Republicans attempt to repeal Obama's Health Care law again.....for the 33rd time in Congress.
116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;36730845]I find it amazing that a concept like universal healthcare is so widely opposed by so many people.
I seriously am having a hard time getting to grips with that idea, its universal healthcare so what if I have to pay a little more tax at least I won't lose my apartment if I break my leg.[/QUOTE]
yeah, but
but
but Donald Trump will have to pay a little bit more taxes
and then The Apprentice will stop airing
and then no one else will get hired again
ever
besides, if those poor people wanted to have health care, they just should've been born into a rich family
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36730508]Yet opposed the public option, which is why the individual mandate went through and the public option didn't. Dem support for a gutted version of the PPACA was also cash-based (they got the majority of funds, it went through, people were opposed to that element, so it didn't).
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. So when you look at the individual mandate, you(not you specifically, anyone really) should think not only about the reform, but also how this benefits the health care industry.
I'm glad we got some sort of reform, but nothing is perfect and I have my own misgivings about the ACA.
And they'll try for the 34th time..and 35th. and 36th.
Face it GOP, the middle class want and need low-cost healthcare like everyone else in NATO provides. It's high time we have it ourselves. As for funding, divert 100% of what goes towards the TSA into healthcare. The TSA never did anything useful, after all, why fund 'em?[QUOTE=SilentOpp;36726656]I was actually watching this on CSPAN yesterday. The democrats would take a turn talking about how it's pathetic they are still discussing the issue(and how they are wasting valuable time before congress goes into recess), then the republicans take a turn and litterally say one negative point of the bill and add on 'we need to repeal obamacare' to the end. It was pointless and kinda just pissed me off watching them go back and forth. Nothing was getting done, you could tell.
There was this democratic senator who's name escapes me, I think his english is equivalent to that of a 6th grader. While both sides had speeches that flowed well, were to the point, and coherent, this guy made me just want to :suicide: (it matters when these people are writing the legislation that is the backbone of our country). The best way to describe the situation was completely childish bickering. And believe me when I say it was both parties in their own unique way. One democratic senator decided to use her time to gloat, which definitely isn't going to provide a solution to this argument(if there was one anyways).
[/QUOTE]
Watching CSpan on any bill leads to pretty much the same thing. It's the rather depressing end result of the system used to elect people.
I'd be all for either no party whatsoever, with candidates running on a platform of "I'll do this, this and this if elected" instead of "I'm a Republican, vote for me if you're one too!", or a system with many many parties that effectively drowns out bickering and fighting between any two of them. Either one would be an improvement over what we have now.
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;36730845]I find it amazing that a concept like universal healthcare is so widely opposed by so many people.
I seriously am having a hard time getting to grips with that idea, its universal healthcare so what if I have to pay a little more tax at least I won't lose my apartment if I break my leg.[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling the majority of actual, honest to god middle class Americans would say yes to having healthcare they don't have to pay for out of pocket. They all understand how fucking expensive it is, and how they can't afford to pay for it on their own. Only really die-hard republicans and the outspoken morons on TV honestly believe it's wrong.
'Sides we don't need to bump taxes. We can just divert funding from other programs. Like, say, the TSA. The TSA serves no useful purpose and just pisses people off, defund and disband it. Let more useful programs, like universal healthcare, get that money instead. Taxes don't go anywhere, but the public benefits enormously.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36730369]Because America.
No, I'm being serious, this great opposition against socialized healthcare seems to be endemic to America. There really hasn't been a good explanation as to why socialized healthcare is bad, either.[/QUOTE]
Actually there are plenty of good arguments against it. I suppose one could start with the moral issues of where the funding for it comes from (since it really isn't "free").
[QUOTE=Noble;36731450]Actually there are plenty of good arguments against it. I suppose one could start with the moral issues of where the funding for it comes from (since it really isn't "free").[/QUOTE]
Guess we should do away with public education too then huh.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;36731598]Guess we should do away with public education too then huh.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget about roads, electricity, fire departments, emergency services, military, safe drinking water, health inspections, along with everything else.
The market can provide all of those things, they'll just be paid for voluntarily, not by taxes.
[QUOTE=Noble;36731690]The market can provide all of those things, they'll just be paid for voluntarily, not by taxes.[/QUOTE]Which still wouldn't be voluntary, you need everything stated, which would force people into paying for said services. Unless they just piss off and settle for the consequences of having a house on fire connected to a dirt road with no water mains for miles.
