Obama has officially conceded on the healthcare bill.

Well I did hear that pregnancy is sometimes considered a pre-existing condition. But the Pregnant Women Support Act would prohibit that.

i'm a little confused about something. It says US spends 15% of its GDP on health care. Now is that just hospital costs or does that include all the insurance costs too?

The dropping of the end of life consoltations was an obvious pandering the overzealous paranoid idiots spreading lies about death panels. And the public options makes this reform barely even useful. Good job republicans and right wingers. You essentially killed reform. Reminds of killzone 2 when there were a minority of people screaming SO loud that GG changed the game not only once but twice. munu9

Wow. You do realize the biggest FAIL of this whole thing is the Democrats inability to cooperate with each other? Remember, Democrat president, Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House. But yeah, its ALL because of those gosh darn republicans and right wingers.

[QUOTE="munu9"]The dropping of the end of life consoltations was an obvious pandering the overzealous paranoid idiots spreading lies about death panels. And the public options makes this reform barely even useful. Good job republicans and right wingers. You essentially killed reform. Reminds of killzone 2 when there were a minority of people screaming SO loud that GG changed the game not only once but twice. grenadexjumpr

Wow. You do realize the biggest FAIL of this whole thing is the Democrats inability to cooperate with each other? Remember, Democrat president, Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House. But yeah, its ALL because of those gosh darn republicans and right wingers.

The fact is the Democrats were the ones in majority and turned it down. The Democrats shortcomings have nothing to do with the Republicans. Its called politics as usual. Believe it or not, there are corrupt Democratic politicians too. And they don't see anything coming directly to them in this bill (pork) so they don't want it. So go ahead and keep blaming the political party that's in the minority.

The fact is the Democrats were the ones in majority and turned it down. The Democrats shortcomings have nothing to do with the Republicans. Its called politics as usual. Believe it or not, there are corrupt Democratic politicians too. And they don't see anything coming directly to them in this bill (pork) so they don't want it. So go ahead and keep blaming the political party that's in the minority.

grenadexjumpr

[QUOTE="munu9"]The dropping of the end of life consoltations was an obvious pandering the overzealous paranoid idiots spreading lies about death panels. And the public options makes this reform barely even useful. Good job republicans and right wingers. You essentially killed reform. Reminds of killzone 2 when there were a minority of people screaming SO loud that GG changed the game not only once but twice. grenadexjumpr

Wow. You do realize the biggest FAIL of this whole thing is the Democrats inability to cooperate with each other? Remember, Democrat president, Democrat controlled Senate, Democrat controlled House. But yeah, its ALL because of those gosh darn republicans and right wingers.

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

During the great depression, the US was comming out of it when Roosevelt pushed through the second new deal during his second term. The new deal killed the economy all over again, erasing all the previous gains. The same thing would happen now. It's just a case of bad timing.psychobrew

Ugh, I don't understand how the Bush administration was able to strong arm in any bill they wanted despite abysmal approval ratings and nobody wanting it and yet the democrats can't do it with a good approval ratings and the majority supporting them.bean-with-bacon

lets spend trillions on a pointless war

YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

lets maybe spend trillions helping our citizens with health care

OH MY GOD WE CANT DO THAT WHY ALL THE SPENDING DONT YOU KNOW THATS SOCIALIST?????

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]Ugh, I don't understand how the Bush administration was able to strong arm in any bill they wanted despite abysmal approval ratings and nobody wanting it and yet the democrats can't do it with a good approval ratings and the majority supporting them.links136

lets spend trillions on a pointless war

YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

lets maybe spend trillions helping our citizens with health care

OH MY GOD WE CANT DO THAT WHY ALL THE SPENDING DONT YOU KNOW THATS SOCIALIST?????

[QUOTE="links136"]

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]Ugh, I don't understand how the Bush administration was able to strong arm in any bill they wanted despite abysmal approval ratings and nobody wanting it and yet the democrats can't do it with a good approval ratings and the majority supporting them.munu9

lets spend trillions on a pointless war

YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

lets maybe spend trillions helping our citizens with health care

OH MY GOD WE CANT DO THAT WHY ALL THE SPENDING DONT YOU KNOW THATS SOCIALIST?????

