Eosian Wrote:Excepting the fundamental underlying flaws in our healthcare system itself that were unaddressed, such as the insanely frivolous malpractice laws (and related insurance) the over-charing for services and medication to cover the cost of lobbying and marketing and so forth.
I hope people realize this isn't the "do all end all" legislation regarding health care, because, like Eos said, not everything was addressed. It's a major step in the right direction, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in creating racial equality, but it won't be the end of change.
Berzerk Wrote:I really don't know how I feel about this just yet, as I don't know how it's going to affect me.
FrozNlite Wrote:Oh and for those who want to know more:
Eosian Wrote:Excepting the fundamental underlying flaws in our healthcare system itself that were unaddressed, such as the insanely frivolous malpractice laws (and related insurance) the over-charing for services and medication to cover the cost of lobbying and marketing and so forth.
Last time I was in Pittsburgh visiting grandparents, my family from Maui were there with us. We got into an interesting conversation about Hawaiian hospitals vs. most other state's hospitals. Hawaii has laws requiring hospitals to actually show a population need for a particular service or technology. So within a certain area, not every hospital would have the same expensive machinery and services. Which means hospitals aren't acting like competitive businesses, instead they're distributing services across a population in a cost effective manner. This discussion was prompted because we drove by a sign advertising a Pittsburgh hospital's new "Full Body scanner". Which is a ridiculous waste of time and money. Even House hates full body scans.
@ Mark
Ah, the everything mess.
Derail in progress. Fun times arguing politics ahead
I'll agree to peg Iraq on Bush as an individual. I have a hard time pegging it on the Republicans as a whole given that over half of Senate Dems and 2/5ths of House Dems supported it at the most important time to have stopped it. For the economy, I realize it's hard not to speak in broad generalizations. So I'll join in. I think the current state of our economic trouble has been caused by a bipartisan effort spanning decades. As individuals, I think both Bushes did miserable jobs with the economy. I think Clinton did alright. At the same time though, it's Congress that approves the yearly budget. And since we vote for all of these people with an insane incumbency rate, the ultimate responsibility lies with us for failing to do our political homework and oust ineffective politicians. If only every American could put our financial future above comparatively petty things like religion and stance on abortion.
[imgspoiler]http://brual.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/national-debt-gdphalfsize.gif[/imgspoiler] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...histo4.htm
So, no president has actually decreased the size of our national debt since 1957. While I will not disagree that it was Clinton who catalysed the slowing of the debt growth from 1997-2000 by balancing the budget, keep in mind it was a Republican majority congress during his second term. During Bush Sr.'s term? Democrat-controlled Congress. Reagan dealt with a Republican Senate and Democratic House for his terms. I think the grand economic mess lies with all of them.
My caveat to that: I'm not an economist, nor do I consider myself clueless. What I know about the causes of the current recession as well as where the national debt comes from come from what I learn from brief news articles and- for that chart and pretty numbers- some quick googling.
I know this is fence-sitty of me, but I'm 50/50 with this bill. Given that my mom has had Multiple Sclerosis for at least 15 years now, I know how medical costs can pineapple up a family, even with a job and insurance. (My dad was out of work for almost 2 years until January. Little late with the timing on this, Congress. lololol) I look at the healthcare system in America and I see an aging beast. It needs a fix sooner than later. I'm pleased to see Obama and many other legislators have fought for something to be done. That being said, I think this was a sort of wobbly step sideways. It feels more like putting shiny new titanium knee replacements into an old man. He might walk a lot better, but he's still an old man heading for death.
The ultimate decider for health care reform will be execution. I feel this way about a lot of bills. Not every provision may be agreeable, but if it can be executed properly, a mediocre plan becomes better than a perfect plan executed poorly. So, what I really want from this bill is a timely institution of the provisions, as well as the supposed outcome of this saving the government money in the long run.
Spideyjvc Wrote:Wait, so I HAVE to get insurance and pay for this crap even if I'm unemployed?
Fuck.
Nope. You're dependant and you're under 26, you'd be on your parents coverage for a few more years. Then after that, there is a clause for people with no/low income from what I understand. However, you're exactly the type of person everyone is angry about.
Sarah Wrote:Then after that, there is a clause for people with no/low income from what I understand.
FrozNlite Wrote:While you won't be covered under your parents plan when you hit 26 (so yes, it will be taken away), you will be forced to buy a plan under this new bill (that's the basic point - everyone HAS to buy a plan, now). However, if you're unable to afford a plan, government subsidies are in place to help pay your premiums.
