Except the constitution provides an EXPLICIT LIST of what congress is allowed to do. This is outside the scope of that list.Except the constitution says they can only tax via sales tax and tariffs or by apportionment with a PRE DETERMINED budget.I will never participate in this. I will not pay for it. If that means I goto jail so beat it I will resist violently if neccessary. I will also NOT USE this health care system. Its not like its any different than how I am now.How about this for a solution.STOP TAXING MY PAY and I could afford health care.STOP CHARGING ME RENT for my home (illegal property and school taxes) and OUR WHOLE FAMILY could afford health care.DELETE 90% of the projects the government is currently running and watch our budgets problems go away.MAKE THE SYSTEM PAY FOR THE SYSTEM and most of the taxes ARE NO LONGER NEEDED.but then the whole point of our tax system (paying middle men) is eliminated and that would not be good now would it.Makes me sick. lets hope there is more SENSE in the senate.HELL just get rid of the medicaid part D reform and suddenly medicaid won't be spirally out of control.Apply regulation and legislation AS IS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS to place controls and restrictions on GREEDY medical corporations and WOW the problems go away. Amazing isn't it.I don't give a s**t if this gets dugg down. SENSIBLE diggers have there browser set not to auto hide dugg messages like I do and those are usually the ones worth reading.
This is a great day for..... IGNORANCE.They didn't even know what they were voting on according to the Huffington Post<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/d319OLI" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/d319OLI</a>Ridiculous lack of effort. The House didn't even bother to make sure they voted for the right bill. "Just vote for it, don't worry about it".
No, the Chinese citizens deposit their money into the banking system, which then buys T-Bills due to the lack of sufficient amounts of sound investments within the country. The huge savings rate is also likely a big part of why there is so much construction in China these days.The savings rate in China will sooner or later have to decrease (probably by an increase in consumption) and when that happens China can stop buying T-Bills, but for the moment it is their best investment opportunity...
Don't the democrats have charge over the budget with their majority now? If the democrats didn't want all the military in there, why haven't they taken it out yet?I'm asking honestly, does anybody have an answer to this question?
@whokSorry, explain to me why we can't expect private insurers to operate on minimal profits? Competition should, by capitalistic definition, force profits to approach zero. If private insurers are as fabulous as their supporters make them out to be, and the federal government is as inept and ponderous as its critics claim it is, private insurers should be able to out-innovate, out-organize, and out-perform the public option. They should be able to increase efficiency, lower overhead (no more eight figure salaries, CEO's. Sorry!), strike better deals, and invest in cost-saving to cut their bottom line.The problem is that, right now, they have no reason to bother cutting overhead or costs.And that doesn't even explain why they should even be for-profit in the first place. Why not require that all healthcare be non-profit. There is a moral argument against profiting on people's health - it incentivizes letting people die.
don't you guys understand that having a "national public library" instead of your local city library is a huge f**king pain in the ass? do you understand how much more manpower goes into raising our military which must defend the ENTIRE NATION of 300,000,000 people, instead of a police force which may only have jurisdiction to enforce the law in a town with roughly 50,000 people?i'd understand the universal healthcare systems in smaller nations like France, the UK, and singapore, but those nations are practically one fifth the population and even smaller in size than the united states and the bureaucracy involved in running national institutions is f**king ridiculous and overwhelming...the work involved is far too much.
