And who's gonna pay for it?
Absolutely not. The (admittedly flawed) bill fixes some issues that need to be changed NOW, not in ten years.
Besides, the basic tenets of the bill are already almost identical to the ones the Republicans proposed under Bill Clinton. The Republicans were already vilifying the current bill even when it was just a basic proposal that was essentially a carbon copy of their demands from sixteen years earlier (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/Durenberger-1993-gop-bill-q-and-a.aspx). The issue here is not so much the content of the bill as it is the fact that it has been implemented by a non-Republican President/Congress.
Regarding where the money would come from for a public option: As Maclover mentioned, America is already getting ripped off. Most countries in Europe pay FAR less per capita for health care yet produce embarrassingly better outcomes using the standard metrics (life expectancy, infant mortality, access to care, etc).
The World Health Organization rates the US's health care system in 37th place, among a number of second and third-world countries. We fall just below Costa Rica, and just above Slovenia. These are not numbers pulled out of a hat, but a rating based on verifiable statistics.
And somehow, despite our atrocious system, Americans pay more than double than the country with the best health care in the world.
The money is there, it's just going to the wrong places.
Oh my god why does this thread exist?
After all, if someone doesn't agree with you then their opinion is obviously worthless, right?
"Nobel" was a man.
I love that trolling a troll thread is now met with smart-assery.
Are so many people that embarrassingly stupid, or just incredibly and embarrassingly ill-informed?
Yes.
I think he might be referring to this topic as a zombie that keeps coming back to life and MW is a repeat offender. The first few times there was some intelligent discussion. Each time it comes up, the discussion gets more cartoonish.
Where did the rest of those 30 days go?
Yes and where?
I made a long ass reply that took a lot of time to write carefully so I'm not too keen on repeating the feat. My perspective on healthcare is on page 4. People on both sides of the "Best Healthcare in the World" divide might find it interesting. We do and we don't at the same time.
Page 4 - Healthcare (http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?t=6820&highlight=healthcare&page=4)
The same people who pay for health care right now except it will be cheaper. Better health care for less money. The public option is really a no brainer.
How does better health care service get cheaper? Especially when the US Government handles it? Do we just not pay the doctors? Or does some wizard just go in and wave his wand around and healthcare magically becomes cheaper?Well, you're cutting out the middleman who has to charge extra to cushion his risks, and return money to investors. That's how. With a public option, we're only paying the doctors (and the nurses and the hospitals and so on).
So you're not paying the beurocracy hired to regulate the health care system? And, since they're government employees under Obama, who's gonna pay their union organizers?
As far as I'm concerned, the federal government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible. Stick to national defense and interstate commerce regulation. Fund yourself through tariffs. Stay away from my paycheck and leave everything else to the states and individuals.
...I don't necessarily think that public healthcare is "better" than private healthcare. Over here, we have public healthcare, but lots of people (including my family) have private health insurance. This is because with private healthcare there is shorter waiting lists and a better selection of treatments. But the issue is A) the expensive nature of US healthcare that necessitates health insurance to get healthcare and B) the huge percentage of the American population that cannot afford health insurance and therefore cannot affort healthcare. For them, any sort of healthcare system is better than none...
Healthcare is not the greatest in Ontario. You can spend a whole day at the emergency at the hospital. But, what I do like is that I don't have to worry about this side of things even if I lose my job tomorrow. This is very important to me for I have a wife and a daughter to care for.
You nailed it. The Canadian healthcare system isn't perfect, but it's shortcomings aren't known to a lot of Canadians as they don't even have to think about the system for the most part. To me that is the sign of a DECENT (but not perfect) healthcare system.
Your right about that. You don't get to be greedy, you have to wait like everybody else, generally, no matter how much you make.
That's why Danny Williams went to the states for heart surgery, he has the money and doesn't have to bump himself up in line (and push anyone down, a bad political move if ever there was one) to see someone in Canada.