CNN Wrote:Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy
Sarah Wrote:Nope. You're dependant and you're under 26, you'd be on your parents coverage for a few more years. Then after that, there is a clause for people with no/low income from what I understand. However, you're exactly the type of person everyone is angry about.
Oh, okay, good. I almost never have to go to the doctor's office anyway. Last time I went was like 3 or 4 years ago. I'd rather not pay for something I don't really need. Though, I'm fairly close to 26, so I guess I'll have to see how this plays out. I usually never pay attention to politics, because there's rarely every a change like this that would lead to a noticeable impact on my way of life.
butterfλi Wrote:+Quoted stuff I didn't read because I skipped all the posts in this thread+
ClawofBeta Wrote:[SIZE="5"]THE BILL WAS ONLY PASSED IN THE HOUSE, NOT THE SENATE.[/SIZE]
[/end thread]
Article Wrote:A companion package making a series of changes sought by House Democrats to the larger bill, which already passed the Senate, was approved 220-211.
ClawofBeta Wrote:[SIZE="5"]THE BILL WAS ONLY PASSED IN THE HOUSE, NOT THE SENATE.[/SIZE]
[/end thread]
I think this explains it a little better: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35977921/ns/...re_reform/ HR 3590 was passed by Congress quite a while ago, and just passed the House, but in order to get some hold-out Democrats in the House to vote for it, HR 4872 had to be written up which makes some amendments to the original bill. That's what needs to be pass the Senate. However, it's under different procedures for how it gets passed- "Reconciliation". The Senate doesn't need 60 votes to pass it, just 51, and it can't be filibustered. So yes, it isn't technically law yet. All of the votes are there for it to pass, it'll just take a bit more time to make the House and Senate versions of the bill equivalent.
2010-03-22, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 2010-03-22, 03:40 PM by Erich.)
Guess my grandfather is going to die now. This bill basically denies anyone older that has serious issues help. Oh well.
What is Obama, Robin Hood? Taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Too bad he's taking from everyone to get something that's already shifty in the first place. Better not get sick, guys, you won't be able to afford a specialist.
2010-03-22, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 2010-03-22, 04:15 PM by Dual.)
[COLOR="Green"]I've been under the assumption that everything in this country's government kinda sucks, regardless of what is passed or who is in office. America is an Unpleasable Fanbase, and no matter what you do, you're not going to make everyone happy. Ever. And even if you make people happy now, someone will come along later and mess it up.
That aside, I find it kind of annoying when people group actions and things on political parties, based on the presidents. The president is basically a figurehead at which Americans can spew hate, only to leave office and rarely be though of in a good light by most of the country, due to some issue that occurred in their presidency that links to them in people's minds, such as Hoover and the Great Depression. Whether he did it or not, that's what people remembered him for.[/COLOR]
Erich Wrote:Guess my grandfather is going to die now. This bill basically denies anyone older that has serious issues help. Oh well.
Ignorant and untrue. Your grandfather, if completely uninsured now, will have all of the same benefits as you and the rest of America. If he's on Medicare, he's actually going to be better off, because the doughnut hole costs will be eliminated (there's a point where prescriptions stop being covered for a while in medicare coverage) and yeah.
I don't get all of the rage towards this. You're paying more tax, sure, but the country as a whole gets free health care. So those people who don't have a crapload of money but have the misfortune to get some deadly disease? They won't die now. You're SAVING LIVES with this, I think it's great. (And no, rich people get the benefit too so it isn't Robin Hood-ing, it's distributing the benefits to the country as a whole (then again America has a more "rights for the individual who can afford it" outlook whereas Canada has a more "rights for society as a whole" way of seeing things, I'm leaning mroe towards society as a whole))
Holypie Wrote:I don't get all of the rage towards this. You're paying more tax, sure, but the country as a whole gets free health care. So those people who don't have a crapload of money but have the misfortune to get some deadly disease? They won't die now. You're SAVING LIVES with this, I think it's great. (And no, rich people get the benefit too so it isn't Robin Hood-ing, it's distributing the benefits to the country as a whole (then again America has a more "rights for the individual who can afford it" outlook whereas Canada has a more "rights for society as a whole" way of seeing things, I'm leaning mroe towards society as a whole))
I don't care about some kid I'll never meet being saved by this. I'm not getting sick much, I don't really need this. I'd be paying for some other person's benefit. If I don't even support myself, I shouldn't have to help others get support.
What's that? Little Suzie in Texas needs surgery that her family can't afford? That's nice, but don't make me pay for that shit. I don't even pay for my own health care, and if I had to then I wouldn't. For me it's not worth it, because I rarely get sick with anything other than the cold.
I guess you can say I'm a bit too spoiled by the American "rights for the individual who can afford it" outlook.