Ern3sto09,I appreciate your responses to my information. I'm only conservative in the way that I like to have my rights and freedom as a citizen. I wasn't approaching what I wrote as being conservative but rather speculative and curious. I did mention words like "feel" or "think" because these were unscientific thoughts or concerns that popped up in my head as I read through portions of the bill. I do not claim such things were indeed fact besides what I described in the bill, but even then, the bill has changed rapidly and so some things I stated could be wrong now that the bill is up to 2000 pages long. Unfortunately, congress has been expected to pass various bills on the fly in the past with minimal time to actually read the necessary changes, so I might have side tracked some of the good in the bill, for the bad, in hopes of finding a way to a better solution that might be worthy of recommending to my congressmen. I have thought about the abuse you mention in your comment and it is a valid point. It's easy for a doctor to send you home packing without fully addressing your issue, but I feel like this is likely because of our self-interested world within our monetary system and it won't be going away any time soon. Everyone is trying to make a quick buck and it concerns me when health care fits inside that profit motive. Of course there are legitimate doctors who do actually want to help you and I think most are like this, but at the end of the day, it's still a job for some people. This is one of the reasons why I think hospitals will be affected and may have to increase costs to further cover their bases for possible sketchy doctors that they couldn't probably screen out when they hired them. We know hospitals have guidelines, rules, and regulations to abide by, but that doesn't mean they can baby sit every doctor for every case and make sure things are perfect. They run a business like anyone else and new equipment or medicine doesn't come cheap. Like other corporations, they rarely want to take responsibility for their employees actions (even though in some cases they are forced to by law), so I would guess the likely scenario would be more write ups, fines, or fired doctors because of false diagnostics. This might be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it, but it will increase the overall hiring costs if firing is the result and we may have more disgruntled doctors on our hands. With that said, I do think it might cure the abuse some but it may will also increase the high costs we are trying to avoid.I think both hospitals and insurance companies have increased their prices for a reason. My wife used to work for a hospital and would come home and tell me how insane the prices are from either industry. Part of the problem stems from people thinking they need medication when they don't. You could consider this an abuse too. One insurance rep told a friend that people are pill happy these days and just want a pill for everything to make their problems go away. I think prevention is the key here (healthy diet, sleep, less stress) but people live busy lives and it's an option we don't use enough.Another point would be hospitals have to deal with the the illegal immigrants and uninsured people that come in. This would cover the "forced" reason for the health care bill and I can definitely see the point in this. However, most of the students in my class have no insurance because they can't afford it, including myself, which is why I don't have it. Some are on medicaid but others are just beyond that and still can't afford it. One girl in my class has two insurance companies because one of the insurance companies she uses, doesn't pay for her pills. Perhaps lowering the requirements for medicaid would be a viable solution for these people, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for the country as medicaid/medicare is expected to outpace incomes with current trends. I just don't see how forcing people who are on the borderline of being able to afford health insurance will help the overall situation. The government obviously hasn't spent it's money to well in other programs so forcing them to pay for a public option but getting no option is good thing for these people? You can't really say these people are abusing the system because if you show up with no insurance and a major medical problem, you are stuck with a giant bill for the rest of your life to pay on, even though I agree hospitals, take the hit here and some people are forced to declare bankruptcy. We know the system is broken with 50% or so people going bankrupt over health care costs. The obvious facts about us paying more than any other country but getting less aren't really being disputed. I just feel like we don't have to accept a half-baked solution for something as serious as this. I also think the country is hurting bad financially and cannot afford to take on another government health care program. For example, what happens when you exceed your allocated 5,000 to 10,000 allowance per year in the public option? Peoples lives will be saved, regardless of the health care reform or not due to law requiring hospitals to accept patients no matter what. With that said, it is more of a financial issue I see here then lives being saved.You mention that hospitals would not be lowering their prices to compete. I agree with you but they will still be directly affected by the lowered costs they get from insurance companies correct? In reality, hospitals compete on more a technological or location level. Usually if I want a better hospital, I go to a bigger city, which has more money to buy better doctors and equipment. The saying, "You get what you pay for" comes to mind. One girl in my class used to work for an insurance company and she described how much her employer tried to avoid paying claims. After listening to her, I got a great insider view of what kind of tactics these insurance companies employ to take advantage of customers. It's the main reason why I think the government should look at tackling these near monopolistic companies and cut out the other bloat in the bill that might not be necessary, to accomplish what they are wanting to do. I've only mildly looked at the other health care options because our main focus is on what the democrats are proposing, so I can't get into detail about other possible solutions. I think anything that requires a loss of choice to find a solution, probably isn't a great solution. Of course, if we all decide to migrate to a more socialized type practice and we all agree tax increases are needed for it, I would accept that, because I'd be paying taxes and getting something out of it rather than just a penalty with no dice. The fact that congress is exempting themselves from the bill makes me concerned about the quality of the public option. I say that not be pessimistic against the bill, but as a legitimate concern on just how many great doctors are going to want to jump on board with less pay and more regulation.This is super long and I probably didn't get to answer all your questions, if you can find them in the paragraphs, but thanks anyway for the discussion.
