Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/8/09 08:41 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Despite our "broken" health system, Americans are still the most productive workers and have the greatest per capita real income (except for few obscure countries like Luxembourg and Brunei).

The Health Care System IS broken. It's simply that human freedom is not the problem and the state is not the solution.

And these tea party protesters that play into the hands of the so-called liberals by acting like there is a dichotomy between supporting free markets and implying that the health care system needs reform are not doing freedom a service.

The money is best spent killing people, and the food's still good because it tastes good amirite shepard?

At 11/8/09 08:41 PM, adrshepard wrote: Other things equal, of course. There is no "new" healthcare crisis that demands sudden attention.

Well yeah. I've no beef with that. The idea that that would be derived from the rule that anything-vitally-important-to-the-countr y-is-already-in-place is what I have trouble swallowing. And everything you further cite in your reply are conditions that draw a straight line to "health-care reform isn't necessary," not first to "nothing is necessary" and then to "health care isn't necessary."

Also... I'm plenty cynical thanks.

Ok: Look at the health care system in England. It's exactly like the one we're trying to get. My mother was a student at Oxford when she herniated a neck disc. She needed immediate surgery to get it fixed, but they told her she had to wait four months.
She never got her degree, but I'm fucking glad she's not paralyzed. She only made it by coming TO AMERICA....

At 11/8/09 12:53 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: I'm gonna sit back with the "How the hell are we going to afford this?" crowd.

At 11/8/09 02:05 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/8/09 12:53 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: I'm gonna sit back with the "How the hell are we going to afford this?" crowd.

The same way we do & CUBA DOES...France does...England does... Germany...Finland...Norway...Sweden...et c. etc. etc.

I love this statement because its so incredibly ignorant. Anyone who actually researched the european medical systems would know that they are overflowing with problems, like rationing because there's not nearly enough money to treat everyone.

all systems have their major flaws, but at least in the system we have now, if you get shot or cut up, or get pink eye, you can go to the hospital to the emergency room and cannot be turned away.

in the new rationing system, you will have no such protection if the government deems you unfit to be treated.

I wonder what the loony libertarians are saying about Healthcare Reformz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws7hdwQNJ Os

At 11/8/09 09:24 PM, Korriken wrote: in the new rationing system, you will have no such protection if the government deems you unfit to be treated.

So we can now be turned away from the ER? That's in the bill? Got a link?

At 11/8/09 12:24 AM, fli wrote:

I'm happy.
(I know loads of you guys won't.)

It's because you're parents are illegals.

At 11/8/09 02:04 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think this was just the house though, again. We're still waiting on the Senate, right?

I'm fine with a majority of it, but apparently they added yet another restriction on abortion so that even private insurers can't pay for them??? WTF? How is that helpful in anyway whatsoever.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

At 11/8/09 02:27 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Its the health care exchanges apparently. I hope that particular amendment gets repealed after the whole thing passes.

You're retarded.

Heh, I mean think about it.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

I'm amazed how people who hate our current and horrible healthcare system would even dare support the bill.

-We spend more on Health Care than most socialized nations and this only increases that cost.
-The Insurance Corporations will now get Billions more.
-The Drug Industry supported the bill and will now get even more money.
-The Government will increase their control of health care from 55% (And the supporters say we have a free market system...) to an even bigger number.

It makes me laugh at how stupid some of you people are.

"Down with the horrible insurance corporations! ...Oh, but we support the bill that they support and which will end up giving them more of our money!"

LOL!

At 11/8/09 09:49 PM, Memorize wrote: (essentially) Everyone who supports this bill is an idiot, because it just keeps feeding money to insurance companies.

Remind us why your "total free market" system worked so much better?

In any case, I the Guy Who Really Needs the Reform (I've ranted about it enough, I think) am currently subsisting on lower-cost medical supplies from a local community clinic. I still can't afford my own stuff, but I'm almost out of that hole, and my family is better off than it would be otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way to know for sure how the bill will affect us until it's implemented; in the meantime, I continue to hope that the change is for the better, but with a hint of caution.

At 11/8/09 09:49 PM, Memorize wrote: It's because you're parents are illegals.