[QUOTE=Noble;36731690]The market can provide all of those things, they'll just be paid for voluntarily, not by taxes.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? What in the hell makes you think people that vehemently hate paying taxes will voluntarily pay towards all of those essential things including healthcare? And why should children suffer the consequences of their parents fiscal beliefs?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36731742]Which still wouldn't be voluntary, you need everything stated, which would force people into paying for said services. Unless they just piss off and settle for the consequences of having a house on fire connected to a dirt road with no water mains for miles.[/QUOTE]
Well that's arguable that those things are needs.. and even still in that scenario you aren't being forced (actual use of coercive force) into paying a monopoly for those things (the government).
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36731747]Seriously? What in the hell makes you think people that vehemently hate paying taxes will voluntarily pay towards all of those essential things including healthcare?[/QUOTE]
If they feel that the risk of needing health care at some point in the future is worth the money then they will buy health insurance. If not, they will just take care of their own health. They shouldn't be forced into paying for it for the direct benefit of someone else.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36731747]And why should children suffer the consequences of their parents fiscal beliefs?[/QUOTE]
So then we should consider government debt unjust. We are putting a burden on future generations for our own benefit of consumption.
[QUOTE=Noble;36731817]Well that's arguable that those things are needs.. and even still in that scenario you aren't being forced into paying a monopoly for those things (the government).[/QUOTE]But in the even that you have what you find is ideal, what's to prevent a massive corporation have a monopoly over those services and/or making paying for said services involuntary?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36731834]But in the even that you have what you find is ideal, what's to prevent a massive corporation have a monopoly over those services and/or making paying for said services involuntary?[/QUOTE]
Competition
and if you get rid of the government, there would be no corporations. Corporations are created by government and are recognized as a "person" by the gov
[QUOTE=Noble;36731817]Well that's arguable that those things are needs.. and even still in that scenario you aren't being forced (actual use of coercive force) into paying a monopoly for those things (the government).[/quote]
you know what's more of a need than not having your house be on fire
[I]having legs[/I]
[quote]If they feel that the risk of needing health care at some point in the future is worth the money then they will buy health insurance. If not, they will just take care of their own health. They shouldn't be forced into paying for it for the direct benefit of someone else.[/quote]
Yes. Which is why we should get rid of the fire departments.
wait
[QUOTE=Noble;36731844]Competition[/quote]
Which you need regulations for. And at that point, since it's a need and not a commodity, it's basically just government health care anyway, since the government is in control of it. But then you have the whole "redundancy" problem, so it's more efficient to have just one, and it would need to be heavily regulated.
oh hello there government health care
how did you get here
Also, there's that whole problem of risking people's lives in the name of "competition".
[quote]and if you get rid of the government, there would be no corporations. Corporations are created by government and are recognized as a "person" by the gov[/QUOTE]
what is this sentence and why is it here
[QUOTE=Noble;36731844]Competition[/QUOTE]True, but history shows that eliminating competition seems to be the best way to maximize income.
A local company undercutting your profits? Price dump, buy them out, territorial agreement, or just destroy them the old fashion way.
[editline]00[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;36731844]and if you get rid of the government, there would be no corporations. Corporations are created by government and are recognized as a "person" by the gov[/QUOTE]
Semantics.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36731906]
Yes. Which is why we should get rid of the fire departments.
wait[/quote]
Where did I say get rid of those things? They'd still exist, they'd just operate and be funded in a different way.
[quote]Which you need regulations for. And at that point, since it's a need and not a commodity, it's basically just government health care anyway, since the government is in control of it. But then you have the whole "redundancy" problem, so it's more efficient to have just one, and it would need to be heavily regulated.
oh hello there government health care
how did you get here
Also, there's that whole problem of risking people's lives in the name of "competition". [/quote]
It is both a need and a commodity.. just like food is both a need and a commodity. And I disagree entirely that any government regulations are needed, so I don't follow the rest of your argument that comes after that premise.
[quote]what is this sentence and why is it here[/QUOTE]
Because I'm discussing market anarchy and the subject of corporations came up, so I made just a little digression there.
[editline]12th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36731928]True, but history shows that eliminating competition seems to be the best way to maximize income.
A local company undercutting your profits? Price dump, buy them out, territorial agreement, or just destroy them the old fashion way.[/QUOTE]
Predatory pricing hurts the big business much more than it hurts the targets though, it makes much more economic sense to find ways to offer better goods and services than engage in such a terribly inefficient means of competition.
And I disagree also, I think that history shows eliminating competition in most cases hurts consumers.
[QUOTE=Noble;36731953]Where did I say get rid of those things? They'd still exist, they'd just operate and be funded in a different way.[/quote]
Yes, but still: how would those work? Having multiple fire department companies would be redundant, not to mention risky. Remember that story a while back where one town provided fire services for another town, but the citizens had to pay for it like a service rather than a tax? It ended up with some guy's house burning down while firemen just watched, forbidden from putting it out, and refusing the guy's offers to pay right then and there for some arcane reason. That sure was much better than simply including it in taxes!