Must not tell Canadian jokes, dis iz seriaz thread....
Must not tell Canadian jokes, dis iz seriaz thread...
Must not tell.....
input: it suits you well ;)
Here:
Healthcare (http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?t=6820&highlight=healthcare) (Welly Started it)
I made a long ass reply that took a lot of time to write carefully so I'm not too keen on repeating the feat. My perspective on healthcare is on page 4. People on both sides of the "Best Healthcare in the World" divide might find it interesting. We do and we don't at the same time.
Page 4 - Healthcare (http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?t=6820&highlight=healthcare&page=4)
Itln, I reported your post for violating Forum Guidelines BTW.
Other considerations aside, Canadian medicare has long been criticized as an unsustainable long-term solution. Biggest single contributor to the Canadian national deficit, costs increase annually at an exponential rate that even our growing tax burden can't support. I don't know how politicians and accountants justify this sort of ****, but it's obvious to anyone with a brain that the existing system is going to collapse one way or another.
Can I say for certain? Of course not.
Canadian waiting lists for organ transplants are much longer than their US counterparts.
Canadians have a hell of a time getting a second (or third) opinion, since their doctor is often the only "official" channel into medical advice and diagnosis.
Canadians can't request things like MRI scans or whatever (justified or on a whim) because their assigned physician makes the ultimate decision on the matter.
Just my thoughts.
I think you're the no-brainer here. How does better health care service get cheaper? Especially when the US Government handles it? Do we just not pay the doctors? Or does some wizard just go in and wave his wand around and healthcare magically becomes cheaper?
The only way health care gets cheaper and retains its quality is if it's streamlined and made more efficient (Which competition amongst private institutions leads to).
... If the U. S. government can't subsidize digital TV converters for less than 10% of the population without the program going broke, then how will they do subsidizing 1/6 of the U. S. economy?I don't know if that's true (it could be). But it does beg the (hypothetical?) question: when sacrifices need to be made, will the people (or the government) ultimately choose television or medicine?
Ask Californians how all that worked out for electricity. One of the main reasons healthcare is cheaper overseas is that other countries regulate how much doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies can charge. Since there is no regulation like that in the US, doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies rape the **** out of us. There is a common misconception that free markets make everything work out for the consumer. This wasn't the case for energy in CA, it wasn't the case for the financial market, and it is not the case for healthcare. When an industry, as a whole, can rape consumers, they will even if there is competition amongst the players in the industry.
You can't get more for less without someone else subsidizing it (Which means only a certain portion of the population gets the discount while the other portion pays for it). And chances are the funding for those socialistic health care systems is coming from nowhere (It's getting borrowed from places like China).
The only way health care gets cheaper and retains its quality is if it's streamlined and made more efficient (Which competition amongst private institutions leads to). Goverment control over it actually leads to stifling of innovation within the industry.
Ask Californians how all that worked out for electricity. One of the main reasons healthcare is cheaper overseas is that other countries regulate how much doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies can charge. Since there is no regulation like that in the US, doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies rape the **** out of us. There is a common misconception that free markets make everything work out for the consumer. This wasn't the case for energy in CA, it wasn't the case for the financial market, and it is not the case for healthcare. When an industry, as a whole, can rape consumers, they will even if there is competition amongst the players in the industry.
Ask Californians how all that worked out for electricity. One of the main reasons healthcare is cheaper overseas is that other countries regulate how much doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies can charge. Since there is no regulation like that in the US, doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies rape the **** out of us. There is a common misconception that free markets make everything work out for the consumer. This wasn't the case for energy in CA, it wasn't the case for the financial market, and it is not the case for healthcare. When an industry, as a whole, can rape consumers, they will even if there is competition amongst the players in the industry.
As far as I'm concerned, the federal government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible. Stick to national defense and interstate commerce regulation. Fund yourself through tariffs. Stay away from my paycheck and leave everything else to the states and individuals.