Wow, back that one the hell up or I NEVER want to see you pull that sort of racist shit again. Seriously, unless you can show where Fli said that, such a statement should never ever be made. I will cheerfully withdraw my criticism if proven wrong and publicly apologize. But yeah, please to make with the evidence.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

What if it's a situation where the mother's life is threatened? I understand not wanting to put out funding for a "non-essential" procedure, certainly one as controversial as that but...no money under no circumstances? Come on...but really, might not be a bad thing for the insurance companies if they're looking to compete (which really is what I'd like to see any healthcare reform do, pressure insurers to be more competitive and offer better care at reasonable prices to the consumer). This gives them an in to offer a service to the consumer the government option doesn't provide potentially. Although there are many vows now to see that rider struck from the bill, so as many people have said, there's no reason to declare any sort of final victory or defeat here unless it makes it through the senate and Obama signs it in. There's still a bill in the Senate floating that this would have to be combined with.

You're retarded.

Name calling really helps you're point.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Oh crap, do we REALLY have to have the debate about how there's all that evidence that says "life begins at conception" is a manufactured by religion and isn't based on fact again? Not to mention as I said, sometimes abortions have to be done as a life saving measure. By and large is that what they're done for? No, of course not...but that doesn't change the fact that it is possible for them to be performed for that reason and that is the main reason I can't put myself in favor of an all out ban on it. Though I do sit in the camp that would rather see the baby up for adoption.

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

I'm still fuzzy on how exactly this bill works on that score. I know Obama has pushed for awhile that any "public option" would have to run like an actual insurance company and collect premiums rather then be federally funded...which might work after a few years, but will need federal funds at least at the start (and then probably forget to stop taking them when they can stand on therr own). You know, nevermind, think I just answered my own query there. :)

At 11/8/09 09:49 PM, Memorize wrote: It's because you're parents are illegals.

Here...
Just lemme toss you this friendly fuck you at your way.

That bud was for you.

My mother is naturalized, and my father is a resident.
They're citizen status stands on the same level as your and mine.

And even if they were currently illegal immigrants, they wouldn't be able to benefit from it since the bill says it's just for US citizens.

At 11/8/09 09:49 PM, Memorize wrote: It's because you're parents are illegals.

You know, I've seen a lot of posts from you over the years. Generally they're just dismissed straight away in to the special kind of apathy I reserve for idiots on the internet but occasionally, as you're probably delighted to know, they're so mouth-frothingly retarded I am actually irritated. In this instance, however, I'm just a little saddened: think about what you wrote without provocation and think about the sort of person that makes you. Now we've covered what a horrible human being you are, let's move on to how you're also an idiot with poor-reading comprehension.

How is giving tax payer money to fund abortion in any way Health-Care?

Firstly, his post actually stated that the added restriction was on private health-insurance. I may be wrong as I am not particularly familiar with the intricacies of the American health-care system but this suggests to me it has nothing to do with abortions being funded by tax payers. Secondly, whether you agree with abortion or not you cannot deny it still falls under the health-care umbrella as it is a medical procedure.

Isn't sad that we live in a society where you can kill a baby in the womb for any reason while at the same time being bared from ingesting a drug with temporary effects?

Isn't it sad that you will find any excuse to stand upon your soapbox? Everyone who could possibly care what you think on the matter (probably few to none) already knows, give it a rest.

Even better that tax payer money is used for both of these instances?

The provision in the bill apparently bans even private insurance paying for abortion so it's as about as far removed from 'tax payers' money funding abortions' as one could concievably get; surely this is a good thing in your eyes? That said I do find it rather ammusing that you, undoubtedly, support this measure despite the fact it infringes upon the freemarket you so laud.

I'm amazed how people who hate our current and horrible healthcare system would even dare support the bill.

Amazed that they support a bill that will change the healthcare system they currently hate? Really? I'd say that you're clearly not very good at logical reasoning but we already knew that.

-We spend more on Health Care than most socialized nations and this only increases that cost.

Do you have any figures to support this? I'm not saying I don't believe it but it'd be reassuring to get a look at the actual numbers. Anyway: the amount of money thrown at a problem is in no way an indication that the system works or that it doesn't work. This new reform might help or it might hinder but if it does it'll be due to how it works, not the amount of money invested in to making it work.

-The Insurance Corporations will now get Billions more.

To ensure that people have health insurance, yes. I believe this would largely be the point of any reform that didn't remove private insurance companies from the equation entirely, something I am sure you would abhor.

-The Drug Industry supported the bill and will now get even more money.

Your hatred of the drug industry confuses me. Yes they're blood sucking bastards but it's in the spirit of capitalism you claim to support so fervently. Besides they'd pretty much support any healthcare reform as long as it didn't seek to limit their scope as it opens up a whole new market for them flush with subsidy.

-The Government will increase their control of health care from 55% (And the supporters say we have a free market system...) to an even bigger number.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. It works perfectly well for other 1st world nations. Better, in fact: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/quali tyquickstrikeaug2009.pdf. I'd suggest reading in entire report but the most pertinent information is on page 4.

It makes me laugh at how stupid some of you people are.

Yes, I've often found it's the fools who laugh the hardest. I suspect it's because they don't quite understand the joke.

Okay.
I was too hasty to respond.
Tit-for-tats are bad things. I feel very caty now, and I usually end up eating my own foot when I get caty.

And for all I know, Memorize was trying to show some solidarity and a sense of humor in this situation. (Which are things that I truly appreciate.) And in the past, I remember that I've shown a racist inclination (after some tit-for-tat) and that was only for Cellar (and that was quite an exception. In a friggin major way.)

I won't explain why I support because I've mentioned this before, and I know I will share why as this thread grows. And my background as being very poor, and my current financial situation (and my families) and what I believe what we should do as a society has more impact on my political beliefs than the simple fact that at one time in my parents life were illegal immigrants.

Soooooooooo...
let's lighten up this situation.

knock-knock.... who's there?

Sooooooooo

Barak Obama does not care about white people.

@aviewaskewed - The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

Now, I am ok with not using public funds to fund the abortions even if I think its bad policy. But, this is the bit that gets me:

"and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create"

The exchange is a place where PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES who have fulfilled the basic requirements for a plan come and offer their plans to PRIVATE CONSUMERS who use PRIVATE MONEY and now anyone who decides to get cheaper health care by going into the exchange system and actually competing can't use their own private plans for their own services. This is an infringements on the basic rights. It is a law that says you can't spend your own money and you can't provide this service on something that isn't outright illegal in this country.

While your main concerns are alleviated, I would hope more of you would be concerned about the tone this amendment takes as it is entirely clearly an infraction of both women's rights and others.

@shepherd aka Marie Antoinette

As easy as it is to say to poor people, "Then Let Them Eat Cake," I would remind you that revolutions are built on the dissatisfaction of the lower class and that while health care will not spawn a revolution in the now, following such guiding principles as you IDIOTICALLY propose (And I say Idiotically only because having been educated in the history of some of the largest mistakes in human history and thought by a PUBLIC school system and I have recognized your thought as being less than intelligent) will eventually lead us to a place where as a country we've lost everything.

If the poor can't afford anything and continue to grow and their ranks are swelled because healthcare which has been doubling in cost continues to do so, then I think you will find that the poor people of this nation who do not have adequate health care, but serve you your food, build your buildings, clean your streets and walk among you are the prime potential for injection of myriad of social disorders including plagues and more. Look at Michigan, specifically Detroit, the City that was powerful and didn't need to change and ignored its lower classes for the sake of a buck. MI is the yet to be fulfilled prophecy for our entire country with such a possibility. 30+ % unemployment, soaring crime rate, deteriorating constructs, brain drain galore, undervalued property (Some homes go for as little as $10,000, when in my neighborhood in PA they'd go for $125,000). I have family there and I know this.

If you can't see how such drastic costs from the healthcare system could drain our entire economy, you are blind. A majority of Conservatives recognize this as well, but unfortunately the Republicans need to be seen as saviors and couldn't possibly support anything or actually participate less they allow their adversaries a "victory" in the sands of time. Also, given that more than several politicians on both sides of the aisle have money from the very industry that is broken, there is little likelihood of even a Democratic party being able to do this correctly on their own.

I refuse to further acknowledge, beyond this paragraph, the posts of an individual who has repeatedly demonstrated his bigotry and disposition towards character attacks, and I think apologizing for him, while noble, does the community as a whole a disservice. Consider this an admonishment of the highest order unto that individual.

for the most part I agree with memorize that this bill is only going to add to americas already bloated system. However the one good thing is if people see that they can get decent healthcare without having to worry about money up front then maybe theyed be willing to have a universal healthcare system.

btw, illegals are people too and deserve healthcare as much as you and me.

What many of you, either don't realise, or just like to not think about...Is just because you may have Health Insurance...doesn't mean they won't DENY to cover you if you have a medical problem.

So all the insurance in the world isn't going to help you when the paperwork comes back for you Chemo treatments DENIED ! ! !
That is why I believe changing your system is for the better. It isn't just change for those who can't afford Health Insurance...it's there if they decide, your going to be cutting into the profit margine this month & your denied.
So you don't end up bankrupt.
Sicko has a bunch of that problem in the content of the show....scarey stuff.

Unfortunately for proponents, it doesn't look like this one is going past the senate.

At 11/9/09 02:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Unfortunately for proponents, it doesn't look like this one is going past the senate.

It passed...but if any changes were made in the Senate before it passed, then that means it has to go back to the House...again...

At 11/9/09 03:42 PM, hansari wrote:

At 11/9/09 02:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Unfortunately for proponents, it doesn't look like this one is going past the senate.

It passed...but if any changes were made in the Senate before it passed, then that means it has to go back to the House...again...

Eh, source?

At 11/9/09 04:12 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/9/09 03:42 PM, hansari wrote:

At 11/9/09 02:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Unfortunately for proponents, it doesn't look like this one is going past the senate.

It passed...but if any changes were made in the Senate before it passed, then that means it has to go back to the House...again...

Eh, source?

It would go to a joint committee to rewrite. It wouldn't go back to the House.

Knowing Pelosi, she will refuse to compromise with the Senate, which will probably not have a public option, and that will probably kill the bill.

My brother was talking about this at the dinner table last night, and he was trying to be realistic (he's diseased himself, really) and he thought we shouldn't keep our hopes up, as it barely passed and there's no guarantee it's going to solve all our health (or at least most) problems. My mother just said that we should remain optimistic and be blessed for what we have.

At 11/9/09 08:43 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: @shepherd aka Marie Antoinette

As easy as it is to say to poor people, "Then Let Them Eat Cake," I would remind you that revolutions are built on the dissatisfaction of the lower class and that while health care will not spawn a revolution in the now, following such guiding principles as you IDIOTICALLY propose (And I say Idiotically only because having been educated in the history of some of the largest mistakes in human history and thought by a PUBLIC school system and I have recognized your thought as being less than intelligent) will eventually lead us to a place where as a country we've lost everything.

I don't know, you lost me in that obtuse construction of a second sentence. Have some crackers and orange juice and try writing it again.

If the poor can't afford anything and continue to grow and their ranks are swelled because healthcare which has been doubling in cost continues to do so, then I think you will find that the poor people of this nation who do not have adequate health care, but serve you your food, build your buildings, clean your streets and walk among you are the prime potential for injection of myriad of social disorders including plagues and more.

Are we talking about income or health insurance? Not having health insurance makes you poor? I didn't know that.
I'm not sure you're even addressing my post any more. I never said I was against making health coverage affordable and making the system more efficient. I'm against transferring wealth from one group of people to another for no other reason than "its the right thing to do." From a national standpoint, improving public health has very limited returns after a certain level. I think the US is pretty close to that level.

Look at Michigan, specifically Detroit, the City that was powerful and didn't need to change and ignored its lower classes for the sake of a buck. MI is the yet to be fulfilled prophecy for our entire country with such a possibility. 30+ % unemployment, soaring crime rate, deteriorating constructs, brain drain galore, undervalued property (Some homes go for as little as $10,000, when in my neighborhood in PA they'd go for $125,000). I have family there and I know this.

Really, I thought it had to do more with, you know, the decline in the domestic auto and manufacturing industries that's happened over the past 50 some years.

If you can't see how such drastic costs from the healthcare system could drain our entire economy, you are blind.

Blind as in unable to accurately read people's posts, right?

I refuse to further acknowledge, beyond this paragraph, the posts of an individual who has repeatedly demonstrated his bigotry and disposition towards character attacks, and I think apologizing for him, while noble, does the community as a whole a disservice. Consider this an admonishment of the highest order unto that individual.