Hold on, I think I have an old reply from a similar argument. You know, on why leaving the market to control [I]everything[/I] wouldn't work.
[QUOTE=Last or First;35291685]Electricity: yes, having multiple electricity sources that fill up much more space than having just one source, all providing roughly the same amount of energy, that you only use [I]one[/I] of, is [I]totally[/I] feasible and in no way a waste.
Water: same problem. It'd be a huge waste to have several different sources of water and only use one (a waste of both water and space), when it's much more feasible to have a monopoly that is regulated down to the price level it [I]would[/I] cost if there [I]were[/I] different options.
FCC: I'm not even sure how the fuck corporation controlled regulations would fucking [I]work[/I].
Weather: It's a waste of time, man-power, and satellites if we had multiple teams all collecting the same weather data from different satellites over the exact same areas. Note, [I]predicting[/I] weather isn't the same as [I]reporting current weather[/I].
Space: eh, sure, why not.
FDA: Like with the FCC: how would multiple regulation companies even fucking work? "Our company's inspected food has 1.2% less asbestos than other companies!" You really want to risk people's livelihoods over fucking "competition"? Yeah, let's [I]compete[/I] to save lives, instead of, oh, you know, just fucking saving lives.
Time: You'd have to be a motherfucking idiot to think multiple time-reporting companies could work instead of a global standard. "By using [I]our[/I] company's time, you [I]aren't[/I] late for work! Also, minutes last 10% longer. It's June of 1972 right now. Other companies say it's 2012! Bullshit. You'll live 30 years longer under our time! Don't think about it too much, just buy our time."
Traffic & Vehicle Safety: Again, multiple regulation standards for the same thing is just stupid. What, do you have to pay the cop to use a certain speed regulation standard before they write a ticket?
Roads: Having multiple roads starting and ending in the exact same places is a huge waste of space and material. And if the roads go somewhere else, [I]they're different roads[/I].
Fuel Quality: One word: explosions.
Overal EPA: Again, the problem with multiple regulatory standards.
Multiple types of money for the same country: Redundant as [I]fuck[/I]. Not to mention, how the fuck would the companies get paid?
Mail: eh, sure.
School: There is private school if you want to pay for it, but everyone deserves basic education, whether they have the money to pay for it or not.
Building codes: Multiple. safety. regulatory. standards. are. fucking. stupid. and. would. lead. to. avoidable. deaths. of. countless. people.
Firemen: You have to pay your fire department to put out the fire and save your family and property? You [I]cannot[/I] think this is a good idea.
Privatized police forces: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I swear to god if you try to defend anything like this, I will find out where you are, and I will call a mental facility to help you.
Internet: You're on fucking Facepunch, you should know how we feel about the internet.[/QUOTE]
So, uh, yeah. That.
[quote]It is both a need and a commodity.. just like food is both a need and a commodity. And I disagree entirely that any government regulations are needed, so I don't follow the rest of your argument that comes after that premise.[/quote]
The difference here is, while food [I]is[/I] a need, [I]flavor[/i] isn't. Competition works with food because people have widely different tastes. However, everyone likes having legs. I'm not sure you can really have different flavors of surgery, either. "Hey, I want to go under while tasting grapes. Can you do that?" "Sorry, we only have strawberry flavor. Head to the hospital 5 miles east of here if you want grape." "Aww man" You can have different [I]types[/I] of surgeries, sure, but they all do different things.
Oh yeah, I forgot this: We have government regulations for food in place of government made food. So the government is still in there! Fancy that.
[quote]Predatory pricing hurts the big business much more than it hurts the targets though, it makes much more economic sense to find ways to offer better goods and services than engage in such a terribly inefficient means of competition.[/QUOTE]
In the short run, sure. But big companies can [I]afford[/I] to drive their prices down in the short run in order to drive competitors just starting out out of business, then go back once they're gone.
[quote]And I disagree also, I think that history shows eliminating competition in most cases hurts consumers.[/QUOTE]
Those European countries with socialized health care seem to be pretty well off.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;36730369]Because America.
No, I'm being serious, this great opposition against socialized healthcare seems to be endemic to America. There really hasn't been a good explanation as to why socialized healthcare is bad, either.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the opposition I've talked to seems to think that socialized healthcare will degrade the quality of the system as a whole, while also crippling our economy.
It's debatable either way. In some cases, it seems like the question isn't whether or not socialized healthcare is a good thing as a principle, but whether implementation could be effective in the United States.
[editline]12th July 2012[/editline]
I, personally, think it is, and that the benefits far outweigh any potential losses.
Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to all of that right now but I really don't see what the big fear is over private police. You have no fear of the government having a monopoly on force at all, yet private police, who don't have a monopoly on force, are to be feared?
