Health Care reform bill reactions

[Fashion Lad!]

Our entire economy rests on the fortunes of the top 2%? Sorry, but I don't think the world is gonna end if Bill Gates decides to only buy one new hybrid Hummer instead of two.

I guess you missed the point where I said I was using that *far fetched* argument against another argument that I felt was *far fetched*. I didn't say I believed that argument and I didn't say that it held any factual basis.

It's a vicious cycle. More and more of the poorer people will end up poorer and unhealthier as a demographic. That harms the economy. The rich are only considered rich because of the economy.


Rapscallion

There's a complete inhumane way of looking at it. That is without the poorest of the poor who in a lot of cases are working anyway are no longer alive, they don't need benefits from the government. Then the government would (theoretically) spend less money decreasing our deficit and hopefully debt. Thus providing a reduced financial obligation to this country's debt.

That is not how I want to look at it. But, your argument led me to that argument.

Oh, and opinions polls don't mean shit except that a lot of people think something. That's not proof of them being right, just that that's what they think.

Ok, so opinion polls don't mean shit to you... so... why did you bring other people's *opinions* into the debate?

I'm seeing a criminal lack of proof or information backing people's accusations in this thread. Most people I've met are in favor of the bill.

Favorable vs Unfavorable

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Because it was already part of the debate? and as a demonstration that personal experiences are inconsequential as a sideline to the fact that people's opinions don't matter either.

[Rapscallion]

No? But the government thinks that if they tax the top 2% more than anyone else, they'll help out with the deficit. Can't have it both ways.

Well, logically you don't get much money by taxing people who don't have any...

As for the people who are rich "stepping on the little people" (to paraphrase another post) - that's how it is in a capitalist society. Don't like it? Become a rich person. You can start a company and step on other. You have the option of being a person in charge and a person not in charge. That's the capitalist beauty.

I never said otherwise. I was talking about how it is, not how it should be.

I've got no problem with fairly rewarding successful people.

There's a complete inhumane way of looking at it. That is without the poorest of the poor who in a lot of cases are working anyway are no longer alive, they don't need benefits from the government. Then the government would (theoretically) spend less money decreasing our deficit and hopefully debt. Thus providing a reduced financial obligation to this country's debt.

That is not how I want to look at it. But, your argument led me to that argument.

That is one way of looking at it, true, but here's another inhuman way of looking at it. What happens when the rich run out of disposable, economic slaves? Those 'little people' will be spending their time looking after their sick relatives at home, if still healthy, thus draining the economy further.

There are no rich people if the economy is harmed. One of the reasons the current economies are so successful is that we have better healthcare. People are able to get back to productive work and can work far longer in their lifespan.

What I can see is the sort of arrogance that lead to the French revolution.

It will make good viewing.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Yes, but one of the reasons the rich have $$$$$ to spare is because they undestand the basic premise of saving their money and spending wisely.

Do you really believe that?

You will never be as rich as Paris Hilton. Ever.

Is she better at saving money than you? Would you generally consider her smarter than yourself?

I don't think much of government redistribution programs, but let's not kid ourselves. Some people are rich because they're brilliant and hard-working, but that's unusual. Bill Gates et al are rarities. The wealthiest Americans are those who were born that way, and take advantage of a system that's been in place for decades. Most brilliant and hard-working Americans will never join their ranks, because they weren't born into the club.

[IDrinkaRum]

Paris Hilton was born into money because someone in her family knew how to spend and save wisely. Plus, the family has probably hired someone or several someones ("little persons") to help them continue to spend, save, and buy wisely.

I might not ever be as rich as Paris Hilton, but I might have fun trying to get that rich.

[crashhelmet]

People like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and many other million/billionaires change their income sources to "unearned incomes" which completely change how they're taxed or what they're taxed for. They're paid through stock options, investments, and dividends rather than through a salary.

Current tax laws dictate which taxes are levied through earned incomes, unearned incomes, or both.

One of those taxes they don't pay is for Medicare/Medicaid. Yet, they still qualify for it if they wanted it. So one of the New Taxes for those top 2% is a tax to make them pay into Medicare/Medicaid along with everyone else. It's not a "They can afford more so we'll take more" tax.

CH

[Fashion Lad!]

That is one way of looking at it, true, but here's another inhuman way of looking at it. What happens when the rich run out of disposable, economic slaves? Those 'little people' will be spending their time looking after their sick relatives at home, if still healthy, thus draining the economy further.

The middle class are really the group that drives this economy. The middle class has health insurance. The lower class (I hate saying that) often don't pay anything into the system and take the largest amount from it.

It's highly, and I do mean highly unlikely that there will be enough sickness to impact the "economic slaves" as you call them to the point where it really hurts the economy in any way shape or form. There's really no precedent of it happening. So this is really a weak way to argue for this health care bill.

I'm not arguing against the bill really. I just hate what I would consider weak arguments to try and prove a point. Especially if I also see it as far-fetched and it really is far-fetched.

[Rapscallion]

The middle class are really the group that drives this economy. The middle class has health insurance. The lower class (I hate saying that) often don't pay anything into the system and take the largest amount from it.

Would that be because there's more of them and they don't have anything to pay for the health insurance with?

