care.  I do know a few people who would stand to benefit due to chronically poor health.


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Mar 23, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> America having a lack of capitalism? Are you trolling me or are you that stupid? Government spending should be beneficial to all, as in not an unnecessary war, which on the grand scale of things has not vastly improved the situation in Iraq, not that it was much of a threat anyway. Would you like to see the product of rampant capitalism? People have fewer jobs as corporations are hardly ethical at all as they care about profit before anything else whereas the public sector often provides a service or something which private companies cannot run efficiently enough.
> 
> I could state any economic theory with enough large words that formed a coherent sentence and it'd sound the same really, Reagan and Thatcher are why supply side economics are not a good idea.


Increased government spending should only be used in time of recession.


BTW stop spewing what your freshmen geography tells you.  I love how people cry about how corporations only care about profit.  THAT IS THEIR JOB!!! TO INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE, NOTHING ELSE.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 23, 2010)

Blaze of Glory said:


> Now, Obama HAS to win the 2012 election.



LOL! Are you going to cry if he doesn't? Because that would be pretty funny! 

I'm just playing with you ya know .



Inuhanyou said:


> States do not supersede federal law



It's not that states Supercede federal law, it's just that the federal government does not have the power to enact laws regarding things not specifically defined within the constitution. 



> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> ...



Combine that with the 10th amendment



> Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



And you know exactly what congress can, and cannot do with regards to federal vs. state law. 

But then again... I mean, the constitution says this



> If after such Reconsideration *two third*s of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by* two thirds* of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.



But I mean, who cares about the constitution, amirite?


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Mar 23, 2010)

Geg said:


> That's one thing I worried might happen, due to the fact that a lot of the bill's effects won't go into effect until after the 2012 election.
> 
> I mean, I know some provisions go into effect in like 6 months, but what's the point in waiting until 2014 for others? Wouldn't there then be a chance to repeal it before most of it even goes into effect?



I honestly doubt Obama would sign a bill that would repeal the HC bill that he wasted all of his political capital on.


----------



## geG (Mar 23, 2010)

Shasta McNasty said:


> I honestly doubt Obama would sign a bill that would repeal the HC bill that he wasted all of his political capital on.



Obviously. I'm talking about if he's not reelected in 2012.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 23, 2010)

Geg said:


> Obviously. I'm talking about if he's not reelected in 2012.



They can in fact repeal it. But if they were smart they would make revision to it instead of denying people of assistance.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 23, 2010)

People going nuts lately.:ho


----------



## iander (Mar 23, 2010)

The constitutional argument is the same one that was used against Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act.  Too bad conservative attempts to repeal them through the courts or Congress failed miserably which they will once again.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 23, 2010)

iander said:


> The constitutional argument is the same one that was used against Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act.  Too bad conservative attempts to repeal them through the courts or Congress failed miserably which they will once again.



None of those things regulated business within states which is why they didn't work. This bill does that, which is why suit has a high probability of working.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 23, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> You could. But then again, you could also say that the sky is green. The truth values of either are the same: you'd be a lying sophist for saying it.



I feel under-estimated.



Sama'el said:


> So a system that cut down connection times from minutes to microseconds isn't an advancement?



Not if its severely lacking in comparison to what the potential for advancement was during that era. 



Sama'el said:


> It's still advancement, and you'd have to be a sophist to claim otherwise. You're only argument is that "Well, there was no paradigm shifts during the period of government regulated monopoly, so the monopoly must have been holding back progress." I've already explained to you why you have foolish, unreasonable expectations. Take it or leave it, but all you've got to stand on is a pretty flimsy correlation-equals-causation argument.



That's not my argument at alll.

It would be more like, the lack of market competition resulted in large scale, industry-wide, stagnation that lasted 40+ years.



Sama'el said:


> Touch tone phones are a complicated electronic device. They require circuit boards, and even microprocessors. They didn't exist because the technology wasn't advanced enough to make them affordable.
> 
> And cell phone networks are even more complicated. Cell phones are advanced 2 way radios that have to gather signal data from multiple transmission points;, and cell networks themselves are similarly complicated. It requires sufficiently advanced computer technology, and microprocessors to work. Cell phones came out in the 80s because technology had finally advanced enough to make the system possible.



The technology did exist.  

Do you know what circuit boards are?  They're basically sheets of fiberglass with copper or another conductor applied with adhesive and etched using whatever method.  Fiberglass has been around for a very long time.

As for integrated circuits and semiconductors:



> *In 1961 the first commercially available integrated circuits came from the Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation.* All computers then started to be made using chips instead of the individual transistors and their accompanying parts. Texas Instruments first used the chips in Air Force computers and the Minuteman Missile in 1962. They later used the chips to produce the first electronic portable calculators. The original IC had only one transistor, three resistors and one capacitor and was the size of an adult's pinkie finger. Today an IC smaller than a penny can hold 125 million transistors.



Remember, the people considered the 'fathers' of artificial intelligence -- people like Godel and Turing lived during the 1950's.  The artificial intelligence area of computers has been around for more than 5 decades.

To suggest they couldn't build a touch tone phone is somewhat questionable, woman.  



Sama'el said:


> These figures aren't adjusted for inflation, but I think they drive the point home. Standards of living still haven't reached what they were under the USSR, 20 years later.



I was joking about the Soviet Union, sorry.

The point I was trying to make was that when socialism or capitalism has a "bad day"(understatement) people have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon and declare its faults and obsolescence.

No system is perfect, and the notion of them having faults doesn't necessarily change this.



Sama'el said:


> The TVA is hated by the business community because it represents everything they hate and is most threatening to their ideology: it's a well-managed, successful government enterprise.



Heh.  Somehow, I _severely_ doubt that.



Sama'el said:


> Sorry, but the market can't dodge responsibility for this one. Rail is a natural monopoly, and the market has proven time and time again it should have no business in the management of natural monopolies.



I could cite a lack of effective government regulation.  It isn't an issue that is intrinsically or exclusively related to free markets.



Sama'el said:


> Then how do you explain the fact that countries that have adopted social democratic policies experience growth and increased standards of living while they adopt these policies, but when these policies are repealed in favor of neo-liberal free markets, these countries inevitably stagnate and poverty explodes? I refer you to Mexico since the signing of NAFTA. Poverty has exploded since the old system of social democratic planning was overturned in favor of free trade and economic liberalism. The massive wave of illegal immigration to the United States is proof positive of this.



It has to deal with wage and wealth distribution.  

Of course poverty is going to explode if low and middle class incomes flatline or decrease, while upper class incomes skyrocket.  Likewise if .0001% of the population owns 90%+ of the wealth in the country.



Sama'el said:


> Funny, the private sector just needed a big old bail out from the federal government because of something... hmm, what was it again? Oh yeah, AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.



Yeah, because the head of the federal reserve which was supposed to regulate the banking industry _is_ a tool that only knows how to implement policies of appeasement and kiss ass.



Sama'el said:


> Programs like Medicare and Social Security are not doomed to fail. They've been run efficiently for decades, far more efficiently than the private sector. Medicare's administrative overhead is less than one half of one percent. In the private insurance market, it's around forty percent. If someone were to say that Medicare is one hundred times more efficient than the private sector, it wouldn't be much of an exageration.



Not so, says ex GAO head comptroller, David Walker.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 23, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Can you be any more facile about this? A government program and a private, for-profit corporation exist in entirely different universes. The former provides a public service, the latter exists only to provide a profit to its shareholders. These are two diametrically opposed paradigms.



Not really.  There are such things a non profit corporations which serve as humanitarian or charitable agecies.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting they're exactly the same.  In some areas they are comparable.  I don't feel unjust in suggesting that if the government were a corporation, its heads would have been fired or forced to resign a long time ago for their incompetence and poor performance.

Instead, what we typically see are senators who are currently serving their 4th or even 8th(?) term.

Wtf is that?

In drawing this comparison, I would conclude the government is thus inferior to a private corporation in that there is less transparency, efficiency and accountability.  I think that's valid and doesn't necessarily cross the line into suggesting they're exactly the same.



Sama'el said:


> Corporations cut costs by firing people, or shutting down departments that aren't profitable. Government doesn't have that luxury because it provides services that cannot be done in the private sector. Why else do you think that it is the state that builds and maintains roads? There's no profit to be had in private ownership of the roads.
> 
> You're comparing apples and oranges, and you know it.



Government most definitely can have that luxury.