Repeal the 17th ammendment so that senators actually represent the state governments again (which is their role). Make Congress (again) part time and implement term limits. Construct dorms in the capital and mandate that senators and congressmen stay there during their sessions (THAT will encourage them to not put down roots in DC).
The federal government was never intended to be our babysitters, retirement fund, and safety net. Those things should be handled locally. Both the republicans and democrats are worthless AFAIC.
Healthcare in Canada is greatly exaggerated, you still have to pay lots of costs (we did anyways, dental appointments costs hundreds of dollars). And often or not, doctors are just inclined to give you pills rather than diagnose a problem correctly (that happened to my grandma: doctor said she had arthritis, when in reality, the problem was a cyst in the knee and a torn ligament; she just stayed in the doctor's office refusing to leave until they did an MRI).
Capitalism, in the long run, is by far the best economic system. However, its major downside is the fact that there are ups and downs. And the downs can be steep and extremely painful (I know very much about them as many of my relatives grew up on the low end during the Depression).
...
Now, if true capitalism were practiced, the law of supply and demand would eventually cripple the colleges and they would either collapse or make cost cuts. The problem is though, it might take 150 years. Or 50.
To sum it up: Politics is a dirty world.
This was I agreed with Konrad in saying that the system is not perfect and it is indeed very hard to get a second opinion. This is why I think, we need both private and public healthcare to coexist in Canada. They are not mutually exclusive really. There are countries where both system coexist.
Pensions are another thing, not everyone gets them, all of the good working people aren't getting any benefits: instead benefits are given to immigrants (who know nothing of western culture) or homeless individuals who waste their money on alcohol, drugs, and other physical stimulants.
Mmmm...I am an immigrant who will be working for more than 30 years while contributing through taxes and to my pension. Does that mean that I should not be entitled to pension in Canada ? :-)
Make no mistake, most immigrants know a lot about Canada. After all, we are asked to study about Canada and pass a test before we are granted Canadian citizenship. For example, most of my Canadian born colleagues were surprised to learn that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England.
My definition of "immigrants" refers to those who come out of cultures based upon violence, and exploit the benefits given to them, rather than committing themselves to be hard working citizens.
You of course wouldn't fit in that category!
And if Canadians don't know the head of state is the QUEENE OF GREATE BRITAINNE, then there is a problem. You learn that in Social 30 -- but I sure hope you know it beforehand! Why do you think we have the queen on our money? Oh well...
It's a good idea for states (and the individuals therein) to govern them, because, each state has different people with different cultures, and beliefs. If you don't like that state, then go to a different one.
My definition of "immigrants" refers to those who come out of cultures based upon violence, and exploit the benefits given to them, rather than committing themselves to be hard working citizens.
Capitalism, in the long run, is by far the best economic system. However, its major downside is the fact that there are ups and downs. And the downs can be steep and extremely painful (I know very much about them as many of my relatives grew up on the low end during the Depression).
Probably one of the best examples of capitalism gone mad is colleges at least here in the US. They're one of the biggest scams in the country. What many universities do is "double-staff": having lavishly-paid professors, but teaching assistants who do much of the work. Even with government support (A violation of capitalist theory), college tuition has more than doubled in the last generation. And the education people are getting out of that hasn't changed too much in that generation either (It did however change very much in the generation before, and even more so in the one before that. A relative of mine went to U-Conn in the 1920's.). Today, professors are getting raises and bonuses while many others in true private companies and small businesses are stuggling just to make it). At U-Conn, they got a basketball coach paid $2 million a year. And their professors got 5% "Cost of living" raises even though the cost of living has decreased.
Many people these days are indirectly forced into going to college and often end up with over $30,000 in debt since more and more jobs are recommending degrees and folks in schools these days have the "You have to go to college" attitude even though 30% of Americans have degrees.