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]During the great depression, the US was comming out of it when Roosevelt pushed through the second new deal during his second term. The new deal killed the economy all over again, erasing all the previous gains. The same thing would happen now. It's just a case of bad timing.yoshi-lnex

Sure he has, the history of the United States according to Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck :roll:

the healthcare thing wasnt meant to save the economy... it was meant to.. HELP PEOPLE THAT COULNT AFFORD IT.nimatoad2000

What a revolutionary idea right? Friggin communists and their "helping the people". Screw the people :P

Obama actually hasn't conceded on the healthcare bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/obama-smerconish-intervie_n_264297.html

Considering the fact that the definition of a 3rd world country is a large gap between the rich and the poor, then it would only raise our status in the world (and our quality of care, which is severely lacking) to have a full single-payer system, which I advocate, and which the Scandinavian countries have.

Hot-Tamale

But I encourage you to read the policy analyses of various single-payer healthcare systems around the world. The quality of care is very poor compared to American healthcare and other states where you're allowed to purchase insurance and medical care.

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

yoshi-lnex

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

[QUOTE="nimatoad2000"]the healthcare thing wasnt meant to save the economy... it was meant to.. HELP PEOPLE THAT COULNT AFFORD IT.Benevolentbob

What a revolutionary idea right? Friggin communists and their "helping the people". Screw the people :P

Alright for those of us that are not up to speed with American Politics... yet are still curious? can you sum this up? something to do with a similar NHS system?Birdy09

y exactly is socialism bad?mramz88

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

yoshi-lnex

[QUOTE="jazznate"]

Well if it is true, this is a defining moment in time where ignorance in numbers has been so overpowerring it has destroyed logic and reasoning. I guess we have our friends at Fox News to thank for spreading all the misinformation and the Democratic Party for actually giving into this kind of behavior. Yes, the people comparing the president to Hitler have won, bravo America. You get to keep your overpriced healthcare and live on as one of the only developed western countries that can't support all if its citizens with basic care.

Although, I'm just hearing this news and the only source you have is some douche on youtube so I don't know how true this is.

wslacker2

It's called socialism. We don't believe in. If you are an American who does not like private health care here, move to Canada. How is govt. run healthcare socialism? A govt. attempting to overtake a domain that has long been in private sector is definitely such.

The "if you don't like it, move to country X" argument doesn't really work. If you love your country, and genuinely care for the wellbeing of its people, you will want to stay in that country if only to try to change how things are done. That's what democracy is all about. You are only encouraging increased homogeneity when you make that 'argument' for ignorance.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

danwallacefan

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

Simple fact; the country has become too large and complex for small government.

wow awesome, republicans can be a pain in the buttThe_Last_Ride

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]wow awesome, republicans can be a pain in the buttdruggyjoe3000

Hey, you know the huge debt Republicans are whining about? They made it!!

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

So you never heard about the Roosevelt Recession which was caused by additional taxes neccessary to pay for the items in the second Deal? Before then, the economy was recovering nicely. Because of the second deal, the recession didn't recover until WWII.

If it weren't for money, our living conditions would be terrible and the citizens of the rich nations that post on this web site would no longer be able to do so. If it weren't for money, our health care would be non existant.

psychobrew

The Great Depression was NOT recovering at the time of the 2nd 100 days. There was a small spike in commerce that was attributed to the jobs created by the AAA, which, remember, was slightly delayed from when the legislation creating it was passed because it was so controversial. That spike was caused by the actions of the first New Deal, but it was very temporary. If you look at the records, the day before Congress OK'ed the second New Deal stuff, the market fell the equivalent of 400 points (in today's terms). That was big, especially back then.

And about money, I still think that spending money to prevent the deaths of Americans, even if it's a trillion dollars, is well worth it. Human livelihood trumps money, even if they are mutually exclusive in today's society.

