Health care reform is done - Obama signs reconciliation bill
353 replies, posted
So, "no" to both questions?
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;21059536]Okay, you kinda lost me with that last statement... Are you saying we should put all the power to individual uhmm... City, County, or State governments? I think we tried that when we gained our independence. It didn't work out so well with that whole war and all...
You lost me.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that from what I hear is that local governments should have more power.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059562]Somewhat to question one.
And somewhat to question two.[/QUOTE]
this post doesn't even make sense
[QUOTE=TH89;21059580]So, "no" to both questions?[/QUOTE]
You could say that. I was blatantly speaking out of my ass and I apologize for it.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059593]I'm saying that from what I hear is that local governments should have more power.[/QUOTE]
uh without federal aid a lot of states would be much worse off than they are now.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059613]You could say that. I was blatantly speaking out of my ass and I apologize for it.[/QUOTE]
It's coo shawty
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059593]I'm saying that from what I hear is that local governments should have more power.[/QUOTE]
Like Chicago?
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059593]I'm saying that from what I hear is that local governments should have more power.[/QUOTE]
I think local governments have enough power as it is, we decided a long time ago we need a more powerful central government because we can't get anything done without it.
[QUOTE=TH89;21059642]
Like Chicago?[/QUOTE]
For certain things there needs to be more power and the fed needs less. The department of education should be run state-by-state, and be funded by the state and the government. Same thing with the department of agriculture.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059688]For certain things there needs to be more power and the fed needs less. The department of education should be run state-by-state, and be funded by the state and the government. Same thing with the department of agriculture.[/QUOTE]
So states like Texas can get away with religiously indoctrinating their kids and subjecting them to sub-standard education? I don't see why children should have to suffer a lower-quality education just because they were unlucky enough to be born in the South.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;21059724]So states like Texas can get away with religiously indoctrinating their kids and subjecting them to sub-standard education? I don't see why children should have to suffer a lower-quality education just because they were unlucky enough to be born in the South.[/QUOTE]
The government would have the power to actually fund these plans.
[editline]11:12AM[/editline]
But yea I really never thought about that.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059688]For certain things there needs to be more power and the fed needs less. The department of education should be run state-by-state, and be funded by the state and the government. Same thing with the department of agriculture.[/QUOTE]
Education is run state by state, the government just sets standards so that everyone can enjoy a somewhat adequate education that will allow them to live life. If a school meets standards, they receive more money. It offers incentive to the teachers because if a school makes more money, they get higher paychecks and more materials to work with, therefor making their job even easier.
On the topic of religion in schools, consider that a feature of the country. People believe deeply in religion, and if the majority in that area support those types of schools, then it makes sense for them to focus on religion. People can send their students to a private school that supports science.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;21059771]Education is run state by state, the government just sets standards so that everyone can enjoy a somewhat adequate education that will allow them to live life. If a school meets standards, they receive more money. It offers incentive to the teachers because if a school makes more money, they get higher paychecks and more materials to work with, therefor making their job even easier.[/QUOTE]
So then why are we pouring a lot of money (from what I have heard) in to this? It seems like we don't even need to fund it that much (the department itself).
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059797]So then why are we pouring a lot of money (from what I have heard) in to this? It seems like we don't even need to fund it that much (the department itself).[/QUOTE]
You do need to fund the department of education. Obviously if you fund the Federal Department of Education, the money doesn't stay there, it gets to schools around the country somehow. Education is something you pour a lot of money into, it will almost always bring a healthy return.
Oh and by the way, what I said came out wrong in my previous statement. I don't think the government should pay loans.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;21059872]Oh and by the way, what I said came out wrong in my previous statement. I don't think the government should pay loans.[/QUOTE]
But loans should be something to be supported, because it isn't handing out money. A loan means you have to pay it back, with interest. It makes money.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;21059921]But loans should be something to be supported, because it isn't handing out money. A loan means you have to pay it back, with interest. It makes money.[/QUOTE]
But the government shouldn't pay off loans for people simply because they haven't paid them.
[QUOTE=BaconDioxide;21058835]Here's a good graph for you :
[IMG]http://whyareyousofat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/life-expectancy1.jpg?w=500&h=332[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You can't use life expectancy as a measure of how good health care is. Life expectancy gets muddied up by murders, suicide and dumb luck.