Now, if true capitalism were practiced, the law of supply and demand would eventually cripple the colleges and they would either collapse or make cost cuts. The problem is though, it might take 150 years. Or 50.
And many of you guys haven't heard of it. Why? Because many of these higher-level folks at the colleges lobbied for Democrats. And Obama's a loyal Democrat. Kind of like oil companies and Republicans. Obama's all talking about fixing up (But really hurting) the health care system, but he has hardly said a word about this crisis, which is far more severe than the made-up health care "crisis". Our system is not perfect, but it is by far not a "crisis".
To sum it up: Politics is a dirty world.
Many people these days are indirectly forced into going to college and often end up with over $30,000 in debt since more and more jobs are recommending degrees and folks in schools these days have the "You have to go to college" attitude even though 30% of Americans have degrees.
Should Obamacare be repealed?and over 5 pages, there are 0 responses directly relating constitutions and federalism as prohibitions rather than suggestions, and no more than 5 posts about how government just shouldn't be big because oh wouldn't that be nice.
Again, "Big Guv'munt" arguments are stupid because they ignore the validity of the underlying issue.
The question is
and over 5 pages, there are 0 responses directly relating constitutions and federalism as prohibitions rather than suggestions, and no more than 5 posts about how government just shouldn't be big because oh wouldn't that be nice.
This kind of response can only come from someone who thinks that governments or people in them have no rules to follow, that these people are truly overmen who can and should take power and use it as they will it. How very weirdly Nietzsche of you.
The actual fact of the matter is that we can just look at Art. I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution and see what Congress actually has the power to do, and no where can we surmise that it has the power to have passed what we call 'Obamacare'. If it indeed lacks the power because there is no authority in the US Constituion, as the US Constitution is one of grants of power, "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." NORTON V. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U. S. 425, 442 (1886) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/425/case.html). Unfortunately for us, we don't see the courts too often pronounce such strong language as in the above case, because that would not be good for tyranny. Rule of law would seem to necessitate that the constitutions are the supreme law of the land and that there are the appropriate subordinate laws, controls which all three branches of government regularly subvert and often in concert.
So the FIRST concern actually ought to be the big government argument because that is THE underlying issue. The congresspersons who take office go on to take an oath to take that office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter . . ." I would suggest that there is there is an affirmative duty to support the constitution, and since each congress member is a piece of the legislative body, that duty includes making law that repeals unconstitutional law of current and past bodies who 'enacted' the unconstitutional law.
And so, 'Obamacare' must be repealed. (Please look at the supreme law of the land and review US history before writing off the most important question about the act of a government in the future.)
were surprised to learn that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England.
people from the US flock to Canada and Mexico to get prescription drugs.
Typically, the tax increase is lower than the premium increase. IMO, universal healthcare in the US is half-baked; it needs to be a system like Canada's or the UK's to work at it's best. In the end, it just amounts to cost shifting; you take the money that you would pay into health insurance and put it to taxes. With a universal system, though, the premiums don't really go up year-to-year, there is usually no deductible, and you don't typically have a problem dealing with the government on what gets covered or not. The trade-off is that you have to see a primary care physician before you see a specialist and a few other things. The other thing to consider is that government-run health plans usually comes with regulation on how much hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge, bringing costs down for everyone. That's the main reason people from the US flock to Canada and Mexico to get prescription drugs. Just ask Sarah Palin.
Your 20% increase had nothing to do with universal healthcare. That doesn't start until 2018. That's just your insurance company bending you over like they're doing to all of us.
Yet, even as Gov. Jan Brewer's administration cited health reform as the chief reason for cost increases, the state's health-insurance premiums for employees have increased at even faster clips in the past.
In fact, employee premiums for five of eight plans next year will increase at a lower rate than they did this year.
Some lawmakers questioned the Brewer's administration's decision to send out a letter that blames health reform for the premium increases.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, who sat on President Barack Obama's health-reform task force, blasted the Department of Administration's letter as politically motivated.