What are you talking about? Everything was greatly improved by FDR's second term, though unemployment was lagging behind (it had still improved by more than 10 points). Seriously, read up on your history.

If you have so much extra money to give, then go for it. Most of us don't. It must be nice to be so spoiled that you don't care about your taxes. People that really want insurance can already get it.

Excuse me, but you have no idea what my financial situation is. Shame on you for blindly assuming that because of my political affiliation I must have a certain income or standard of living. Perhaps I am just a kind person who actually cares about the wellbeing of others. If you need to know, I cannot afford health insurance, and am hoping that Obama's plan can give me some security on that front, along with 50 million other Americans.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

danwallacefan

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

The difference is, society in the time was mostly at the local level. Most people never travelled more than 30 miles from where they were born, most areas had their own currency because the economy was mostly a local economy with few outside influences.

The world today is one of global interaction, global interconnections, and global consequences. This isn't the 1700's, and constricting our government structure to such is a sure way to see this nation become so unwieldy as to be mired in uselessness.

Did the recent economic collapse teach you nothing? When business types take risks, it's on everyone elses shoulders upon whom the risk falls. Business is by its very nature greedy, and those who want to let those corporate hounds run free scare me more than big government.

Now we can stop fearing the scary commies. When we already have free post office, free schools, free fire and police, but free healthcare of any kind is crossing the line!!!!!! I think the statue of liberty should say now "Looking out for number 1"

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Obama actually hasn't conceded on the healthcare bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/obama-smerconish-intervie_n_264297.html

Considering the fact that the definition of a 3rd world country is a large gap between the rich and the poor, then it would only raise our status in the world (and our quality of care, which is severely lacking) to have a full single-payer system, which I advocate, and which the Scandinavian countries have.

danwallacefan

But I encourage you to read the policy analyses of various single-payer healthcare systems around the world. The quality of care is very poor compared to American healthcare and other states where you're allowed to purchase insurance and medical care.

There are about 3 different types of government healthcare throughout the other industrialized countries. Supposedly, the best is done in the Scandinavian countries, where the entirety is subsidized by the government, but income taxes are as high as 42%. I've only heard the best about Sweden and Finland's systems, for example.

If a person can afford a pack of smokes a day they can afford health insurance according to an ad on tv.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

danwallacefan

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

I disagree. being a 'loose constructionist,' I am of the opinion that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to encourage the Constitution to be changeable, adaptable, and elastic. Therefore, if changes need to be made, they should be, be they for government expansion after 30 years or Reagan-style deregulation, or after centuries of authoritarian British rule.

y exactly is socialism bad?mramz88

It depends entirely on what you think socialism is. It can range from Hitler's economic plan for Germany to the economic plans currently seen in the Scandinavian countries. Some people think that even Medicare and Medicaid are Socialist (I suppose they take some inspiration from it, but still...).

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

br0kenrabbit

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

The difference is, society in the time was mostly at the local level. Most people never travelled more than 30 miles from where they were born, most areas had their own currency because the economy was mostly a local economy with few outside influences.

The world today is one of global interaction, global interconnections, and global consequences. This isn't the 1700's, and constricting our government structure to such is a sure way to see this nation become so unwieldy as to be mired in uselessness.

Did the recent economic collapse teach you nothing? When business types take risks, it's on everyone elses shoulders upon whom the risk falls. Business is by its very nature greedy, and those who want to let those corporate hounds run free scare me more than big government.

Exactly. Wall Street privatized gains and socialized losses. They've been doing that since the Gilded Age.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Conservatives are holding back the country....again...

789shadow

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

Simple fact; the country has become too large and complex for small government.

The difference is, society in the time was mostly at the local level. Most people never travelled more than 30 miles from where they were born, most areas had their own currency because the economy was mostly a local economy with few outside influences.

The world today is one of global interaction, global interconnections, and global consequences. This isn't the 1700's, and constricting our government structure to such is a sure way to see this nation become so unwieldy as to be mired in uselessness.