Of course, when posed the question will a lawmaker create a law that allows them to be held accountable for their incompetence.  

That's different.  



Seisokumaru said:


> States are already suing about how the Federal Government doesn't even have the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, which is what this bill amounts to if you're not on Government Cheese.
> 
> Regardless of the outcome, this is irrationality in the face of objective reality.  We can't pay for the shit we have, so lets add more shit.  Bloody brilliant.



*This!  ^*



sadated_peon said:


> But Japan has universal health care much more than U.S. how can you cry about U.S. and promote Japan....



Its not "health care" I would like to escape.

Its government insanity and a country of people insane enough not to understand why adding 500 tons of load onto a sinking ship is a bad idea.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Limabaugh says he's leaving the US...looks like this is a very special day indeed.




Limbaugh's trying to be like me.  

Too bad, I did it first!


----------



## Sen (Mar 23, 2010)

Hope that this will be a good move 

I'm hoping so, at the very least the current system has been failing for a lot of Americans in the working class and lower middle class, so this should ideally be making health care more affordable and better.  I don't know all the details but can't wait to see it enacted


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 23, 2010)

iander said:


> The constitutional argument is the same one that was used against Social Security, Medicare, and the *Civil Rights Act*.  Too bad conservative attempts to repeal them through the courts or Congress failed miserably which they will once again.



Wooow, I shiver that you would put the Civil Rights Act in the same light as the Social Security and Medicare system. 



> *Question: Are Conservatives Racists?*
> *Answer:* While there are always rogue members of any political movement, conservatives are not generally racists and, in fact, abide by and espouse racial tolerance.
> 
> Conservatives see racial equality as a starting point, not a destination. They believe that if racial tolerance is an expected attitude, rather than an anticipated one, racial harmony will naturally follow.
> ...



Also, are you arguing that Social Security and Medicare have performed well? They're aiding in driving the country broke through huge and growing unfunded liabilities that were promised to the baby boomer generation.  



Anyways, off to bed, I have to wake up early too :-/.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 23, 2010)

Shasta McNasty said:


> Increased government spending should only be used in time of recession.
> 
> 
> BTW stop spewing what your freshmen geography tells you.  I love how people cry about how corporations only care about profit.  THAT IS THEIR JOB!!! TO INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE, NOTHING ELSE.



I didn't say LOLZ NATIONALISE EVERYTHING ROFLCOPTER!!111!1!11!!1 I merely said that some things are better off being nationalised, as they are run more efficiently, such as public transport. That's what the problem is, their job is to increase shareholder value, which is the problem as providing a service is not their main goal and thus they can become as inefficient as they want if there is no other competitor. I'll use my local bus service as an example, which is privately owned compared to the far more efficient London public transport which is owned by the Public Body.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 23, 2010)

Arguing with the conservative agenda won't help  We've had to ignore them for every major accomplishment in recent modern history why stop now 

You can only call something an "isolated incident" if it happens once, if its happening every week you should do well to take inventory


----------



## Ceria (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm glad that florida's attn. General is spearheading the lawsuit, this is shenanigans and those fuckers know it. 

I refuse to pay for healthcare for those who are too lazy to work or pay for it. fuck em. 

get rid of prexisting conditions, and barring people from coverage because their sick, that's just fucking stupid.


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 23, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Frankly, the deficit is not that great of a concern. Even with current spending levels, by 2015, the economy will likely have grown sufficiently to reduce the deficit to well below the rate of economic growth. And even now, America's public debt is only 70% of GDP. At the end of WW2, it was ~150% of GDP, but because of economic growth, even though the government continued deficit spending, it was down to ~20% of GDP by 1970.



Only the US is not just facing a budget deficit. Last time I checked, - although this was before the recession, and the reduction is visible and invisible imports would have gone down during this time so it would be less - the current account deficit was over 7%. That's far too large. Continuingly rising personal debt is, where IIRC over 2007 and 2008 American's bought more than they took in, is hardly helping things either.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

Han Solo said:


> Only the US is not just facing a budget deficit. Last time I checked, - although this was before the recession, and the reduction is visible and invisible imports would have gone down during this time so it would be less - the current account deficit was over 7%. That's far too large. Continuingly rising personal debt is, where IIRC over 2007 and 2008 American's bought more than they took in, is hardly helping things either.



bringing up the debt is a crock, as it was bush jr who singularly raised the debt by 1.2 trillion.  where were you when all that was happening? nowhere to be found, that's where.  I'll tell you where I was, arguing how morally wrong it was to go to war with iraq on their murky evidence, even disregarding the financial consequences of what bush was doing. 
I hardly believe anyone who claims the deficit as their key reason for opposing this bill.

Also personal debt is said to be decreasing, personal savings increasing, as a result of the great recession.


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 23, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> bringing up the debt is a crock, as it was bush jr who singularly raised the debt by 1.2 trillion.  where were you when all that was happening? nowhere to be found, that's where.  I'll tell you where I was, arguing how morally wrong it was to go to war with iraq on their murky evidence, even disregarding the financial consequences of what bush was doing.
> I hardly believe anyone who claims the deficit as their key reason for opposing this bill.



Lol, what I was saying has nothing to do with whether or not I like this bill or not,



narutosimpson said:


> Also personal debt is said to be decreasing, personal savings increasing, as a result of the great recession.



Of course, just like the current account deficit would have also likely decreased.

It's still going to shoot right back up when the world is safely out of recession.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 23, 2010)

The static debt isn't the problem.

Ever increasing social security and medicare liabilities, are.  

There was no _New Deal_ after WWII, therefore its an invalid comparison.  

Unlike Jello says, the economy won't _outgrow_ social security and medicare liabilities.  Therefore its an invalid context to address the issue as if it were a static debt that would only grow through interest or something.

Grumble, grumble.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

^ u brought up the debt which is a moot point.  If the debt was so critical, the only logical step would be to shut down federal govt to save money.


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 23, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> ^ u brought up the debt which is a moot point.  If the debt was so critical, the only logical step would be to shut down federal govt to save money.



I was just pointing out the budget deficit is not the only worry for US debt.

That's all.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 23, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> ^ u brought up the debt which is a moot point.  If the debt was so critical, the only logical step would be to shut down federal govt to save money.




Since when have politics been logical?

Its not the debt from the Iraq War and other things that are worrisome.

Its ever increasing medicare and social security costs which grow at a pace much faster than US economic growth.

Shutting down the government would be a logical step if it wouldn't result in the collapse of the entire country and anarchy..


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

the original healthcare bill was supposed to reduce medicare, correct me if i'm wrong.  But the repubs politicized it and it had to be scratched.  See immortal, what you are wittingly or unwittingly pointing out is that it's old people that have the most entitlements in this country, and are the biggest dumbest complainers.  I'm glad we have something akin to universal health care now, at least i'll see some of the money that i give the fed govt, unlike social security and medicare, which old people will have destroyed by the time we get old.

PS  I'll await someone to tell me WW2 generation is the greatest people to ever live and deserves us breaking our backs for them.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 23, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> the original healthcare bill was supposed to reduce medicare, correct me if i'm wrong.  But the repubs politicized it and it had to be scratched.  See immortal, what you are wittingly or unwittingly pointing out is that it's old people that have the most entitlements in this country, and are the biggest dumbest complainers.  I'm glad we have something akin to universal health care now, at least i'll see some of the money that i give the fed govt, unlike social security and medicare, which old people will have destroyed by the time we get old.
> 
> PS  I'll await someone to tell me WW2 generation is the greatest people to ever live and deserves us breaking our backs for them.




The government is responsible for screwing up ss and medicare.

SS and medicare are supposed to have been run like a trust fund.  Instead, it was setup like a Ponzi Scheme.

Are you sure you'll have universal healthcare?  37 states are currently passing legislature to block "universal healthcare"(in a compulsory sense, anyway) should the fed gov attempt to implement it.  1 state already has passed said legislature.

The last time the bill was voted upon, the universal aspect of it had been removed.  Did they edit it back in before the final vote or is it still gone?

Not that it matters...


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 23, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The government is responsible for screwing up ss and medicare.
> 
> SS and medicare are supposed to have been run like a trust fund.  Instead, it was setup like a Ponzi Scheme.
> 
> ...



I am so glad that we were able waste years and years over this, and finally have it blocked in a sense from the very people we created it for.


----------



## Jessica (Mar 23, 2010)

Oh lord, what is this? 

But this is very good news for the US and is a big step in the right direction! I'm happy for all of you.