It's highly, and I do mean highly unlikely that there will be enough sickness to impact the "economic slaves" as you call them to the point where it really hurts the economy in any way shape or form. There's really no precedent of it happening. So this is really a weak way to argue for this health care bill.

I'm not talking about a single pandemic. I'm not talking about bubonic plague sweeping the land.

I'm talking about people who break a leg and can't afford full treatment to get back to proper health, thus leaving them slightly impaired. I'm talking about people who couldn't afford antibiotics when the illness could have been dealt with early, leaving them with a long-term debilitating condition.

I'm talking inches, but many of them and covering many people. It all contributes to an effect on the economy so many people admire and covet.

Rapscallion

[Fashion Lad!]

Would that be because there's more of them and they don't have anything to pay for the health insurance with?



I'm not talking about a single pandemic. I'm not talking about bubonic plague sweeping the land.

I'm talking about people who break a leg and can't afford full treatment to get back to proper health, thus leaving them slightly impaired. I'm talking about people who couldn't afford antibiotics when the illness could have been dealt with early, leaving them with a long-term debilitating condition.

I'm talking inches, but many of them and covering many people. It all contributes to an effect on the economy so many people admire and covet.

Rapscallion

I think you're talking centimeters at best. What you're talking about, there's no precedent of it happening. And who can't work with a broken leg? I'm working with a slightly mangled ankle that just landed itself in a walk boot recently. I haven't been able to walk right in nearly a year, but I still go to work. I do my time. Broken hand, I've worked with one. These people go to the E.R. and get it taken care of anyway. If I did not have health insurance, and I broke my leg I could go to the E.R. and they would still take care of my leg.

[Rapscallion]

I prefer inches, but same difference. However, an inch from each of the underinsured at a time is a hell of a lot of inches. What effect does that have on the economy?

They'd treat you without insurance? What happens then? Consider me curious. Is that emergency only?

Rapscallion

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

If you don't buy "Obamacare" you can lose your tax refund

Basically same information, but gives you "hints" on how to get around the tax refund penalty

[daleduke17]

If you don't buy "Obamacare" you can lose your tax refund

Basically same information, but gives you "hints" on how to get around the tax refund penalty

But, Obamacare is in the best interests of the country. Right? Fuck Obamacare.

[Fashion Lad!]

I prefer inches, but same difference. However, an inch from each of the underinsured at a time is a hell of a lot of inches. What effect does that have on the economy?

They'd treat you without insurance? What happens then? Consider me curious. Is that emergency only?

Rapscallion

Rapscallion

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, made it illegal for hospitals to refuse to help people in medical need based on ability to pay. Unfortunately, uninsured people sometimes end up in the ER because a lack of routine care pushes their bodies to the brink or because they feel as if they have nowhere else to go, even for routine medical concerns.

I've heard of people going to the E.R. because of simple things like a sore throat or a slight fever. Things that can often be treated by going to the grocery store and picking up some dayquil and nyquil.

I think the E.R. can attempt to recover the money from the patient, but I'm not sure on that.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

They'd treat you without insurance? What happens then? Consider me curious. Is that emergency only?

Rapscallion

As I understand it, doctors are liable if they don't treat the patient in front of them. Afterward, however, you must pay out of pocket (huge amounts though not ridiculous per -e when all is taken into account.) or, if you can't, they must simply take the hit. Only they can't afford to, so instead, they charge everyone else's insurers more for the treatments so as to 'break even'. Problem being that those insurers then raise their premiums in order to break even, costing everyone more money and making insurance that much harder to get.

In essence, those with are saddled with the responsibility of paying for those without. Only with the added problem that the whole thing is getting more and more expensive over time.

The whole point of Obamacare is that between the public option, extended Medicare and Medicaid coverage, and the new regulations that the progression will turn around because hospitals won't have to ramp up the costs to make ends meet.

There's also a fair number of provisions for appeals processes, so as to keep insurers from pulling the disgusting BS they've been able to get away with in the past as well as giving people who believe themselves to be unable to afford insurance or the penalty to get exemption.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Why do people keep saying "...the public option..."? I thought that was taken out of the bill for being too socialist or some such garbage.

Also, I don't get why people are so upset at the thought of having to buy insurance. I understand it on one level I guess--people don't like to be forced--but realistically, you're going to need it. Most people who could afford insurance either have a job that offers it, or buy it, precisely because they can afford it. The people who can't afford to insure themselves are the people who will nonetheless wind up paying a bunch of money for a simple illness. There will be assistance from the government for people who can't afford insurance coverage, either through being covered under Medicaid when they made a bit too much before, or being able to get subsidized insurance. Presently, I get sick about once a year, maybe twice if I'm unlucky, and drop about $400 on it each time it happens. . .sometimes more (like when I needed lab tests as well as a couple visits and medication). Wouldn't paying for insurance, especially when assisted by the government with it, be more affordable than that?

This won't be relevant to me, personally, soon, if all goes well, since I'm in school shooting for a better job with a pretty high likelihood of getting said job, because it's one of those growing fields. But I doubt my current position is unique, and I've been in it for something like four years, so it's not as though I couldn't have used coverage.