You will lose your privacy. The government and their people will have easy access to all your medical records. The people are slowly losing their privacy and their freedom. So much for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Our country will turn into... get in line... and they will tell you where to go. The continue to ... live line or ... the die line.

Your conception of privacy is rather laughable in the internet age where your identity is pretty much a google search away, spare me the paranoia when the data mining companies and insurances got us all by the balls already!

While I can sort of understand the argument from the efficiency stand point, although I don't agree with it, since I think the profit motive go against the promotion of general wellness which is the point of such endeavor (health insurance), but their argument is generally understandable.

This sort of appeal to emotion with nebulous innuendos is exactly the sort of bullshit that is muddy up debate. Nativist and their hang up on the Big Bad Government (TM), when the "private enterprises" can be just as bad, worse, there really isn't any checks on those entities from collecting all sorts of information on us.

But then, I can't blame the crazies for losing faith in the political processes that is design to hold the government accountable when we did not just vote out of power the party and president that promoted domestic spying and torture, right? oh wait.

Privacy is your concern? I don't know what makes you think anything will significantly change.

The rich already pay over 70% of the taxes. The people DO NOT want obamacare, Obama and his pack od czars want obama care, oh and all the progressive libs.

It won't happen, should it happen those in Washington who voted for it will be voted out of office... Simple. Obama also won't win in 2012 unless he actually starts improving the situation

How is that an 'over-simplification', kind sir? The people the government considers rich pays the vast majority of taxes, so what is inaccurate, distorted, or misleading about the statement this 'JewishNegroe' made?

It really isn't a gross 'over-simplifacation' I have to agree. Over 70% of what the government considers rich DO pay the taxes.

I mean back when I graduated high school, I was denied government loans and grants because my single mother was WAAAAAAAAAAY too wealthy for them to consider helping me further my education.

So in closing, anyone who makes around 25k a year, such as my mother, is a rich person here in America, and thus over 70% of America IS rich...at least everyone who opposes this healthcare reform seems to think.

My bet is you didn't fill in some paperwork correctly.

Or your father was wealthy and they assumed he would help support your education.

My bet is that Grail isn't be careful in what he's saying.

My two parents had a combined income of $45k while I was going to college. I was perfectly able to get loans. Not enough to cover the entire cost of college, but it got me most of the way there.

I was offered stafford loans as well which had to be paid back immediately. I did not take those. I wasn't handed any grants, but like RR suggested I had no idea how to apply for them so I didn't.

I think those are actually two very different statements. O.o;; Although I guess the definition of rich or wealthy is probably a moving target here.

According to the IRS, ~%80 of all income tax revenue has been supplied by the top %25 percentile of citizens in the past decade(looking at Adjusted Gross Income). The top %25 has been defined as anyone who earns at or above ~55k to 65k. That's a more than reasonable wage(for most places in the U.S.), though obviously not "filthy stinking rich."
Its still richer than %75 of the rest of the population.

What does this mean? That the top 25% of earners make BETWEEN $55k and $65k? Or does it mean that the top 25% starts between $55k and $65k, and you're just not sure which it is?

About a decade ago, the top 25% was defined as someone who makes 55k or more. Now the top 25% is defined as someone who makes about 65k or more a year. There is a gradual slope between the two points for all the intervening years that I believe should match closely with inflation rates.

Okay that makes sense.

How is it that the richest country on Earth cannot have a very moderate provision of healthcare (which would probably strengthen their economy) when it can spend upwards of $1 trillion on such silly projects as Iraq and missile defence?

Because they spend 1 trillion on military. You sort of answered that yourself.

It's not like the US is fiscally responsible anyhow. You might as well follow the rest of the civilised industrial world and begin providing for your citizens.

Perhaps, along the way you can cancel some stupid projects like a moon base built by NASA alone, a very silly missile defence shield ($12 billion in 2009) and, perhaps giant flying lasers.

Same here.

What's funny to me is how the arguments against health care reform are that it will turn the current health care system into the current health care system.

Already we're paying more per person for health care than any other country so we're already getting screwed financially, and already major decisions are made by some numbnuts bureaucrat with no medical knowledge.

What about a combined system, similar to Japan, but with our own twist?

I believe that some health-care is better than no health-care. And, socialized medicine doesn't mean private healthcare has to disappear. In fact, it'd probably be the most intelligent thing to have a private infrastructure, with a government-run HMO (The V.A. would be an example of this). Not that difficult, it's basically the samething I do when I'm in someplace without a military hospital.

We could pay for it by instituting a flat rate income tax (say 10%?) that cannot be adjusted or deducted. The rich don't pay that much in tax, because there are plenty of ways to classify "income" and not all of them are pay-roll, in fact, most of them aren't.

So this gloom and doom scenario for public healthcare seems completely bogus. HMOs are the real culprit, anyway, they've steadily driven up (and I mean exponentially ballooned) the cost of private healthcare since the Nixon era.

So - now that this reform bill is going to make it through the Senate more than likely - is virtually anyone satisfied with it? To me, this bill honestly makes no sense.From the WSJ:

I don't think it's possible one way or another to be satisfied with this bill, as it's 2,700 pages long and I don't think anyone can claim, with the exception of maybe 4 or 5 lawmakers, to have read the bill in its entirety.

Stiill, there are a few good things with the bill. For one, the CBO has said that it's more than deficit-neutral. Most Americans are rightfully worried about the soaring cost of the national debt, and how a trillion dollar medicare reform bill will only add to that. I think that concern is largely moot by now. Whether you agree or not with the way the government is keeping it neutral (basically by increasing taxes on the wealthy) is another story altogether, as some of the posts in this thread show.

Second, the bill targets middle-income Americans, not just people who can't afford insurance in general. Although everyone is required by law now to have health insurance, the government is offering subsidies to middle-income Americans to help pay for their insurance. This is definately a big step from the status-quo. It's far from perfect (having a public option competing with the private sector would probably have been better in keeping costs down) but it's a starting point.

Overall, therefore, although the bill's not perfect (it's a compromise bill like every other bill in parliament, what do you expect?) it's definately a step in the right direction and offers struggling families a bit more hope than they had before.

I just don't get it, perhaps a cultural bias: Why are American so keen to pay large fees to unaccountable insurance companies and be utterly dependent on employers seeking to maximise profits? you're still paying taxes, but now you taxes are subsidising corporations which are beyond reproach.

GOVT OUTTA MY HELTHCARE

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yaf75bpoW_...dneck-sign.jpg

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't see what your trying to say, Deni. :rolleyes: