Why are people so keen on gov't run healthcare again?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by raffles288

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.

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

Most amazing jew boots

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

The rich already pay over 70% of the taxes.

Quote:

Over 70% of what the government considers rich DO pay the taxes.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by packrat

The top %25 has been defined as anyone who earns at or above ~55k to 65k.

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Okay that makes sense.

FELIPE NO

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by loyalistreturns

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Rasputina

Because I can't afford the healthcare I need.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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:

Quote:

From the outset, the White House's core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they're sticking to that story. "Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't read the bills," Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like "community rating" because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.

As for the White House's line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed "waste," even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. "The oft-heard promise 'we will find out what works and what does not' scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice," the Stanford professor wrote.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

GOVT OUTTA MY HELTHCARE

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by loyalistreturns

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Obviously he's trying to point out that some Americans cannot spell 'morons' properly.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.