Health care doesn't stop a bullet, and it doesn't stop a car from ramming into a tree.
"Dumb luck" doesn't account for statistics that measure millions of people, and for murders to account for our life expectancy being a full 20% lower than it should be, a huge portion of our population would have to be murdered. Like, almost half.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;21059724]So states like Texas can get away with religiously indoctrinating their kids and subjecting them to sub-standard education? I don't see why children should have to suffer a lower-quality education just because they were unlucky enough to be born in the South.[/QUOTE]
Why would the federal government do better? You think they wouldn't just do the same thing as Texas, but apply it to [b]all[/b] states?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21060406]Why would the federal government do better? You think they wouldn't just do the same thing as Texas, but apply it to [b]all[/b] states?[/QUOTE]
They haven't shown any inclination toward that.
The Federal government in general tends to be more measured and expert-focused than state governments.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21060349]You can't use life expectancy as a measure of how good health care is. Life expectancy gets muddied up by murders, suicide and dumb luck.
Health care doesn't stop a bullet, and it doesn't stop a car from ramming into a tree.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what the graph is proving. According to this graph, we spend the most amount of money on health care, but our life expectancy return on health care is much lower. Doesn't this deal with the quality of health care, not the availability of such? And the whole point of the health care bill is to increase availability. Maybe I'm confused. Plus, we are only losing ten years of life expectancy.
[QUOTE=TH89;21060365]"Dumb luck" doesn't account for statistics that measure millions of people[/QUOTE]
You still have to count the number of people who die in car accidents, drown, or die in a tornado.
Hell, even lifestyle plays a huge role. One might say that many Americans are overweight, but very few Japanese are. Does the quality of healthcare really matter at that point? The quality could be exactly the same, but the life expectancy of Americans would be lower.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21060486]You still have to count the number of people who die in car accidents, drown, or die in a tornado.[/QUOTE]
That happens in every country, not just the US.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21060486]Hell, even lifestyle plays a huge role. One might say that many Americans are overweight, but very few Japanese are. Does the quality of healthcare really matter at that point? The quality could be exactly the same, but the life expectancy of Americans would be lower.[/QUOTE]
This, on the other hand, is a legitimate point, and probably accounts for a significant part of the difference. But it doesn't tell the whole story--the UK has pretty much the same percentage of obese people as we do, and their life expectancy is both greater than ours and slightly above the curve. So if we remove the weight factor, we're still coming up way short.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;21060464]I don't understand what the graph is proving. According to this graph, we spend the most amount of money on health care, but our life expectancy return on health care is much lower. Doesn't this deal with the quality of health care, not the availability of such?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does show that we spend way too much already on health care. But you can't use life expectancy to show that we pay more AND get lower quality.
[editline]02:50PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;21060513]That happens in every country, not just the US.
[/quote]
Crime rate and accident rates are different in each country. If everyone in Japan rides a bike, then there are no car accidents. And getting hit by a bike is nothing like getting hit by a car. Same with gun control; if nobody in Japan owns a gun or a knife crime rate would possibly be lower.
obama =/= osama
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;21060515]Crime rate and accident rates are different in each country. If everyone in Japan rides a bike, then there are no car accidents. And getting hit by a bike is nothing like getting hit by a car. Same with gun control; if nobody in Japan owns a gun or a knife crime rate would possibly be lower.[/QUOTE]
But you're trying to account for a [i]one-fifth[/i] difference. That would only work if one out of five infants died in a car accident or was murdered. If you wait for them to become adults then even more of them (like half) have to crash or be murdered in order for that to make sense.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;21060464]I don't understand what the graph is proving. According to this graph, we spend the most amount of money on health care, but our life expectancy return on health care is much lower. Doesn't this deal with the quality of health care, not the availability of such? And the whole point of the health care bill is to increase availability. Maybe I'm confused. Plus, we are only losing ten years of life expectancy.[/QUOTE]
It simply means that your healthcare is not nearly as effective as it should be, for the amount of money you pay for it.
That came off incredibly condescending and not at all helpful. Sorry.
[QUOTE=Obscure;21060733]obama = osama and hitler combined[/QUOTE]
fixed
[editline]01:28PM[/editline]
hurr
what's with the dumbs guys i was kidding
No, Obama hasn't started killing yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.