"The Department of Administration is implying that entire increase is a result of the new health-care law," Sinema said. "It is clearly a politically motivated letter that is just not factually accurate."
Ecker, of the Department of Administration, denied any political motivation. He saw no political undertone in the letter, which was drafted by the Department of Administration's benefits-services staff and approved by the agency's director.
"It is simply designed to let members know that rate increases are coming and the reason for those increases," Ecker said in an e-mail.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/07/21/20100721arizona-workers-to-see-insurance-fees-increase.html#ixzz0x4mFjEu4
But how has this monstrosity of a law the lawmakers didn't even read when they pass it reduced health care costs?
Did you know that folks from Canada and Mexico also flock to the USA for health care (The mexicans flock here for baby delivery primarily)?
In addition, due to changing demographics, the universal health care systems in Canada and Britain are going to lose lots of money within the next fifty years.
America has the best healthcare system in the world...
...
...
If you have money.
If you don't, you're ****ed.
Or we could just use your health care plan, and have all those people get sick and die.
That's just what your Republican government would want you to believe, Texas is saying the same. It's all politics. When it's all said and done, you probably won't even notice the difference. You'll just keep getting poked every year.
The only problem is coping with the bills.
Um...Republican government? Obama's a Democrat...
Anyway, I'm sure I'll notice a difference in my taxes (which are already too high)
Then why don't you tell me how you think it will help our nation and why?
Deflecting the burden of proof is one of the most transparent and obviously wrong logical fallacies around.
Several states have been providing localized safety nets for residents that can't afford healthcare for years. Two examples, BadgerCare (http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/badgercareplus/) and MinnesotaCare (http://www.ucare.org/healthplans/mhcp/minnesotacare/Pages/default.aspx). This is something that should be handled by the states.
Are so many people that embarrassingly stupid, or just incredibly and embarrassingly ill-informed?
Your Arizona government (assuming, anyway, since that's what you linked to in the article) is making that claim because Obama's a Democrat.
Then you would have to repeal Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Just sayin'. You might be in the minority in what is considered Constitutional. Obviously, the nation doesn't agree.
Repeal?
Hah, first Health Care Reform, then Financial Reform, then face to face Israel/Palestine talks.
Let's see what did Bush ever do...... oh yeah, tax cuts for the rich. That IS getting repealed.
Repeal?
Hah, first Health Care Reform, then Financial Reform, then face to face Israel/Palestine talks.
Let's see what did Bush ever do...... oh yeah, tax cuts for the rich. That IS getting repealed.
Bush did do two "minor" and "short" wars...
While I don't feel that a health care plan for the U.S. is a bad thing, there is, apparently, something in the bill that put Obamacare into law that should be repealed. It seems that a new reporting requirement for sales of gold and other precious metals has been instituted.
Better health care for less money. The public option is really a no brainer.
I'd love for you to explain why you are so certain that the quality will do something other than improve.
seems like a scam
no intelligent french would prefer almost no refunding of health costs to a barely acceptable refunding
Another thing that's better about my plan (Personal Choice) - I can see any doctor I want.
i noticed that the higher you are, the less you may understand the world around you and have a big probability to tell crap
We all wanted government health care. We did not get it.
We all wanted government health care. We did not get it.
hey kl, how come you always say what you're against, but never what you're for?
While I don't feel that a health care plan for the U.S. is a bad thing, there is, apparently, something in the bill that put Obamacare into law that should be repealed. It seems that a new reporting requirement for sales of gold and other precious metals has been instituted.
One thing I'm definitely FOR is cheaper Realforce keyboards in the USA.
seriously, they're doing amazing things with women's fashions I think. Like in the last 5 years I feel there's been a huge rampup in quality of both dress and makeup. I'm all for it.
Nice Shawn, I knew you had more lolcats! Shawn loves him some lolcats =)
Yeah, well, I've decided that posting snarky trollcats is more satisfying than trying to have a discussion. I don't feel like dealing with the misdirection, obfuscation, and negativity.
I don't feel like dealing with the misdirection, obfuscation, and negativity.
I'm for free online breast exams.
Post pics.
Females only please.
unfortunately i'm a male, though you'd have love my big piercings
Yeah, well, I've decided that posting snarky trollcats is more satisfying than trying to have a discussion. I don't feel like dealing with the misdirection, obfuscation, and negativity.
don't be so shy
come closer...
don't be so shy
come closer...
Just fire up MS-DOS, enter ‘A:\>dir *.exe’ into the command line, and then follow the instructions to install the Obamacare batch files—it should only take four or five hours at the most. You can press F1 for help if you run into any problems. And be sure your monitor’s screen resolution is at 320 x 200 or it might not display properly.
Rumour is they are storing passwords in plain text in their database......
Rumour is they are storing passwords in plain text in their database......
Leave it to the federal government...
Hell, I even know how to properly store passwords in a database!
Rumour is they are storing passwords in plain text in their database......
Leave it to the federal government...
Hell, I even know how to properly store passwords in a database!
I make sure that all the Obamacare website passwords are stored on 3½" floppy disks in my basement for maximum security.
Rumour is they are storing passwords in plain text in their database......
Leave it to the federal government...
Hell, I even know how to properly store passwords in a database!
I make sure that all the Obamacare website passwords are stored on 3½" floppy disks in my basement for maximum security.
^^ That would probably be more secure haha
And that is what the Democratic Party calls "economic recovery"! Makes me sick just to think about it.
Just read that Obama's approval rating has sunk to a new low, and his signature health care law is getting less popular as time goes by. I wonder what implications this will have for future politics?
One way I was personally affected by Obamacare:
Due to the Affordable Care Act, I can't work more than 29.5 hours a week or my company will be fined. Why? Because Obamacare states that all employees who work more than 29.5 hours MUST be offered health insurance, or the feds will fine your company. But seeing as how I have only worked here for (almost) two months and am still a lowly intern, I am still not eligible for health benefits through my company.
Synopsis: I was screwed out of better paychecks as a direct result of Obamacare.
a full on balanced state-funded public healthcare system that liberals have championed for decades (which i think is impossible to do, sorry guys)why what is possible in other countries is impossible in the states?
a full on balanced state-funded public healthcare system that liberals have championed for decades (which i think is impossible to do, sorry guys)why what is possible in other countries is impossible in the states?
a full on balanced state-funded public healthcare system that liberals have championed for decades (which i think is impossible to do, sorry guys)why what is possible in other countries is impossible in the states?
I think the fundamental obstacle to a public healthcare system in the US, is that a large proportion of the US public have been indoctrinated by corpo-political forces over generations that the government spending money on benefiting the population is somehow evil and wrong, but spending it on invading/interfering/administrating foreign countries, sending foreign aid, maintaining a massive armed forces/nuclear deterrent on standby, bailing out corporations, etc. etc. is A-OK.
Pretty much at the end of the day its not that Americans don't want awesome free healthcare (i get this feeling parts of the world think we are a bunch of ****ing idiots) but like many other things in the world there is a difference between "want" and what is actually possible. Its all about variables man. And like ray said, i also don't see how its possible this federal government could ever manage healthcare, like seriously. I do believe however that if a individual state can pull it off successfully without the federal government, i think power to them; let them do it. I think Hawaii is the state im thinking of that pulled it off successfully, i know people think of Massachusetts but i thought there were some problems there, don't feel like looking it up.
a full on balanced state-funded public healthcare system that liberals have championed for decades (which i think is impossible to do, sorry guys)why what is possible in other countries is impossible in the states?
greed and capitalism just to name a few reasons....we wouldn't have any doctors left
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
a full on balanced state-funded public healthcare system that liberals have championed for decades (which i think is impossible to do, sorry guys)why what is possible in other countries is impossible in the states?
greed and capitalism just to name a few reasons....we wouldn't have any doctors left
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm
Just for reference, the NHS is crumbling, we are worryingly close to the edge. We have a problem being, we train doctors, they work for a few months. Hard work, I agree doctors and nurses do alot of good hard graft. Anyway, after a while, say 6months to a year these fresh doctors and nurses realise they can be getting paid much more in the states, and they're off.