----------



## Kotoamatsukami (Mar 23, 2010)

Geez, other countries also have a social welfare system and they are not doomed yet...It was due and absolutely neccessary to enable every US-citizen a health care insurance....so I am in favor of Obamas bill. The Republicans voted against it, but they didnt contribute anything to make it better. When they were in power, they fucked up everything and now they dont want to work together with the government because lobby controls them so much...just pathetic.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 23, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> I am so glad that we were able waste years and years over this, and finally have it blocked in a sense from the very people we created it for.



I think the bill and its method of implementation are very poor concepts.

I also happen to have a very good track record in terms of being right about these types of thing.

Hopefully, my track record fails me, here.  I won't hold my breath.



Jessica said:


> Oh lord, what is this?
> 
> But this is very good news for the US and is a big step in the right direction! I'm happy for all of you.



Its Vince McMahon and his son Shane McMahon of WWE fame.

Anddd, this is a step in the completely wrong direction, but thanks.



Kimimarox said:


> Geez, other countries also have a social welfare system and they are not doomed yet...It was due and absolutely neccessary to enable every US-citizen a health care insurance....so I am in favor of Obamas bill. The Republicans voted against it, but they didnt contribute anything to make it better. When they were in power, they fucked up everything and now they dont want to work together with the government because lobby controls them so much...just pathetic.



Other countries run a social welfare system that is setup like a trust fund.  The US government runs a social welfare system that is setup like a Ponzi Scheme.  Meaning, it spends all of the funds from social security and relies solely upon the minimum income generated to sustain the program.  The two can't be compared.  Likewise, others countries that have universal health care pay much higher taxes.  And....  yeah.  There are numerous other issues that say this is a bad idea and it will fail.

Was it absolutely "necessary" to add a burden of health care to a government that in many instances lacks the funds to keep in-mates in prison and pay its police force?  Heh..

Everything else you said was good..


----------



## Tkae (Mar 23, 2010)




----------



## Tkae (Mar 23, 2010)

Kimimarox said:


> Geez, other countries also have a social welfare system and they are not doomed yet...It was due and absolutely neccessary to enable every US-citizen a health care insurance....so I am in favor of Obamas bill. The Republicans voted against it, but they didnt contribute anything to make it better. When they were in power, they fucked up everything and now they dont want to work together with the government because lobby controls them so much...just pathetic.



Ok, seriously:

1.) The argument, "Europe's doing it, so it _must_ be right," is the worst possible argument you could ever think of. Europe has a pathetic track record when it comes to politics. Notice that America has done in 200 years what they've been trying to do for roughly 2,000.

'Nuff said.

2.) Please name 1 European country that is not "doomed".

That isn't on EU life-support; that doesn't count.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 23, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Ok, seriously:
> 
> 1.) The argument, "Europe's doing it, so it _must_ be right," is the worst possible argument you could ever think of. Europe has a pathetic track record when it comes to politics. Notice that America has done in 200 years what they've been trying to do for roughly 2,000.
> 
> 'Nuff said.



Its easy to build a country in 250 years when you sacrifice lives and cut corners for speedy advancement.



> 2.) Please name 1 European country that is not "doomed".
> 
> That isn't on EU life-support; that doesn't count.



Well, if America is not doomed no european country is. I would say having a 9 trillion dollar expontential unpayable debt to other super powers would be enough to say doomed, but if it isn't I can't name a well known country that is wholly worse off than us.


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 23, 2010)

What do you even mean by "doomed"?


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 23, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The government is responsible for screwing up ss and medicare.
> 
> SS and medicare are supposed to have been run like a trust fund.  Instead, it was setup like a Ponzi Scheme.


lol, this what Al Gore suggested, remember the lock box! fear the lock box!


----------



## Watchman (Mar 23, 2010)

Jessica said:


> Oh lord, what is this?
> 
> But this is very good news for the US and is a big step in the right direction! I'm happy for all of you.



It's Vince MacMahon getting his funk on.



Tkae said:


> Ok, seriously:
> 
> 1.) The argument, "Europe's doing it, so it _must_ be right," is the worst possible argument you could ever think of. *Europe has a pathetic track record when it comes to politics. Notice that America has done in 200 years what they've been trying to do for roughly 2,000.*
> 
> 'Nuff said.



1: It's not just "Europe's doing it, so it _must_ be right", it's "Every other developed nation on the planet is doing it. That probably means it's effective"

2:  at the bolded.



> 2.) Please name 1 European country that is not "doomed".



Firstly, define "doomed". Preferably with an example of a European country you think is doomed.


----------



## Tkae (Mar 23, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Its easy to build a country in 250 years when you sacrifice lives and cut corners for speedy advancement.



Oh, right, and none of the other countries sacrificed lives.

The Africans will be glad to know this.

And... you know, the South Americans, and the Asians, and I'm pretty sure Britain and France were right there with us during the first part of the Native American oppression.

But that wouldn't serve your argument, so let's just leave that out.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 23, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Oh, right, and none of the other countries sacrificed lives.
> 
> The Africans will be glad to know this.
> 
> ...



The point is, as a nation we are very young and naive regardless of how far we advanced. The other nations have already gone through most everything we have ten times over. They have experience, we don't.


----------



## Aleph-1 (Mar 23, 2010)

Fox News said earlier this morning that several states plan on contesting this...something along the lines of auto insurance is regulated or whatever by the states, therefore, health insurance should remain this way as well. If this somehow makes it all the way to the Supreme Court and it's declared unconstitutional, then thanks, douchebags, for making this whole healthcare thing a big fat waste of time. 

As far as the issue being a hot topic in Congress for so damn long...back during the Bush years I think there were complaints of a "do-nothing Congress." Things haven't changed much, apparently.

Whatever....I just hope they address the deficit issue seriously soon. I have faith in Congress.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 23, 2010)

roguebagel said:


> Fox News said earlier this morning that several states plan on contesting this in court...something along the lines of auto insurance is regulated or whatever by the states, therefore, health insurance should remain this way as well. If this somehow makes it all the way to the Supreme Court and it's declared unconstitutional, then thanks, douchebags, for making this whole healthcare thing a big fat waste of time. Back during the Bush years there were complaints of a "do-nothing Congress." Things haven't changed much, apparently.
> 
> Whatever....I just hope they address the deficit issue seriously soon. I have faith in Congress.



omg omg really??

i hope those states do that.. Just imagine the thousand of man hours and appeals and raising of taxes to pay these people to try the cases.

i love it.

my taxes to the government, so they can spend that money  on legal fees, to have something like this tied up in appeals for yrs... then have it seen by the supreme court should take yrs and tax money.

even though the cbo said this was deficit reduction over time, im sure this will set everything straight.

hmmm hmmmm you smell that sweet nectar of irony.


----------



## Aleph-1 (Mar 23, 2010)

^It certainly makes me glad to be a biology major...being able to study the make-up of life, and not systems put in place by flawed human beings.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 23, 2010)

roguebagel said:


> ^It certainly makes me glad to be a biology major...being able to study the make-up of life, and not systems put in place by flawed human beings.



what this boils down too is not the actual legislation, but politics of "who is seen as winning" and "losing"

why would the gop help? if they helped and congress gets good bills through, then they will not become majority ever again. Congress is on a perpetual, /wrist syndrome"

so you obstruct and deride everything the other party does. "oh shit did you see nancy pelosi breathe!!!!, Obama wants to kill your grandma"
Rly... thats what it comes down too?
CBO - Republican hcb = increase deficit
CBO - Democratic HCb = decrease Deficit.
Tea parties "reduce the deficit, Fuck obama~!~@!~  "

politics in its essence is disgusting.
if you watch it everyday, you will become sick

the state of our politics i will be surprised if in the nxt 10yrs the average of 1 bill will be signed by the president.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 23, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Ok, seriously:
> 
> 1.) The argument, "Europe's doing it, so it _must_ be right," is the worst possible argument you could ever think of. Europe has a pathetic track record when it comes to politics. Notice that America has done in 200 years what they've been trying to do for roughly 2,000.
> 
> ...



1. How is Europe pathetic? Both continents have come a long way since the 19th century, I wouldn't say either of them are pathetic. America has had people living in it since more than 2000 years so according to your logic, what did North America have in comparison to Rome?

2. What counts as doomed?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 23, 2010)

We should nationalize video games, every one should get one console of their choice with one game a month. Then you can trade in five games for an extra one. That sounds like fair legislation.