nerysNov 9, 2009
Except the constitution provides an EXPLICIT LIST of what congress is allowed to do. This is outside the scope of that list.Except the constitution says they can only tax via sales tax and tariffs or by apportionment with a PRE DETERMINED budget.I will never participate in this. I will not pay for it. If that means I goto jail so beat it I will resist violently if neccessary. I will also NOT USE this health care system. Its not like its any different than how I am now.How about this for a solution.STOP TAXING MY PAY and I could afford health care.STOP CHARGING ME RENT for my home (illegal property and school taxes) and OUR WHOLE FAMILY could afford health care.DELETE 90% of the projects the government is currently running and watch our budgets problems go away.MAKE THE SYSTEM PAY FOR THE SYSTEM and most of the taxes ARE NO LONGER NEEDED.but then the whole point of our tax system (paying middle men) is eliminated and that would not be good now would it.Makes me sick. lets hope there is more SENSE in the senate.HELL just get rid of the medicaid part D reform and suddenly medicaid won't be spirally out of control.Apply regulation and legislation AS IS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS to place controls and restrictions on GREEDY medical corporations and WOW the problems go away. Amazing isn't it.I don't give a s**t if this gets dugg down. SENSIBLE diggers have there browser set not to auto hide dugg messages like I do and those are usually the ones worth reading.
buffalogumsNov 9, 2009
This is a great day for..... IGNORANCE.They didn't even know what they were voting on according to the Huffington Post<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/d319OLI" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/d319OLI</a>Ridiculous lack of effort. The House didn't even bother to make sure they voted for the right bill. "Just vote for it, don't worry about it".
Closed AccountNov 10, 2009
No, the Chinese citizens deposit their money into the banking system, which then buys T-Bills due to the lack of sufficient amounts of sound investments within the country. The huge savings rate is also likely a big part of why there is so much construction in China these days.The savings rate in China will sooner or later have to decrease (probably by an increase in consumption) and when that happens China can stop buying T-Bills, but for the moment it is their best investment opportunity...
nomoreinkNov 11, 2009
Don't the democrats have charge over the budget with their majority now? If the democrats didn't want all the military in there, why haven't they taken it out yet?I'm asking honestly, does anybody have an answer to this question?
photojustinNov 12, 2009
@whokSorry, explain to me why we can't expect private insurers to operate on minimal profits? Competition should, by capitalistic definition, force profits to approach zero. If private insurers are as fabulous as their supporters make them out to be, and the federal government is as inept and ponderous as its critics claim it is, private insurers should be able to out-innovate, out-organize, and out-perform the public option. They should be able to increase efficiency, lower overhead (no more eight figure salaries, CEO's. Sorry!), strike better deals, and invest in cost-saving to cut their bottom line.The problem is that, right now, they have no reason to bother cutting overhead or costs.And that doesn't even explain why they should even be for-profit in the first place. Why not require that all healthcare be non-profit. There is a moral argument against profiting on people's health - it incentivizes letting people die.
apollomurgaNov 13, 2009
don't you guys understand that having a "national public library" instead of your local city library is a huge f**king pain in the ass? do you understand how much more manpower goes into raising our military which must defend the ENTIRE NATION of 300,000,000 people, instead of a police force which may only have jurisdiction to enforce the law in a town with roughly 50,000 people?i'd understand the universal healthcare systems in smaller nations like France, the UK, and singapore, but those nations are practically one fifth the population and even smaller in size than the united states and the bureaucracy involved in running national institutions is f**king ridiculous and overwhelming...the work involved is far too much.
vegetablelambNov 13, 2009
haha awesome, what's up good sport!
mweelsNov 13, 2009
This kind of proves my point.<a class="user" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33910089/ns/politics-white_house/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33910089/ns/politics-w ...</a>
addiktionNov 18, 2009
Ern3sto09,I appreciate your responses to my information. I'm only conservative in the way that I like to have my rights and freedom as a citizen. I wasn't approaching what I wrote as being conservative but rather speculative and curious. I did mention words like "feel" or "think" because these were unscientific thoughts or concerns that popped up in my head as I read through portions of the bill. I do not claim such things were indeed fact besides what I described in the bill, but even then, the bill has changed rapidly and so some things I stated could be wrong now that the bill is up to 2000 pages long. Unfortunately, congress has been expected to pass various bills on the fly in the past with minimal time to actually read the necessary changes, so I might have side tracked some of the good in the bill, for the bad, in hopes of finding a way to a better solution that might be worthy of recommending to my congressmen. I have thought about the abuse you mention in your comment and it is a valid point. It's easy for a doctor to send you home packing without fully addressing your issue, but I feel like this is likely because of our self-interested world within our monetary system and it won't be going away any time soon. Everyone is trying to make a quick buck and it concerns me when health care fits inside that profit motive. Of course there are legitimate doctors who do actually want to help you and I think most are like this, but at the end of the day, it's still a job for some people. This is one of the reasons why I think hospitals will be affected and may have to increase costs to further cover their bases for possible sketchy doctors that they couldn't probably screen out when they hired them. We know hospitals have guidelines, rules, and regulations to abide by, but that doesn't mean they can baby sit every doctor for every case and make sure things are perfect. They run a business like anyone else and new equipment or medicine doesn't come cheap. Like other corporations, they rarely want to take responsibility for their employees actions (even though in some cases they are forced to by law), so I would guess the likely scenario would be more write ups, fines, or fired doctors because of false diagnostics. This might be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it, but it will increase the overall hiring costs if firing is the result and we may have more disgruntled doctors on our hands. With that said, I do think it might cure the abuse some but it may will also increase the high costs we are trying to avoid.I think both hospitals and insurance companies have increased their prices for a reason. My wife used to work for a hospital and would come home and tell me how insane the prices are from either industry. Part of the problem stems from people thinking they need medication when they don't. You could consider this an abuse too. One insurance rep told a friend that people are pill happy these days and just want a pill for everything to make their problems go away. I think prevention is the key here (healthy diet, sleep, less stress) but people live busy lives and it's an option we don't use enough.Another point would be hospitals have to deal with the the illegal immigrants and uninsured people that come in. This would cover the "forced" reason for the health care bill and I can definitely see the point in this. However, most of the students in my class have no insurance because they can't afford it, including myself, which is why I don't have it. Some are on medicaid but others are just beyond that and still can't afford it. One girl in my class has two insurance companies because one of the insurance companies she uses, doesn't pay for her pills. Perhaps lowering the requirements for medicaid would be a viable solution for these people, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for the country as medicaid/medicare is expected to outpace incomes with current trends. I just don't see how forcing people who are on the borderline of being able to afford health insurance will help the overall situation. The government obviously hasn't spent it's money to well in other programs so forcing them to pay for a public option but getting no option is good thing for these people? You can't really say these people are abusing the system because if you show up with no insurance and a major medical problem, you are stuck with a giant bill for the rest of your life to pay on, even though I agree hospitals, take the hit here and some people are forced to declare bankruptcy. We know the system is broken with 50% or so people going bankrupt over health care costs. The obvious facts about us paying more than any other country but getting less aren't really being disputed. I just feel like we don't have to accept a half-baked solution for something as serious as this. I also think the country is hurting bad financially and cannot afford to take on another government health care program. For example, what happens when you exceed your allocated 5,000 to 10,000 allowance per year in the public option? Peoples lives will be saved, regardless of the health care reform or not due to law requiring hospitals to accept patients no matter what. With that said, it is more of a financial issue I see here then lives being saved.You mention that hospitals would not be lowering their prices to compete. I agree with you but they will still be directly affected by the lowered costs they get from insurance companies correct? In reality, hospitals compete on more a technological or location level. Usually if I want a better hospital, I go to a bigger city, which has more money to buy better doctors and equipment. The saying, "You get what you pay for" comes to mind. One girl in my class used to work for an insurance company and she described how much her employer tried to avoid paying claims. After listening to her, I got a great insider view of what kind of tactics these insurance companies employ to take advantage of customers. It's the main reason why I think the government should look at tackling these near monopolistic companies and cut out the other bloat in the bill that might not be necessary, to accomplish what they are wanting to do. I've only mildly looked at the other health care options because our main focus is on what the democrats are proposing, so I can't get into detail about other possible solutions. I think anything that requires a loss of choice to find a solution, probably isn't a great solution. Of course, if we all decide to migrate to a more socialized type practice and we all agree tax increases are needed for it, I would accept that, because I'd be paying taxes and getting something out of it rather than just a penalty with no dice. The fact that congress is exempting themselves from the bill makes me concerned about the quality of the public option. I say that not be pessimistic against the bill, but as a legitimate concern on just how many great doctors are going to want to jump on board with less pay and more regulation.This is super long and I probably didn't get to answer all your questions, if you can find them in the paragraphs, but thanks anyway for the discussion.
bernicepetaMar 9, 2010
i think it's so great! amazing!<a class="user" href="http://lyrics-and-words-to-songs.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://lyrics-and-words-to-songs.blogspot.com</a>