I think its supposed to be something like 10 years from now, we're done, finito, over.
Pretty much at the end of the day its not that Americans don't want awesome free healthcare (i get this feeling parts of the world think we are a bunch of ****ing idiots) but like many other things in the world there is a difference between "want" and what is actually possible. Its all about variables man. And like ray said, i also don't see how its possible this federal government could ever manage healthcare, like seriously. I do believe however that if a individual state can pull it off successfully without the federal government, i think power to them; let them do it. I think Hawaii is the state im thinking of that pulled it off successfully, i know people think of Massachusetts but i thought there were some problems there, don't feel like looking it up.
Health "Care" isn't the problem.. It comes down to people's "Health"..
Health-care is like a band-aid to a major flesh wound.. and that is the fact that many un-informed guys out there are making poor health choices, junk-food, no exercise..
The politics in the matter is just private interests trying to extract profits..
Pretty much at the end of the day its not that Americans don't want awesome free healthcare (i get this feeling parts of the world think we are a bunch of ****ing idiots) but like many other things in the world there is a difference between "want" and what is actually possible. Its all about variables man. And like ray said, i also don't see how its possible this federal government could ever manage healthcare, like seriously. I do believe however that if a individual state can pull it off successfully without the federal government, i think power to them; let them do it. I think Hawaii is the state im thinking of that pulled it off successfully, i know people think of Massachusetts but i thought there were some problems there, don't feel like looking it up.
Health "Care" isn't the problem.. It comes down to people's "Health"..
Health-care is like a band-aid to a major flesh wound.. and that is the fact that many un-informed guys out there are making poor health choices, junk-food, no exercise..
The politics in the matter is just private interests trying to extract profits..
yeah so how realistically do we change that without putting on the table radical ideas that will never happen such as forcing people's hands? is anyone with power either in government or privately actually introducing realistic solutions and successfully achieving majority support for the solutions? nope, we are ****ed
Relevant:Show Image(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/539168_539699469450212_1693607661_n.jpg)
Oh wow...seriously....are people really that stupid?
Oh wow...seriously....are people really that stupid?
Brought to us by the the first Vulcan president.
Do you "got" insurance? That's the URL, folks. http://doyougotinsurance.com
Who am I buying health insurance from, Dr. Dre?
Oh wow...seriously....are people really that stupid?
Brought to us by the the first Vulcan president.
Do you "got" insurance? That's the URL, folks. http://doyougotinsurance.com
Who am I buying health insurance from, Dr. Dre?
Well can we at least call someone and ax them a question?
Brought to us by the the first Vulcan president.
Oh wow...seriously....are people really that stupid?
Brought to us by the the first Vulcan president.
Do you "got" insurance? That's the URL, folks. http://doyougotinsurance.com
Who am I buying health insurance from, Dr. Dre?
Well can we at least call someone and ax them a question?
And fill out the forms; be sure to enter your birfdate correctly.
Also, fraud: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Undercover-Cameras-Claim-to-Catch-Obamacare-Navigators-in-Fraud-231724611.html
I want bacon on my free lunch, please.
Well you did see where they did not screen people for prior records before letting them be navigators, which means plenty of ex-cons are on the job :thumb:
I hope obamacare will cover depression.
I hope obamacare will cover depression.
You have to smile while they fix your jacked ass with a jacked system, Jack.
I hope obamacare will cover depression.
You have to smile while they fix your jacked ass with a jacked system, Jack.
(Attachment Link)