House Democrats look at taxing the rich for health care - Polidicks

Socializing the health care system would first even further increase unemployment, as entire heath care businesses would lose too large a chunk of their customers to survive. Those that doe survive would have to charge its customers rates higher than ever before to compensate, driving the cost of health care further. Waiting in line for the government to decide whether your illness deserves tax payer money will increase the mortality rate of highly treatable illnesses. Many will have to wait years for treatments that would take a few months on a private system. It can be seen in countries that already have national health care that the system is collapsing in on itself and less and less illness are being covered. Many breast cancer patients receive what is essentially a death notice from the government telling them that the 25% change for them to live is not enough. [editline]01:35AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Trotsky;16147118][img]http://weblogs.amny.com/news/local/tracker/blog/fdr1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] AHHHH!!! look at him driving around, spreading the wealth.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147134]Socializing the health care system would first even further increase unemployment, as entire heath care businesses would lose too large a chunk of their customers to survive. Those that doe survive would have to charge its customers rates higher than ever before to compensate, driving the cost of health care further. [b]Waiting in line for the government to decide whether your illness deserves tax payer money[/b] will increase the mortality rate of highly treatable illnesses. Many will have to wait years for treatments that would take a few months on a private system. It can be seen in countries that already have national health care that the system is collapsing in on itself and less and less illness are being covered. Many breast cancer patients receive what is essential[highlight]ly a death notice from the government telling them that the 25% change for them to live is not enough. [editline]01:35AM[/editline] AHHHH!!! look at him driving around, spreading the wealth.[/QUOTE] never been out of country, have we?

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147134]Socializing the health care system would first even further increase unemployment, as entire heath care businesses would lose too large a chunk of their customers to survive. Those that doe survive would have to charge its customers rates higher than ever before to compensate, driving the cost of health care further. Waiting in line for the government to decide whether your illness deserves tax payer money will increase the mortality rate of highly treatable illnesses. Many will have to wait years for treatments that would take a few months on a private system. It can be seen in countries that already have national health care that the system is collapsing in on itself and less and less illness are being covered. Many breast cancer patients receive what is essentially a death notice from the government telling them that the 25% change for them to live is not enough. My grandad [I]just[/I] received cut-less surgery for a [I]benign[/I] cancerous tumor, nobody gave him a notice saying that there are higher priorities than him, he got treatment when he asked for it. [editline]01:35AM[/editline] AHHHH!!! look at him driving around, spreading the wealth.[/QUOTE] Coming from an American I presume? I live in a country that has universal healthcare, neither I, nor any person I've met has ever been denied the healtcare they deserve. I was hit by a speeding car once at a stoplight. I got picked up by an ambulance, taken to the hospital, spent the night there with the care of multiple doctors, I left the next day after a series of tests, x-rays, and cat scans. I didn't have to pay a dime, or wait for treatment. If you have a problem with spending a couple of dollars a year on the benefit of somebody else's life, then you yourself don't deserve healthcare, you deserve to be thrown from your home on your ass for being such a selfish prick.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16146984]$515.4 billion is what the Department of Defense received for the 2009 budget. A small portion in comparison to the 4.3 trillion dollars the Budget allotted for. [/QUOTE] Thats still about 20% of the total budget. There is a huge difference between 4.3 trillion and 3.8 trillion. [editline]08:47PM[/editline] It baffles me that American tax payers are paying to send young men over to Iraq (to potentially die) to fight for something that doesn't affect America at all.

I do live in America and in fact feel sorry that you do not have the opprotunity to have the quality of health care that the American private system has been able to provide. As you probably know, assuming you live in the UK, the British health care system no longer provides treatments for stage 4 cancers as it has a 10-15% of surviving. This forces many to go to a private insurance system causing them to pay for 2 health care provides (one of which is for the most part useless to them). Also recently I overheard on the news that Britian is being or already has stopped treatment options for rumetory arthritis. [editline]01:51AM[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16147265]Thats still about 20% of the total budget. There is a huge difference between 4.3 trillion and 3.8 trillion. [editline]08:47PM[/editline] It baffles me that American tax payers are paying to send young men over to Iraq (to potentially die) to fight for something that doesn't affect America at all.[/QUOTE] You sir need to brush up on the math skills because its 9% is what they spend. $4.3 Tril / $0.515 Tril = ?