----------



## iander (Mar 23, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> We should nationalize video games, every one should get one console of their choice with one game a month. Then you can trade in five games for an extra one. That sounds like fair legislation.



Sounds like Commie talk to me.  Lazy bastards have to work for their video games, no video game handouts.  No government rationing of precious video games.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 23, 2010)

iander said:


> Sounds like Commie talk to me.  Lazy bastards have to work for their video games, no video game handouts.  No government rationing of precious video games.



Well can we nationalize sex? Everyone's guaranteed the same amount of sex, we'll have state owned whores of both genders and they just come over and you get an hour a week to just go nuts.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 23, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Well can we nationalize sex? Everyone's guaranteed the same amount of sex, we'll have state owned whores of both genders and they just come over and you get an hour a week to just go nuts.


I like this idea.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 23, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> It's not that states Supercede federal law, it's just that the federal government does not have the power to enact laws regarding things not specifically defined within the constitution.
> 
> Combine that with the 10th amendment
> 
> ...



Uh, the Constitution allows the Federal Government to enact any laws and measures to regulate interstate commerce. 



> *To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,* and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> ...
> 
> *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,* and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Insurance companies operate between states and thus can be subject to federal laws on interstate commerce. 

This is basically an argument between a loose vs strict interpretation of the Constitution. Often the loose interpretation wins out, such as the case when the Alexander Hamilton was able to establish the Bank of the US even though the Constitution did not literally allow the Federal Government to do so.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 23, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> The static debt isn't the problem.
> 
> Ever increasing social security and medicare liabilities, are.
> 
> ...



Again, this same ridiculous charge I've dealt with numerous times before. Those people who trumpet the claim of the unsustainability of medicare and Social Security assume that everyone in the cohort retires at 65, and that income tax receipts won't grow with the economy.

Both are absurd assumptions, considering the mean retirement age has been increasing and continues to increase. People are healthier, living longer, and thus working longer.

Further proof of the bankruptcy of the chart you provided, they neglect the fact that by 2040, the American population will resemble a normal bell curve once again, as the majority of the baby boomers will have died off. So the cost of Social Security, and Medicare will decrease continually, in proportion to the GDP and the Federal Budget, from about 2030 onwards.

Our population problem is far less severe than European countries or Japan, yet they are still more than capable of maintaining their social safety nets. For you to be right about every argument you've made here, from the efficiency of the government right on down to you absurd trumpeting of the entitlements crisis, you would have to assume that the laws of the universe change the moment you set foot in the USA.


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Mar 23, 2010)

Xyloxi said:


> I didn't say LOLZ NATIONALISE EVERYTHING ROFLCOPTER!!111!1!11!!1 I merely said that some things are better off being nationalised, as they are run more efficiently, such as public transport. That's what the problem is, their job is to increase shareholder value, which is the problem as providing a service is not their main goal and thus they can become as inefficient as they want if there is no other competitor. I'll use my local bus service as an example, which is privately owned compared to the far more efficient London public transport which is owned by the Public Body.



Amtrack? USPS?

Both examples (among many others), at least in the US, that show how private industry is far more effective than industry that has been nationalized.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 23, 2010)

Shasta McNasty said:


> Amtrack? USPS?
> 
> Both examples (among many others), at least in the US, that show how private industry is far more effective than industry that has been nationalized.



Amtrak is still around, and still has many satisfied passengers, particularly in the Northeast. By contrast, private passenger rail is totally extinct in the United States, because it can't compete with our heavily subsidized roads.

USPS is cheap and quick, and they bring the mail to you. What's the problem here exactly?

I could list dozens more examples. Here's a few.

Rail in the UK was far more efficient and cheaper before it was privatized. So was coal and steel. In the US, the privatization of many state owned electrical utilities have decreased service and increased prices. The Canadian Medicare system, the British NHS, are far more efficient than US private health care. THe list goes on and on.


----------



## Mael (Mar 23, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Amtrak is still around, and still has many satisfied passengers, particularly in the Northeast. By contrast, private passenger rail is totally extinct in the United States, because it can't compete with our heavily subsidized roads.



That's correct. Amtrak is still up and running, especially in the cities of Boston, NYC, and Hartford.

Doing pretty decently for itself too might I add.


----------



## Xyloxi (Mar 23, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> Amtrak is still around, and still has many satisfied passengers, particularly in the Northeast. By contrast, private passenger rail is totally extinct in the United States, because it can't compete with our heavily subsidized roads.
> 
> USPS is cheap and quick, and they bring the mail to you. What's the problem here exactly?
> 
> ...



The only reason my local rail service is so efficient as it's practically owned by the government, the government manages the rails, stations and trains the company running it is basically a label who paint the trains a manly shade of pink and purple. 



Shasta McNasty said:


> Amtrack? USPS?
> 
> Both examples (among many others), at least in the US, that show how private industry is far more effective than industry that has been nationalized.



I've ordered stuff from the USPS, it's ridiculously quick especially for overseas shipping and it came here in one piece so I'd call that efficient.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

it's funny cause these people mad at obama were always saying "he hasn't done anything in office", now that he's done something they are crying like babies who had their candy taken away.  this is me laughing at u  feed me tears


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 23, 2010)

*"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." -Acts 4 : 31-35

Luke 12 : 33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."*

  I wonder if this is language conservatives understand, or if it only applies to their election prospects?


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 23, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> The Canadian Medicare system, the British NHS, are far more efficient than US private health care. THe list goes on and on.



The NHS is decent, but it's far from the most efficient. IIRC Japan has the most efficient per capita health care system, and goverment % of spending on the total health care is roughly similar to the UK, at around 80%.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 23, 2010)

Mael said:


> That's correct. Amtrak is still up and running, especially in the cities of Boston, NYC, and Hartford.
> 
> Doing pretty decently for itself too might I add.



It has a net loss in profit every year and is heavily subsidized... It's not exactly a success... Reading these comments on the forums is the only time I've heard anything positive about the Amtrack system really. 



> * Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation's transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter work trips and just 0.4 percent of all passengers making intercity trips.
> * Amtrak's typical riders are not low-income Americans. Only 13 percent have incomes below $20,000.
> * Amtrak has virtually no impact on reducing traffic congestion, pollution, or energy use. Even a doubling of train ridership would reduce energy consumption and traffic congestion by less than 0.1 percent.
> * Amtrak is by far the most highly subsidized form of intercity transportation. The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. On some of the long-distance routes, such as New York to Los Angeles, the taxpayer subsidy per passenger exceeds $1,000. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to close down expensive lines and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all the Amtrak riders.





hcheng02 said:


> Uh, the Constitution allows the Federal Government to enact any laws and measures to regulate interstate commerce.
> 
> Insurance companies operate between states and thus can be subject to federal laws on interstate commerce.



Ummm, nope... Federal and State laws prohibit insurance companies from competiting across state lines, creating local monopolies. What you just said is the EXACT opposite of the truth. 

Also, the interstate commerce clause is the most menacing misinterpretation of the constitution and deviates LARGELY from its original intent as one can tell from the founding fathers. When people utilize the interstate commerce clause as justification to regulate just about ANYTHING, it really pisses me the hell off. I really want to go back in time, to the 1950's, and cuss out the supreme court for interpreting it the way it has been interpreted. It was blatantly obvious what the intent of that clause was, and it has been completely misinterpreted to give the federal government huge control. 



> When one reads the writings of the Founding Fathers, there is little doubt that the commerce clause (as applied between the states of the Union), was to be used for little more than insuring what we would call today, a "free trade zone". That limited role is quite rightfully where the federal government's authority in interstate commerce should end. Any reach for authority beyond that envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution should be considered unconstitutional.
> 
> The first real exertion of substantial federal power under the interstate commerce clause came with the advent of the railroads in the mid-1800's. The government assumed complete dominion over the early railroads, going so far as to grant regional railroad monopolies through Acts of Congress, as well as owning a large percentage of stock in various early railroad corporations. The power and money that came with complete control over such a powerful industry was not lost on Congress. To this very day Congress maintains absolute control over the railroads through regulation. Euphemistically speaking, a railroad company can't blow its nose without Congressional approval.
> 
> ...



The interstate commerce clause was originally meant to prevent states from charges tarrifs on exports to other states if you'll read the federalist papers. However, it's now been bastardized to regulate anything that could "potentially" be sent to other states. That means they could take it to regulate ANYTHING in the way that it is interpreted today. It's the biggest hunk of crap. ever.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 23, 2010)

Dude that article you posted is dated December 19, 1996


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

u mean to tell me air travel in the US isn't subsidized?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 23, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> u mean to tell me air travel in the US isn't subsidized?



*Shhhh!* Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Costs per passenger mile are lower for rail than any other form of overland transport. Considering that roads are heavily subsidized by the government, and gas prices are kept artificially low by government policy, tell me what point is there in complaining about government subsidies to Amtrak, when it's the most efficient means of transportation we have. We should be encouraging people to take the trains, and encouraging them to leave their cars at home.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

not to mention very many airlines would have failed long ago if not for govt handouts, just like your chrysler and GM and banks recently.


----------



## Juno (Mar 23, 2010)

This is all very well and good, but I'm not feeling any healthier. What gives, Obama?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

if i don't get put on the list for cyborg augmentation soon, i'm gonna be pissed.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 23, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Dude that article you posted is dated December 19, 1996



Whoa dude, so it is... LOL! I did not notice that. 


*Spoiler*: __ 








It's still not profitable... That's from whitehouse.gov.



narutosimpson said:


> if i don't get put on the list for cyborg augmentation soon, i'm gonna be pissed.



We're working on it! Give us some time! Sheesh . We're still working on regenerating natural tissue faster. I'll try to get you some super dense bone or something .


----------



## martryn (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, all and all, some small bit of good will come from this. 

14 states are already moving to sue the federal government to put a stop to this monstrosity.  

Obama's approval rating finally dropped below 50%.  I don't think he's going to bounce back.  He'll be a one term president for lying to us and fucking up everything he stood for.  Lucky for me, most voters at the polls aren't in the 18-29 age demographic.  They're smarter than that and aren't taken in by a guy whose only skill is campaigning. 

On the subject, looks like we're going to get a Republican congress as well on a repeal platform.  Newsflash for you guys who don't pay attention to anything: the American people don't like Obamacare.  Romney doesn't even like Obamacare.  

This was not the bipartisan effort Obama promised us he'd bring to Washington.  This wasn't a bill passed with transparency, in an open and honest manner.  This is just what America needs right now.  Healthcare in the hands of left wing radical bureaucrats, not doctors.  

This shit will fail, no one will be happy, and the Democrats will only have themselves to blame.  And the people will see it, and they'll lose Congress for a very, very long time. 

2014, when the full benefits of this bill are supposed to finally come into play, remember this post.  I told you so.


----------



## Grandia (Mar 23, 2010)

your winnie the pooh art is so awesome dawg


----------



## Inuhanyou (Mar 23, 2010)

You can't sue the federal goverment for this, previous poster, wake up from your delusion


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 23, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> You can't sue the federal goverment for this, previous poster, wake up from your delusion



State sovereignty and misinterpretation of the interstate commerce clause to regulate intrastate commerce? 

You most certainly CAN sue.. it's just a different matter as to whether or not you'll win. The Supreme court, for now, seems to weigh a little on the side on conservatism... for now at least. Justice Sotomayor merely replaced another liberal justice from what I understand, so the balance of power did not change.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 23, 2010)

martryn said:


> Well, all and all, some small bit of good will come from this.
> 
> 14 states are already moving to sue the federal government to put a stop to this monstrosity.
> 
> ...



you've been writing prophetic anti-obama posts since before he got elected, and you get ecstatic  by even the slightest hint that things might turn negative for him.  i'm not surprised by your take on this.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 23, 2010)

i laugh when people say something isnt bipartisan when the other side directive is to say "no"

to each there own


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 23, 2010)

Dark Uchiha said:


> i laugh when people say something isnt bipartisan when the other side directive is to say "no"
> 
> to each there own



You know, I always thought that phrase was "To eat their own." For so many years I been saying it wrong


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 23, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> Ummm, nope... Federal and State laws prohibit insurance companies from competiting across state lines, creating local monopolies. What you just said is the EXACT opposite of the truth.



Isn't one of the cost controlling measures to open competition of insurance companies across the states to lower premiums through competition?



> Also, the interstate commerce clause is the most menacing misinterpretation of the constitution and deviates LARGELY from its original intent as one can tell from the founding fathers. When people utilize the interstate commerce clause as justification to regulate just about ANYTHING, it really pisses me the hell off. I really want to go back in time, to the 1950's, and cuss out the supreme court for interpreting it the way it has been interpreted. It was blatantly obvious what the intent of that clause was, and it has been completely misinterpreted to give the federal government huge control.
> 
> The interstate commerce clause was originally meant to prevent states from charges tarrifs on exports to other states if you'll read the federalist papers. However, it's now been bastardized to regulate anything that could "potentially" be sent to other states. That means they could take it to regulate ANYTHING in the way that it is interpreted today. It's the biggest hunk of crap. ever.



The Founding Fathers were already employing the loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause with the founding of the 1st Bank of the USA. I really fail to see what the problem is with the mandate. From where I'm from, I'm mandated by law to buy auto insurance. Why is that constitutional but being mandated to buy health insurance not?


----------



## Suzuku (Mar 23, 2010)

Some of you act like states don't sue the Federal government all the time. This is just an issue with broad media attention.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 24, 2010)

martryn said:


> Well, all and all, some small bit of good will come from this.
> 
> 14 states are already moving to sue the federal government to put a stop to this monstrosity.
> 
> ...



You do realize that Bush was well below fifty percent approval rating when he got re-elected, right?


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 24, 2010)

I should sue Rush Limbaugh for co-opting my political angle.

I adopted the moving to another country to escape "health care reform" stance, long before he conceived of it.


----------



## Havoc (Mar 24, 2010)

So where are you moving?

Africa?

Yes, the country of Africa.


----------



## Verdius (Mar 24, 2010)

martryn said:


> This shit will fail, no one will be happy, and the Democrats will only have themselves to blame.



Only the Dems? You sir made me LOL. Just try being more biased, I dare you.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 24, 2010)

Havoc said:


> So where are you moving?
> 
> Africa?
> 
> Yes, the country of Africa.



if not africa he can go to haiti, or one of the many latin american countries  with no social nets.  Where people have to just get by on their own and buy things without financing, when they have saved for years for small purchases, lest they lose their jobs in the middle of long payment committments, such as our mortgages and car loans. 

 Radio is popular in those places cause people can't afford shit.


----------



## martryn (Mar 24, 2010)

> i laugh when people say something isnt bipartisan when the other side directive is to say "no"



Well, when the Democrats refused to listen to the Republicans, when conservative ideas and conservative solutions were ignored or excluded, and with very little compromise actually occurring even after the Health Care Summit (in which the Republican Party showed its comprehensive understanding of the current bill and the Democrats had trouble accounting for it) can you blame them. 

From what I've seen, liberals were bought, blackmailed, and pestered to voting yes to a bill in Washington while their districts back home were pleading with them to listen to them (Stupack is a prime example).  Listen to America.  Listen to the people who you're supposed to be representing.  This isn't about what you think is best for you, it's what you think is best for your home state.  For your voters.  For America.  I think November will be very telling.



> Only the Dems? You sir made me LOL. Just try being more biased, I dare you.



Did you see a single Republican vote for this thing?  This isn't on their shoulders.  When this thing goes south, which it will as anyone who understands it can tell you, the Republican party can say that they've been saying as much since the beginning.  The Democrats can say that they voted for it, pushed it through under heavy opposition, and celebrated while they destroyed American freedoms.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 24, 2010)

martryn said:


> Well, when the Democrats refused to listen to the Republicans, when conservative ideas and conservative solutions were ignored or excluded, and with very little compromise actually occurring even after the Health Care Summit (in which the Republican Party showed its comprehensive understanding of the current bill and the Democrats had trouble accounting for it) can you blame them.
> 
> From what I've seen, liberals were bought, blackmailed, and pestered to voting yes to a bill in Washington while their districts back home were pleading with them to listen to them (Stupack is a prime example).  Listen to America.  Listen to the people who you're supposed to be representing.  This isn't about what you think is best for you, it's what you think is best for your home state.  For your voters.  For America.  I think November will be very telling.
> 
> ...



this is bullcrap.  Alot of people didn't want the original TARP either, it failed to pass , then congress simply voted for the identical bill a 2nd time and passed it.  This included many republicans who weren't talking about deficits and what not back then.  At least dems are consistent, not flip flopping in this crucial time.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 24, 2010)

Havoc said:


> So where are you moving?
> 
> Africa?
> 
> Yes, the country of Africa.



lool


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 24, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You do realize that Bush was well below fifty percent approval rating when he got re-elected, right?



Just goes to show you how much of a failure John Kerry was.

Democrats were smart to pick a guy who wasnt crazy.


----------



## typhoon72 (Mar 24, 2010)

I hate this "its unconstitutional" arguement bullshit. It just seems like its the repubs "Plan B" since they didnt get what they wanted.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 24, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Just goes to show you how much of a failure John Kerry was.
> 
> Democrats were smart to pick a guy who wasnt crazy.



that's not what it shows.  Bush winning a second term showed the lunacy of americans.  Geez, americans have an amazing ability to turn cause and effects on their heads.


----------



## Razgriez (Mar 24, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> that's not what it shows.  Bush winning a second term showed the lunacy of americans.  Geez, americans have an amazing ability to turn cause and effects on their heads.



Thats because both options were bad. Before Bush ran against Al Gore. AL fucking Gore! Really? Thats all they could come up with?


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 24, 2010)

Havoc said:


> So where are you moving?
> 
> Africa?
> 
> Yes, the country of Africa.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Mar 24, 2010)

the scary thing about this whole health care passage was one can see clearly how strong the psycho constituency in the US still is, and that's not gonna go away soon.  Progress has and will continue to climb a mountain of insanity.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 24, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> the scary thing about this whole health care passage was one can see clearly how strong the psycho constituency in the US still is, and that's not gonna go away soon.  Progress has and will continue to climb a mountain of insanity.



Don't forget that the mountain is also laden with deadly traps.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 24, 2010)

I think I've said this once before, but it bears repeating: arguing with martryn about anything is like smacking your face into a brick wall. You'll sooner convince the tides to turn back, and ride a winged marshmallow to the Sherbet Kingdom then get him to change his mind.


----------



## Mael (Mar 24, 2010)

I read this comment from a doctor on MSN:


> *SirKNA*:
> I am a doctor. Here is my plight: I will have to pay more in Medicare taxes and take a pay cut at the same time. Having said this, *I see patients daily that have no money for the medicine they need to live. They return to the E.R. numerous times for their "health care." And guess who pays the E.R. bill? You and I. Either we let these people die at the door of the hospital because they cannot pay. Or, we pay for their health care*. There is no other option ... I have a conscience. I won't let my fellow American die at the door. I'll pay for her health care. God forgive me, and the rest of you who complain about it.



Though I'm not a doctor, I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Mar 24, 2010)

martryn said:


> Well, when the Democrats refused to listen to the Republicans, when conservative ideas and conservative solutions were ignored or excluded, and with very little compromise actually occurring even after the Health Care Summit (in which the Republican Party showed its comprehensive understanding of the current bill and the Democrats had trouble accounting for it) can you blame them.


wait what?
i thought it was pretty clear the say "no" directive was issued before the healthcare debate was issued.

i laugh at the "little compromise actually occurring"
republican party lost..... how much compromised you expect 50/50?

i also like to know where you got this idea that "_Health Care Summit (in which the Republican Party showed its comprehensive understanding of the current bill and the Democrats had trouble accounting for it) can you blame them_"

idk that quote seems so loaded it had me go 

what were the republican ideas you speak off?
" * Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines."
The bill incorporates this idea in different forms.
The House would allow states to form health care "compacts" in which one state would allow their residents to buy coverage from an insurer based in another state. The states would determine which states' law applies to coverage sold through the compacts. 
but since we are pretty much taking in the senate bill its
The Senate bill also allows states to form "compacts." But it would require that the coverage would be governed by the laws of the state in which the policies are "issued or written." 

 * Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
Something like this is in the bill already: exchange program


* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
just find this internallly funny in the concept that what the proposal is, is to "give the state "government" the tools to create there own reforms to lower health care cost" last i checked... when didnt they? But if they didnt... they would have to take control over state healthcare.... Government hands over healthcare 


 * Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

this is being done differently by improving record keeping in hospitals.



> From what I've seen, liberals were bought, blackmailed, and pestered to voting yes to a bill in Washington while their districts back home were pleading with them to listen to them (Stupack is a prime example).  Listen to America.  Listen to the people who you're supposed to be representing.  This isn't about what you think is best for you, it's what you think is best for your home state.  For your voters.  For America.  I think November will be very telling.



what? From what ive seen i seen the opposite, bigger marches on washington in support of the healthcare bill and democratic senators and representatives trying to play hardball politics in getting what they want.

also as you probably notice, nothing in the gop plan says anything about preexisting conditions.

What we have is poltiics being played, where if you looked and read over the bill, the ideas presented are variations of what the republicans wanted but not full fledged and why would it be full fledged... when they lost majority for a reason.

as the saying goes "Elections have consequences"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 24, 2010)

Mael said:


> I read this comment from a doctor on MSN:
> 
> 
> Though I'm not a doctor, I couldn't have said it better.



I've been saying this for months. My dad sees it all of the time, people can't afford the 35 dollar eye exam for glasses. And then we expect it to be okay as long as its not use suffering. Those fuckers still have to drive with us.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 24, 2010)

I still think being a doctor doesn't imply knowing how to fix health care.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I still think being a doctor doesn't imply knowing how to fix health care.



And what basis is this from?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I still think being a doctor doesn't imply knowing how to fix health care.


One of the long time arguments has been that doctors are all against it, when I present doctors that aren't that's suddenly moot?


----------



## Mael (Mar 24, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> One of the long time arguments has been that doctors are all against it, when I present doctors that aren't that's suddenly moot?



Such is the way of the weak argument.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 24, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> And what basis is this from?




I wish I could say the Bible, Marilyn Manson and Sarah Palin told me, but unfortunately, I can't.  

Its moreso like...  doctors are too much a part of the problem to formulate an effective solution.  They're blinded by a lack of objectivity in terms of being too personally involved.  And, they're too set in their ways to change.

In some cases, doctors are directly responsible for health care being expensive.  Studies have shown that doctors that need to pay for things like catscan machines are prone to giving a far higher number of catscans to patients in instances where they're un-necessary to pay for the equipment.

Doctors are traditionalists in many instances, and like some say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  What we need is a clear perspective and another way of looking at the issue doctors can't necessarily provide.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> One of the long time arguments has been that doctors are all against it, when I present doctors that aren't that's suddenly moot?




Not moot, at all.  Just my oddball opinion.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 24, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I wish I could say the Bible, Marilyn Manson and Sarah Palin told me, but unfortunately, I can't.
> 
> Its moreso like...  doctors are too much a part of the problem to formulate an effective solution.  They're blinded by a lack of objectivity in terms of being too personally involved.  And, they're too set in their ways to change.
> 
> ...



There is a reason why they do that, and its to avoid lawsuits from patients for not doing enough. Its called defensive medicine, and its driven by the litigious nature of US society. When a successful lawsuit can cost the doctor millions, they have to play it safe by ordering tests even when its not strictly necessary. When every doctor starts doing that, it ultimately results in more expensive medicine and healthcare for all. Thus, some degree of tort reform is necessary in order to reform health care and control costs.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 24, 2010)

Executive order went out banning the use of monies for elective abortions, looks like that can't be bitched about.


----------



## Final Fantasy VII (Mar 24, 2010)

So abortions are banned or they are free since u cant pay money for elective abortions.

I think every woman who will die from giving birth or who was raped should be entitled to an abortion. in the first 2 weeks of pregnancy it is not a living thing. You need a brain and a heart to be living.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 25, 2010)

hcheng02 said:


> There is a reason why they do that, and its to avoid lawsuits from patients for not doing enough. Its called defensive medicine, and its driven by the litigious nature of US society. When a successful lawsuit can cost the doctor millions, they have to play it safe by ordering tests even when its not strictly necessary. When every doctor starts doing that, it ultimately results in more expensive medicine and healthcare for all. Thus, some degree of tort reform is necessary in order to reform health care and control costs.




In worst case scenarios, people who work in the health care industry have come forwards anonymously and admitted that doctors run up expenses for patients un-necessarily before they make their trips to Vegas.  I'm not necessarily invoking malpractice lawsuits.  And, yes, I know what those are.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 25, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> In worst case scenarios, people who work in the health care industry have come forwards anonymously and admitted that doctors run up expenses for patients un-necessarily before they make their trips to Vegas.  I'm not necessarily invoking malpractice lawsuits.  And, yes, I know what those are.



Strawmanning all doctors as a bunch of greedy motherfuckers doesn't exactly make you sound very objective when talking about the problems with health care costs. Not to mention how this method of raking in cash only works due to the US system of having an individual fee for test payment plan.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 25, 2010)

hcheng02 said:


> Strawmanning all doctors as a bunch of greedy motherfuckers doesn't exactly make you sound very objective when talking about the problems with health care costs. Not to mention how this method of raking in cash only works due to the US system of having an individual fee for test payment plan.



There are many doctors who would not be doctors if they got paid less. I am not saying what they do doesn't validate them getting that much, but it does ellude to those specific doctors valuing money higher if not at the same level as treating patients. Have you ever read your medical bill? If you have surgery, the hospital often times charges you for ridiculous nonsense like Patient Discharge bills when patients die.


----------



## martryn (Mar 25, 2010)

> I think I've said this once before, but it bears repeating: arguing with martryn about anything is like smacking your face into a brick wall. You'll sooner convince the tides to turn back, and ride a winged marshmallow to the Sherbet Kingdom then get him to change his mind.



You're a lunatic who has just enough education to convince stupid people you know what you're talking about, but not enough of one to actually know what you're talking about.  

ObamaCare hurts small businesses and sets up incentives to oppose growth.  It's going to hurt our already damaged economy.



> There are many doctors who would not be doctors if they got paid less.



Well, duh.  When going to med school costs close to half a million dollars and takes a decade of your life in exchange for long hours and potentially dozens of lawsuits during your medical career.  Doctors are totally underpaid.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2010)

FinalFantasyXIII said:


> So abortions are banned or they are free since u cant pay money for elective abortions.
> 
> I think every woman who will die from giving birth or who was raped should be entitled to an abortion. in the first 2 weeks of pregnancy it is not a living thing. You need a brain and a heart to be living.



First off you don't need a brain and a heart to be living, trees are living. Second its just elective abortion, no one says the woman should have to die if the baby is going to kill her. Third, 1.5% of abortions fall into the rape/i*c*st category. Rape pregnancy is so rare its negligible. I don't think our tax dollars should go to the 98.5% of abortions because those aren't our problem. 

In fact any condition you cause yourself should be tough shit too bad, I don't avoid smoking, drinking excessively or running around fucking random strangers just to pay for the shit those who do get into.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 25, 2010)

martryn said:


> Well, duh.  When going to med school costs close to half a million dollars and takes a decade of your life in exchange for long hours and potentially dozens of lawsuits during your medical career.  Doctors are totally underpaid.



Exactly, the discussion was how doctors care about money more than patients, thanks for adding more proof. Doctors are not underpaid. They chose the job, and new what it took to get in there. It should be about helping people, after I earn enough money to go back to school for that, I plan to become a doctor and give medical care out for free. Not saying doctors shouldn't be paid, but your not there to get paid you are there to save lives.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Exactly, the discussion was how doctors care about money more than patients, thanks for adding more proof. Doctors are not underpaid. They chose the job, and new what it took to get in there. It should be about helping people, after I earn enough money to go back to school for that, I plan to become a doctor and give medical care out for free. Not saying doctors shouldn't be paid, but your not there to get paid you are there to save lives.



Did you read what he said? Lawsuits? Eight years of schooling? Long hours? People shitting and vomiting on or around you? 

How does that prove they're over paid. Please enlighten us, as someone who lived with two doctors most of his life, I'd like to hear this one.


----------



## martryn (Mar 25, 2010)

> Exactly, the discussion was how doctors care about money more than patients, thanks for adding more proof.



I added nothing of the sort, and I hardly think my statement supports yours.  Doctors care about the patients more than money.  If they were smart enough to get into med school, and dedicated enough to tough it out, and you think they're in it for the money, why didn't they just become pilots or petroleum engineers or something instead.  Starting salary for a petroleum engineer with just a bachelor's degree is over $80,000.  That'd save them hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, they wouldn't waste almost a decade in school, and would instead be earning probably in the six digits the first year out of college, what with bonuses, stock options, and overtime. 



> They chose the job, and new what it took to get in there. It should be about helping people, after I earn enough money to go back to school for that, I plan to become a doctor and give medical care out for free. Not saying doctors shouldn't be paid, but your not there to get paid you are there to save lives.



Exactly.  But doctors do need to get paid what they're worth.  If you're looking for some society where everyone trains to do a job, and then does it without pay, and the government hands out an equal amount of everything to everyone, you're in the wrong country and fuck you.  Doctors deserve every penny they earn.  Which is less and less as the years go by.


----------



## hcheng02 (Mar 25, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Exactly, the discussion was how doctors care about money more than patients, thanks for adding more proof. Doctors are not underpaid. They chose the job, and new what it took to get in there. It should be about helping people, after I earn enough money to go back to school for that, I plan to become a doctor and give medical care out for free. Not saying doctors shouldn't be paid, but your not there to get paid you are there to save lives.



If it was just about making money, martryn said it best. There are plenty of other ways to earn money much more quickly, easily and in larger amounts. Doctors may be paid alot, but thats because of simple economics. Jobs that require extensive training  and schooling need to be better paying to offset the time investment. Same with jobs that require long and hard hours. Not to mention its pretty much necessary considering the obscene amount of debt you get from going to med school. It takes decades for doctors to pay off their debts. Give out medical care for free? Thats noble and all, but how do you plan to pay off your debts and make a living? How do you plan to pay for supplies and rent for a clinic? Have you even thought this through?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Mar 25, 2010)

martryn is grossly overstating the cost of medical school. The average tuition cost of the first year of medical school in the United States ~25,000 dollars. That's a lot, but it's not much higher than any other graduate program. Considering that medical doctors get paid an order of magnitude more than college professors, and both have the same education duration and relative cost, I'd say that medical doctors have it fairly cushy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2010)

Sama'el said:


> martryn is grossly overstating the cost of medical school. The average tuition cost of the first year of medical school in the United States ~25,000 dollars. That's a lot, but it's not much higher than any other graduate program. Considering that medical doctors get paid an order of magnitude more than college professors, and both have the same education duration and relative cost, I'd say that medical doctors have it fairly cushy.



Yeah but College Professors can't mistakenly kill someone or get sued for malpractice. The jobs that have the highest risk involved should have some reward for the person not causing what's risked to happen.


----------



## Petenshi (Mar 25, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Did you read what he said? Lawsuits? Eight years of schooling? Long hours? People shitting and vomiting on or around you?
> 
> How does that prove they're over paid. Please enlighten us, as someone who lived with two doctors most of his life, I'd like to hear this one.



All I am saying, is that they can afford the basic standard of living and tons of amenities. Too me, that is rich if not overpaid. The original point was to say that doctors often care more about money than the quality of healthcare they give. Not all doctors, probably not even a large majority, but having the amount that we do is surely hurting our system.



martryn said:


> I added nothing of the sort, and I hardly think my statement supports yours.  Doctors care about the patients more than money.  If they were smart enough to get into med school, and dedicated enough to tough it out, and you think they're in it for the money, why didn't they just become pilots or petroleum engineers or something instead.  Starting salary for a petroleum engineer with just a bachelor's degree is over $80,000.  That'd save them hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, they wouldn't waste almost a decade in school, and would instead be earning probably in the six digits the first year out of college, what with bonuses, stock options, and overtime.



People now doctors will always be a highly regarded and needed field, petroleum not so much. With the industry turning towards green, I am sure that there are less petroleum engineers and possibly they would be cut even further in the future. Its also about security.




> Exactly.  But doctors do need to get paid what they're worth.  If you're looking for some society where everyone trains to do a job, and then does it without pay, and the government hands out an equal amount of everything to everyone, you're in the wrong country and fuck you.  Doctors deserve every penny they earn.  Which is less and less as the years go by.


[/QUOTE]

Many jobs also serve a vital role in our community, and they are not paid anywhere near that amount. If those other vital roles, like teaching for example, are paid so little then why should doctors be heavily paid? I am comparing being a doctor to other fields that I feel are equally important, to make the claim. I suppose if you paid those other fields as well as doctors, then it wouldn't be as much as an issue. 



hcheng02 said:


> If it was just about making money, martryn said it best. There are plenty of other ways to earn money much more quickly, easily and in larger amounts. Doctors may be paid alot, but thats because of simple economics. Jobs that require extensive training  and schooling need to be better paying to offset the time investment. Same with jobs that require long and hard hours. Not to mention its pretty much necessary considering the obscene amount of debt you get from going to med school. It takes decades for doctors to pay off their debts. Give out medical care for free? Thats noble and all, but how do you plan to pay off your debts and make a living? How do you plan to pay for supplies and rent for a clinic? Have you even thought this through?