Did the recent economic collapse teach you nothing? When business types take risks, it's on everyone elses shoulders upon whom the risk falls. Business is by its very nature greedy, and those who want to let those corporate hounds run free scare me more than big government.

br0kenrabbit

Then the Government bailed out the banks and large businesses which made these horrendous mistakes, thus perpetuating the malinvestment. What we need to do is stop interfering with the Market and let the bad investments and poorly managed firms liquidate. In other words, the economy needs to reset itself and rocket back to the top.

Finally, do you really think that because we are "globalizing", we need large governments? Its only global because individuals trade with other individuals from all over the world. There isn't some sort of leviathan managing it all, its just people and the emergent market.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] The notion of curbing the expansion of government was the very principle this country was founded upon.

So Good on the conservatives for "holding back the country"

Hot-Tamale

The difference is, society in the time was mostly at the local level. Most people never travelled more than 30 miles from where they were born, most areas had their own currency because the economy was mostly a local economy with few outside influences.

The world today is one of global interaction, global interconnections, and global consequences. This isn't the 1700's, and constricting our government structure to such is a sure way to see this nation become so unwieldy as to be mired in uselessness.

Did the recent economic collapse teach you nothing? When business types take risks, it's on everyone elses shoulders upon whom the risk falls. Business is by its very nature greedy, and those who want to let those corporate hounds run free scare me more than big government.

Exactly. Wall Street privatized gains and socialized losses. They've been doing that since the Gilded Age.

Well atleast we aren't socialists :roll:

Its only been recently that companies of this size have been recieving bailouts from the Government. If we didn't bail out these companies, their losses wouldn't be socialized.

danwallacefan

Yes it would still be socialized, because we allowed these companies to become 'Too big to fail'. If they went under, the whole economy would have tanked even further.

No company should ever be big enough to drag down the whole national economy, but we've let business tycoons do just that. The bailout was the lesser of the two evils, the loss would have been socialized either way.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

The difference is, society in the time was mostly at the local level. Most people never travelled more than 30 miles from where they were born, most areas had their own currency because the economy was mostly a local economy with few outside influences.

The world today is one of global interaction, global interconnections, and global consequences. This isn't the 1700's, and constricting our government structure to such is a sure way to see this nation become so unwieldy as to be mired in uselessness.

Did the recent economic collapse teach you nothing? When business types take risks, it's on everyone elses shoulders upon whom the risk falls. Business is by its very nature greedy, and those who want to let those corporate hounds run free scare me more than big government.

danwallacefan

Then the Government bailed out the banks and large businesses which made these horrendous mistakes, thus perpetuating the malinvestment. What we need to do is stop interfering with the Market and let the bad investments and poorly managed firms liquidate. In other words, the economy needs to reset itself and rocket back to the top.

Finally, do you really think that because we are "globalizing", we need large governments? Its only global because individuals trade with other individuals from all over the world. There isn't some sort of leviathan managing it all, its just people and the emergent market.

The Federal Reserve is a mostly private organization, it isn't a wholly government-owned enterprise. The Federal Reserve exists to help banks make money and avoid losses, the only reason they gave credit to those who didn't deserve it is because they saw an opportunity to make money. You know, like Loan Sharks. They went after short-term gains and oversold their product (within a product within a product) all to make an extra few bucks.

Unfettered capitolism leads to things like Company Towns. The goal of many companies is cradle-to-grave consumers, and banks and loan companies are more than eager to snatch any cash from you they can in any way they can (see unfair practices which is leading to a consumer credit bill of rights). They don't care that you're not stable enough fincanically to take on the responsibility, all they care is that you bite that hook so they can get you, becaues they may get bailed out, but you won't. They'll get that money from you one way or the other. If that means kicking you out on the street (see Company Towns) then so be it, the bill must be paid.

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

This is terrible. Denying the basic right of healthcare to over 50 million people is a human rights disaster, and I have lost much of the faith in my country because of this fearmongering and vitriolic nonsense. :evil:

limpbizkit818

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."