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147294] You sir need to brush up on the math skills because its 9% is what they spend. $4.3 Tril / $0.515 Tril = ?[/QUOTE] I should stop doing math in my head. :(

America may have quality private health care, but only if you can pay for it (really, really unlikely) or have enough time and patience to fight your health insurance company for them to dish out the money for you. National health care is meant to solve that by having all costs already covered by public (via taxes usually). The logic behind it is that it's a valuable [i]public[/i] program being paid for by the public. The main benefit behind this is that it is accessible to everyone, and does not need profit to survive. It exists not to make profit for its owner, but exists only to do its job, and that is to provide quality health care for everyone.

I live in Canada, we seem to receive the most bullshit from uneducated, uninformed republicans like you. The amount of people that are denied treatment under universal healthcare systems don't even get near the amount that are refused treatment from insurance companies. I must say, you have some truly fucked up logic, buddy. People in America use insurance companies for their healthcare. They are just [I]that[/I]. [I][U]Companies.[/U][/I] They dont give a flying fuck about you, they are companies that make profit. They are esentially out to find any way they possibly can to fuck you out of the insurance opportunities that you pay them for. A government's primary job is to serve the people, and that's what they do. I'd much rather have the government tell me that they can't give me surgery because there is a younger, healthier person that has a much higher of surviving than me. That is a fuckload better than a [B]company[/B] telling you you can't get treatment because they don't want to pay for it, despite the fact that you pay them yearly, for the insurance that they are [I]supposed[/I] to give you. FYI, my uncle just received treatment for bladder cancer, the hospital knew he had almost no chance of surviving the surgery, and they gave him surgery, he died not even 3 weeks ago. I hate it when republican man-children like you try to tell me how my own healthcare system operates, despite the fact that they know nothing about it, and have no experience with it.

[QUOTE=Conscript;16147379]America may have quality private health care, but only if you can pay for it (really, really unlikely) or have enough time and patience to fight your health insurance company for them to dish out the money for you. National health care is meant to solve that by having all costs already covered by public (via taxes usually). The logic behind it is that it's a valuable [i]public[/i] program being paid for by the public. The main benefit behind this is that it is accessible to everyone, and does not need profit to survive. It exists not to make profit for its owner, but exists only to do its job, and that is to provide quality health care for everyone.[/QUOTE] Yes that is the typical marxist idea behind it, but it has been proven time and time again that it only works in concept. Take for instance the American SOCIAL(IST) Security System. It is collapsing in on itself as their is no penalty in the public sector. Congress gets yelled at a little by the media and they they raise taxes to compensate, and the cycle repeats. The private sector on the other hand has the penalty of bankruptcy, making a company NEED that profit. Yet though they do make a profit they also have competition, something the public sector lacks. This pushes the private sector to provide the highest quality of service at the lowest price possible.

[QUOTE=Trotsky;16145632]Are you kidding? Small government PUT you into this mess. I can't believe people still believe in small government AFTER the last 8 years of horror.[/QUOTE] Yes U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. was an exemplary victory for proponents of small government. Are you retarded?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;16147422]I live in Canada, we seem to receive the most bullshit from uneducated, uninformed republicans like you. The amount of people that are denied treatment under universal healthcare systems don't even get near the amount that are refused treatment from insurance companies. I must say, you have some truly fucked up logic, buddy. People in America use insurance companies for their healthcare. They are just [I]that[/I]. [I][U]Companies.[/U][/I] They dont give a flying fuck about you, they are companies that make profit. They are esentially out to find any way they possibly can to fuck you out of the insurance opportunities that you pay them for. A government's primary job is to serve the people, and that's what they do. I'd much rather have the government tell me that they can't give me surgery because there is a younger, healthier person that has a much higher of surviving than me. That is a fuckload better than a [B]company[/B] telling you you can't get treatment because they don't want to pay for it, despite the fact that you pay them yearly, for the insurance that they are [I]supposed[/I] to give you. FYI, my uncle just received treatment for bladder cancer, the hospital knew he had almost no chance of surviving the surgery, and they gave him surgery, he died not even 3 weeks ago. I hate it when republican man-children like you try to tell me how my own healthcare system operates, despite the fact that they know nothing about it, and have no experience with it.[/QUOTE] An insurance company shouldn't deny anybody that pays for their service. I agree that that is wrong. Unfortunately, there is sort of a viscous cycle going on. If a customer doesn't like the service from the health care provider, they can stop paying for it, but then they'd have to pay for medical expenses themselves, but they were probably paying for a lot of that anyway if their insurer wasn't. There needs to be more competition in health care. Healthcare is currently an oligarchy, they're working together to screw the consumer. I don't think government should be the competitor, because there would still be no competition. Nobody can compete with free.

Or are you just saying stupid shit without thinking for five goddamned seconds before you say it?

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;16147422]I live in Canada, we seem to receive the most bullshit from uneducated, uninformed republicans like you. The amount of people that are denied treatment under universal healthcare systems don't even get near the amount that are refused treatment from insurance companies. I must say, you have some truly fucked up logic, buddy. People in America use insurance companies for their healthcare. They are just [I]that[/I]. [I][U]Companies.[/U][/I] They dont give a flying fuck about you, they are companies that make profit. They are esentially out to find any way they possibly can to fuck you out of the insurance opportunities that you pay them for. A government's primary job is to serve the people, and that's what they do. I'd much rather have the government tell me that they can't give me surgery because there is a younger, healthier person that has a much higher of surviving than me. That is a fuckload better than a [B]company[/B] telling you you can't get treatment because they don't want to pay for it, despite the fact that you pay them yearly, for the insurance that they are [I]supposed[/I] to give you. FYI, my uncle just received treatment for bladder cancer, the hospital knew he had almost no chance of surviving the surgery, and they gave him surgery, he died not even 3 weeks ago. I hate it when republican man-children like you try to tell me how my own healthcare system operates, despite the fact that they know nothing about it, and have no experience with it.[/QUOTE] Why the swearing and angry, is it not possible for you to engage in a civil mature debate, as I and several other are doing. In America, we are a fighting nation, we fight for our rights (health care not being one of them). We would much rather die trying than have the government condemn us to death.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147501]We would much rather die trying than have the government condemn us to death.[/QUOTE] I agree in the sense that we should do away with the death penalty.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147294][b]I do live in America and in fact feel sorry that you do not have the opprotunity to have the quality of health care that the American private system has been able to provide. [/b] As you probably know, assuming you live in the UK,[b] the British health care system no longer provides treatments for stage 4 cancers as it has a 10-15% of surviving. [/b]This forces many to go to a private insurance system causing them to pay for 2 health care provides (one of which is for the most part useless to them). [b]Also recently I overheard on the news that Britian is being or already has stopped treatment options for rumetory arthritis.[/b] [editline]01:51AM[/editline] You sir need to brush up on the math skills because its 9% is what they spend. $4.3 Tril / $0.515 Tril = ?[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're a troll.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147472] The private sector on the other hand has the penalty of bankruptcy, making a company NEED that profit. Yet though they do make a profit they also have competition, something the public sector lacks. This pushes the private sector to provide the highest quality of service at the lowest price possible.[/QUOTE] I agree here, but the government is messing up this part by guaranteeing that certain companies won't fail. With no risk of failure, they can do whatever they want, and there is nothing to keep them in check. [editline]09:13PM[/editline] AIG no longer has to make a profit, they don't even need customers. The American taxpayer is keeping them loaded with money.