Exactly, instead of helping people the reason people to go into medicine is an assumption you will be paid well. Isn't that a little sad that we as humans need money to help people? I know its a job, and I know it is difficult, but your arguments sound a little like you are victimizing the doctors who have to go through such rigorous training and schooling when THEY chose to do so. Also, there are scholarships available to reduce and eliminate the med school debt. If they didn't do well enough in college for them, that really doesn't justify them getting paid does it. I see your point about time invested, but many other degrees take a long time as well. I have thought a lot about it, I have done research at many hospitals and have talked to many doctors. A lot of them said it wasn't feasible, others said it was a great Idea and they would help if they got the chance. Alone, I doubt I could make it happen for very long but it seems many also want to see it happen.  



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah but College Professors can't mistakenly kill someone or get sued for malpractice. The jobs that have the highest risk involved should have some reward for the person not causing what's risked to happen.



Risk to what? All people's jobs create risk. Police and firemen could mistakenly kill someone,  same as ems personnel. Also, there are risks for peoples own lives in some jobs, bank tellers and tiny marts get robbed often. None of these jobs have very high wages.


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Mar 25, 2010)

Republicans send health care bill back to House for another vote



Senate Republicans have suceeded in forcing Democrats to send the health reform reconciliation bill back to the House for another vote, after Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin ruled early Thursday morning that two minor provisions violated the chamber's rules and couldn?t be included in the final bill.

Democrats believe the provisions ? technical changes to language about Pell Grants for low-income students ? are so minor that they don?t threaten to derail the reconciliation package, which includes a series of fixes to the reform bill that has already been signed into law by President Barack Obama.

But clearly Democrats are anxious to put the health care voting behind them ? given the painful history of the past year of close votes and near-death experiences on the bill ? and want nothing to pop up now that could give them headaches.

It?s also possible that Republicans can force more changes to the bill when the Senate reconvenes at 9:45 a.m., with a vote on the bill scheduled for 2 p.m. It wasn?t clear early Thursday morning when the House would vote, but both chambers are anxious to wrap up business to get out of town for the two-week Easter recess.

All told, 16 lines of text will be removed from the 153-page bill to strip the Pell Grant language, Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley told reporters as business on the Senate floor wrapped up early Thursday morning.

The House has already passed the reconciliation bill, on Sunday night when it approved the landmark health reform measure. But since the House and Senate must pass identical versions of the reconciliation bill to put the fixes into law, the reconciliation piece must go back to the House for a second vote.

And the reconciliation bill includes several provisions that are must-haves for House members, including eliminating the Cornhusker Kickback and other state-specific deals and putting off a tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans until 2018.

?We are confident the House will quickly pass the bill with these minor changes,? Manley said Thursday morning.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35003.html#ixzz0jCfwBmOW


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 25, 2010)

Gotta give them credit for relooking at it. We all know it was rushed and full of problems. i hope the continue looking at the bill.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> All I am saying, is that they can afford the basic standard of living and tons of amenities. Too me, that is rich if not overpaid. The original point was to say that doctors often care more about money than the quality of healthcare they give. Not all doctors, probably not even a large majority, but having the amount that we do is surely hurting our system.



If you work harder, longer hours and are better trained you deserve to be a little richer. And not all doctors are rich or work for the highest pay




Petenshi said:


> Many jobs also serve a vital role in our community, and they are not paid anywhere near that amount. If those other vital roles, like teaching for example, are paid so little then why should doctors be heavily paid? I am comparing being a doctor to other fields that I feel are equally important, to make the claim. I suppose if you paid those other fields as well as doctors, then it wouldn't be as much as an issue.



Teaching requires very little training though and they don't really have the risk of killing someone hanging over their heads. A teacher can be bad and never have a student die on them or sue them.



Petenshi said:


> Exactly, instead of helping people the reason people to go into medicine is an assumption you will be paid well. Isn't that a little sad that we as humans need money to help people? I know its a job, and I know it is difficult, but your arguments sound a little like you are victimizing the doctors who have to go through such rigorous training and schooling when THEY chose to do so. Also, there are scholarships available to reduce and eliminate the med school debt. If they didn't do well enough in college for them, that really doesn't justify them getting paid does it. I see your point about time invested, but many other degrees take a long time as well. I have thought a lot about it, I have done research at many hospitals and have talked to many doctors. A lot of them said it wasn't feasible, others said it was a great Idea and they would help if they got the chance. Alone, I doubt I could make it happen for very long but it seems many also want to see it happen.



Sorry that not everyone's as upstanding and noble as you, some of us want to get paid well and I don't know, be able to support our kids. It's not a bad thing, people out there not getting paid well aren't doing it because they want to be poor and if they had a highly marketable skill they'd use it to make that cash right away. 



Petenshi said:


> Risk to what? All people's jobs create risk. Police and firemen could mistakenly kill someone,  same as ems personnel. Also, there are risks for peoples own lives in some jobs, bank tellers and tiny marts get robbed often. None of these jobs have very high wages.



Death? Police don't go through much training in the first place and they, for the numbers of them there are get hurt and killed very little. When it comes to them killing someone, more often than not the person they killed deserved it. With fireman, which is a job I have a lot of experience being around, very few of them die at all or get hurt. They get paid pretty well too and as with Police the training is pretty quick. In three years you could be a full fledged fireman if you got up right now and went for it. If you up and decided to be a doctor, you would have a long road and a hard fight ahead of you.


----------



## Subarashii (Mar 25, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Did you read what he said? Lawsuits? Eight years of schooling? *Long hours? People shitting and vomiting on or around you?
> *
> How does that prove they're over paid. Please enlighten us, as someone who lived with two doctors most of his life, I'd like to hear this one.



And you know who deals with that? *Nurses*.  They do all the grunt work, paper work, patient work, family work.  You go surgery nurse is there with the doctor, you need help takin' a shit, only the nurse is there.

Doctors in socialized health care countries do just fine with out absorbent amounts of money.


----------



## Kahuna450 (Mar 25, 2010)

^what's wrong with making huge amounts of money?


----------



## Final Fantasy VII (Mar 28, 2010)

Oh, just the fact most other careers or jobs don't even pay even 30 percent of what a doctor makes a year. most people would have to work 20 years to make what a doctor makes in  one year which is around 500k in most hospitals.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 28, 2010)

Subarashii said:


> And you know who deals with that? *Nurses*.  They do all the grunt work, paper work, patient work, family work.  You go surgery nurse is there with the doctor, you need help takin' a shit, only the nurse is there.
> 
> Doctors in socialized health care countries do just fine with out absorbent amounts of money.



No medical students deal with it too, it seems you don't know what you're talking about though. Thanks for giving us that much.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 28, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No medical students deal with it too, it seems you don't know what you're talking about though. Thanks for giving us that much.



I agree, my Fiancee is a medical student and has to deal with HOURS of study and has ICM twice a week where she has to deal with patients. The first two years are hardcore 12 hour days of studying and the next 2 years are clinicals and dealing with patients. After that, it's residency, where they are officially doctors, but only get paid 40k for the first couple of years.

Pay starts going up from there, but the median income is around 120k for a pediatrician while a neurosurgeon (whose residency lasts ~10-12 years) is around 400k... So, the range of pay for a doctor is 100 to 400k a year depending on what your specialty is. 

Tuition is around 25k a year. So for four years... that's around 100,000 dollars, not to mention the interest.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 28, 2010)

People seem to have this idea that you're a doctor and all of a sudden instantly rich with great credit.


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 28, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People seem to have this idea that you're a doctor and all of a sudden instantly rich with great credit.



Thats what American T.V. has taught. Now lie and say that isn't true.


----------



## amazingfunksta (Mar 28, 2010)

Hand Banana said:


> Thats what American T.V. has taught. Now lie and say that isn't true.



LOL. T.V teaches a lot of falsehoods. For example: All evil drug gangs in the U.S. are retrofitted with fully automatic Uzi's and military rifles with which they commit drive-by shootings .


----------



## Hand Banana (Mar 28, 2010)

amazingfunksta said:


> LOL. T.V teaches a lot of falsehoods. For example: All evil drug gangs in the U.S. are retrofitted with fully automatic Uzi's and military rifles with which they commit drive-by shootings .



Whats your point?


----------