[QUOTE=Noble;36731690]The market can provide all of those things, they'll just be paid for voluntarily, not by taxes.[/QUOTE]
They can, doesn't mean they should.
[editline]11th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;36731817]
If they feel that the risk of needing health care at some point in the future is worth the money then they will buy health insurance. If not, they will just take care of their own health. They shouldn't be forced into paying for it for the direct benefit of someone else.
[/QUOTE]
If they get injured anyway the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
Regardless of who you are, I'm not sure why you'd fought something that doesn't allow companies to reject you of per-existing conditions. That's a huge thing, especially for a lot of people I know.
[QUOTE=Noble;36732165]Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to all of that right now but I really don't see what the big fear is over private police. You have no fear of the government having a monopoly on force at all, yet private police, who don't have a monopoly on force, are to be feared?[/QUOTE]
Hey at least I can have input on my government. Not so with a private police force, who only answers to their paycheck.
The amount of stupid in congress makes me want to become a politician.
Why do people still argue with Noble? All he ever does is endlessly spew bullshit and ignore every valid point that completely shatters his delusional fantasy world.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36733061]Why do people still argue with Noble? All he ever does is endlessly spew bullshit and ignore every valid point that completely shatters his delusional fantasy world.[/QUOTE]
Why are you so afraid of someone having a different philosophy or viewpoint than you?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36733255]Why are you so afraid of someone having a different philosophy or viewpoint than you?[/QUOTE]
Yes, actually. Because that that viewpoint is provably wrong and would be disasterous if given any power - which, in the current political climate, is unfortunately already happening.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36733255]Why are you so afraid of someone having a different philosophy or viewpoint than you?[/QUOTE]
because when loads of people hold the viewpoint that people shouldn't be provided for by a government, and that we should let private industry do it all, people suffer.
that's why you should be afraid of it, because if there are enough people like Noble, it will happen, and people will suffer horribly as a result
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36733061]Why do people still argue with Noble? All he ever does is endlessly spew bullshit and ignore every valid point that completely shatters his delusional fantasy world.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit to who? Liberals? No, it's not bullshit. It's called an argument. Do you expect everyone to just follow what you believe because you argue for it?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;36735631]because when loads of people hold the viewpoint that people shouldn't be provided for by a government, and that we should let private industry do it all, people suffer.
that's why you should be afraid of it, because if there are enough people like Noble, it will happen, and people will suffer horribly as a result[/QUOTE]
People suffer and die everyday, not everyone can be saved. I don't like it like the next guy, but how Obama has it is wrong, and should be a lot less government. And Noble isn't the only one like him, there are a lot of people who have similar viewpoints.
And all the childish remarks about how republicans are wasting their time and money trying to repeal this bill are stupid. If the tables were turned, the liberals would be doing the same shit. Kinda like what happened in Wisconsin with Walker. They wasted millions on a recall election, and nothing happened. Are they time wasting idiots too?
Yes, keep trying over and over and over again. I'm sure it will work eventually. Thirty-fourth time's the charm, yes?
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36736101]Bullshit to who? Liberals? No, it's not bullshit. It's called an argument. Do you expect everyone to just follow what you believe because you argue for it?[/QUOTE]No, it is bullshit because his arguments are idiotic, based in at best uninformed, outdated logic and at worst, based in malicious stupidity and callous disregard.
[QUOTE]People suffer and die everyday, not everyone can be saved. I don't like it like the next guy, but how Obama has it is wrong, and should be a lot less government. And Noble isn't the only one like him, there are a lot of people who have similar viewpoints.[/QUOTE]Wow, look at you, all fatalist and apathetic, great attitude to take. "People suffer and die everyday, so why bother trying at all?" And seriously, Obama is doing a damn sight better than any jackass the GOP wants to prop up. At least we have a chance of something, not like Romney who would sink us deeper in the hole.
[QUOTE]And all the childish remarks about how republicans are wasting their time and money trying to repeal this bill are stupid. If the tables were turned, the liberals would be doing the same shit. Kinda like what happened in Wisconsin with Walker. They wasted millions on a recall election, and nothing happened. Are they time wasting idiots too?[/QUOTE]They did one recall election, a single fucking recall, that was called for by petition of the people. It was not 33 goddamned recalls, clogging up the fucking system with pointless bullshit just to hamper the other party. Don't try to take a high-ground that isn't available to begin with.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36736302]
Wow, look at you, all fatalist and apathetic, great attitude to take. "People suffer and die everyday, so why bother trying at all?" And seriously, Obama is doing a damn sight better than any jackass the GOP wants to prop up. At least we have a chance of something, not like Romney who would sink us deeper in the hole.[/QUOTE]
Tell me what you think Romney is going to do, be specific please.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.