[QUOTE=Trotsky;16147512]Yeah, you're a troll.[/QUOTE] Agreed. there's just some levels of stupidity and arrogance that people can't reach without trying.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147472]Yes that is the typical marxist idea behind it, but it has been proven time and time again that it only works in concept. Take for instance the American SOCIAL(IST) Security System. It is collapsing in on itself as their is no penalty in the public sector. Congress gets yelled at a little by the media and they they raise taxes to compensate, and the cycle repeats. The private sector on the other hand has the penalty of bankruptcy, making a company NEED that profit. Yet though they do make a profit they also have competition, something the public sector lacks. This pushes the private sector to provide the highest quality of service at the lowest price possible.[/QUOTE] That's the marxist idea? I thought conservatives like to think we don't have any interest in the people? But, it seems we've come to a crossroads, as I think I can agree that social programs don't work in a country with corrupt politics and government. I think that would be dismantled by bureaucrats in government and lobbyists that represent corporations with big influence. So then, on the other hand, we have a more decentralized, market based system of healthcare whose consumers (who more often then not are not even close to the whole population, as there are many people who cannot afford it) are at the complete mercy of a few people with only their own profit in mind? Neither sound good to me. Furthermore your competition notion is moot as a free market inevitably monopolizes.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16147488]An insurance company shouldn't deny anybody that pays for their service. I agree that that is wrong. Unfortunately, there is sort of a viscous cycle going on. If a customer doesn't like the service from the health care provider, they can stop paying for it, but then they'd have to pay for medical expenses themselves, but they were probably paying for a lot of that anyway if their insurer wasn't. There needs to be more competition in health care. Healthcare is currently an oligarchy, they're working together to screw the consumer. I don't think government should be the competitor, because there would still be no competition. Nobody can compete with free.[/QUOTE] I agree that the health care system isn't great right now. We are in a recession right now, the economy isn't the greatest its ever been. Also the health care system has been under alot of strain with obesity and cancer from smoking, as well as the government stepping in and messing things up even further. Government stepping in will not stop this cycle, but further increase the problem. [editline]02:15AM[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16147534]I agree here, but the government is messing up this part by guaranteeing that certain companies won't fail. With no risk of failure, they can do whatever they want, and there is nothing to keep them in check. [editline]09:13PM[/editline] AIG no longer has to make a profit, they don't even need customers. The American taxpayer is keeping them loaded with money.[/QUOTE] In agreement again, these bailouts are ruining the economy. [editline]02:16AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;16147509]I agree in the sense that we should do away with the death penalty.[/QUOTE] I would disagree, an eye for an eye is a more proper perspective when dealing with murders.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16147477]Yes U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. was an exemplary victory for proponents of small government. Are you retarded?[/QUOTE] I'm talking about regulation of business. Small government always eventually fails, because without government regulation, the banks and corporations will run rampant. They have, are and always will. They don't care about the well being of people, only profit. That's called business. If a politician does it, it's called corruption. You NEED regulation.

I'm sorta against this myself. Not all rich people are money sucking, baby killing, asshole bastards that people make them out to be. Lots of people work their ass off to start businesses and make good money. If any of you has had or know someone who has a over 60-70k (So picture a higher pay for others) a year knows they get taxed quiet a lot, Also depends on what state. I know people need health care, but people don't pay thousands to to go to college, and get training and start a great career so people who can't afford it can tax the shit out of them. People who can afford medical care and pay the monthly fees still have to watch out because the care isn't that great. You get charged a LOT, and the company and disagree to pay something and leave you hanging. Now don't get me wrong i can see the benefits of doing this, if more people could afford and pay for health care it should lighting up the load on health insurance and maybe bring the cost lower. But i don't feel as if i should have to pay or be punished in a sense because of other people miss fortunes. Socializing medicine (In America) isn't a good idea overall. We have to many problems as it is, we don't need to put more strain on the system. And it really depends on how they set it up and use the funds too. I would love to see this type of health care in America because back home we have socialized medicine and it is fairly good, you're taken care of and it is nice not having to pay hundreds of dollars for treatments or having to say "Well i fix this, or do i fix this? which one can i afford." It's a really difficult situation, and there is no easy way of doing it, because if there was it would have been done already.

[QUOTE=Trotsky;16147585]I'm talking about regulation of business. Small government always eventually fails, because without government regulation, the banks and corporations will run rampant. They have, are and always will. They don't care about the well being of people, only profit. That's called business. If a politician does it, it's called corruption. You NEED regulation.[/QUOTE] The market will work without regulation if the people don't roll over and let business fuck them in the ass like most Americans do. Companies rely on people giving them money, if people aren't happy they don't get money. But most Americans don't give a shit anymore.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147561] I would disagree, an eye for an eye is a more proper perspective when dealing with murders.[/QUOTE] Why not throw in some arguments about abortion and age of consent so you can piss a lot more people off. [URL=http://img24.imageshack.us/i/nastytroll.jpg/][IMG]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6925/nastytroll.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[QUOTE=Conscript;16147555]That's the marxist idea? I thought conservatives like to think we don't have any interest in the people? But, it seems we've come to a crossroads, as I think I can agree that social programs don't work in a country with corrupt politics and government. I think that would be dismantled by bureaucrats in government and lobbyists that represent corporations with big influence. So then, on the other hand, we have a more decentralized, market based system of healthcare whose consumers (who more often then not are not even close to the whole population, as there are many people who cannot afford it) are at the complete mercy of a few people with only their own profit in mind? Neither sound good to me. Furthermore your competition notion is moot as a free market inevitably monopolizes.[/QUOTE] Well, I would not say I believe marxist government care about people, nor would I say a corporation cares about people either. The government wants power, and the corporation wants profit. The benefit they provide the people are simply the bi-product of the efforts so to say.

[QUOTE=Trotsky;16147585]I'm talking about regulation of business. Small government always eventually fails, because without government regulation, the banks and corporations will run rampant. They have, are and always will. They don't care about the well being of people, only profit. That's called business. If a politician does it, it's called corruption. You NEED regulation.[/QUOTE] No you don't. Everything we've been doing has been bastardizations of previous conventions. We have NEVER had unregulated business, ever. To say that we have, ESPECIALLY during the Bush years is just fucking stupid. Furthermore, let's act like children and tell on the big mean corporations to Mommy and Daddy Big Government as though they give a flying shit. To say that businessmen are MORE corrupt than fucking politicians? Businessmen can go bankrupt, for fuck's sakes. Politicians can violate the constitution, break dozens of federal laws, rape civil liberties and then get acquitted immediately thereafter. To expect fucking government to be more trustworthy than corporate conglomerates? That's naivety to its maximum extent. "If a politician does it, it's called corruption." And you fucking trust them to root out corruption when they can't even keep their political dicks in their global pants on their fucking own? Bitch this is the human fucking condition. You've got some kind of pseudo-religious faith going on there. You have absolutely no understanding of how shit works here and you should be ashamed for rambling on about shit you do not understand.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16147611]The market will work without regulation if the people don't roll over and let business fuck them in the ass like most Americans do. Companies rely on people giving them money, if people aren't happy they don't get money. But most Americans don't give a shit anymore.[/QUOTE] People can't do a hell of a lot to big corporations, the government can, though. So IN an idealist market, the big business' will have a tight hand on them by the government.

[QUOTE=limbaugh2012;16147561]I would disagree, an eye for an eye is a more proper perspective when dealing with murders.[/QUOTE] But you just said you would rather die than live under a government that can condemn you to death.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;16147613]Why not throw in some arguments about abortion and age of consent so you can piss a lot more people off. [URL=http://img24.imageshack.us/i/nastytroll.jpg/][IMG]http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6925/nastytroll.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE] Really, I have been quiet polite at commenting at your ignorance, so please if you do not have anything of value or intelligence to add to this discussion, I would much rather have you read than reply. You might learn something about both sides of the debate rather than your assumptions you have about the matter.

So essentially it's wrong for the government to kill people unless you don't like them?

[QUOTE=Lankist;16147653]But you just said you would rather die than live under a government that can condemn you to death.[/QUOTE] I never killed anyone either. [editline]02:26AM[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;16147611]The market will work without regulation if the people don't roll over and let business fuck them in the ass like most Americans do. Companies rely on people giving them money, if people aren't happy they don't get money. But most Americans don't give a shit anymore.[/QUOTE] Yes, if a company is doing something that you find morally wrong, you don't buy that product anymore. If dell is dumping all mercury batteries a local lake, you don't buy dell. If people understood their importance in the economy, regulation by the government would be necessary, as the people would be the regulators (as is intended by the constition)