Just because you have a 5-foot-long stick up your ass doesn't make it a pedestal. In any case, if you're not up to disputing the points I actually make as opposed to the imaginary ones that fit nicely into your little speeches, then not responding any more is probably the best choice for you.

At 11/9/09 05:23 PM, Ericho wrote: My brother was talking about this at the dinner table last night, and he was trying to be realistic (he's diseased himself, really) and he thought we shouldn't keep our hopes up, as it barely passed and there's no guarantee it's going to solve all our health (or at least most) problems...

That and its not even going to take effect until 2013 or 2014, I think, so hopefully your brother isn't terminally ill.

At 11/8/09 10:37 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Remind us why your "total free market" system worked so much better?

Tell me of an instance where more Government Control in Health Care in the US didn't progressively make our Heath Care system worse.

How can you call our Health Care system anywhere NEAR free market when the Government controls 55% of it while we still have these problems?

How much more control does it take for them to have before this excuse runs out: "If only there was more Government control".

At 11/9/09 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Wow, back that one the hell up or I NEVER want to see you pull that sort of racist shit again. Seriously, unless you can show where Fli said that, such a statement should never ever be made. I will cheerfully withdraw my criticism if proven wrong and publicly apologize. But yeah, please to make with the evidence.

He's admitted several times he comes from a background of illegal ancestors several times.

Just go ahead and ask him.

Oh, and btw: Go fuck yourself.

What if it's a situation where the mother's life is threatened?

We ALREADY do give money for that.

And there's no controversy over it.

I understand not wanting to put out funding for a "non-essential" procedure, certainly one as controversial as that but...no money under no circumstances?

Considering we already do it...

Come on...but really, might not be a bad thing for the insurance companies if they're looking to compete (which really is what I'd like to see any healthcare reform do, pressure insurers to be more competitive and offer better care at reasonable prices to the consumer).

How does this bill do that when people are still restricted from buying across state lines (like Car Insurance), nurses are still restricted from performing operations, just as many frivolous lawsuits, and Insurance Corporations are still receiving huge sums of subsidies?

Name calling really helps you're point.

You are retarded.

I make a half-serious joke about his parents "former" (lol) illegal background, and I'm suddenly branded a racist?

Once again: Go fuck yourself.

Oh crap, do we REALLY have to have the debate about how there's all that evidence that says "life begins at conception" is a manufactured by religion and isn't based on fact again?

So when is it?

When the heart pumps blood through the body?

Oh wait, that occurs in as little as 17 days, making roughly 90% of abortions unjustified (excluding rape, life threatened, ect..).

How about when brain waves develop?

Oh wait, that occurs in as little as 40 days of the pregnancy, making roughly 70% of abortions unjustified.

And here we have a law passed by Political Judges rather than doctors that say "You can have an abortion for ANY reason within the first 3 months". But as I just showed, the typical liberal argument of "brain development" doesn't even hold up to that.

Oh, btw: cells = life. Embryo = made up of cells which = life. Therefore Embryo = life.

The word you're looking for is Alive.

And I would say the heartbeat would make the most sense of naturally living. Why? Because the heart is the engine of the body and we declare people "clinically dead" by this.

So if someone's death is determined by their heart failing, then it only makes sense to declare a fetus alive by the heart working. Also considering the fact that we still refer to people as "alive" when they're brain dead and on life support.

Hence: It would be the most consistent.

Not to mention as I said, sometimes abortions have to be done as a life saving measure.

And how many times do people like me have to say it: NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THAT.

At 11/9/09 12:56 AM, fli wrote:

My mother is naturalized, and my father is a resident.
They're citizen status stands on the same level as your and mine.

Didn't used to be.

The only people on the same level as "my parents" are the ones who did so "legally".

Not to mention the Native American from my father, so in which case: All you white people - Get the hell out already.

I refuse to further acknowledge, beyond this paragraph, the posts of an individual who has repeatedly demonstrated his bigotry and disposition towards character attacks, and I think apologizing for him, while noble, does the community as a whole a disservice. Consider this an admonishment of the highest order unto that individual.

Just because you have a 5-foot-long stick up your ass doesn't make it a pedestal. In any case, if you're not up to disputing the points I actually make as opposed to the imaginary ones that fit nicely into your little speeches, then not responding any more is probably the best choice for you.

This wasn't directed at you. My apologies for the lack of an @. Reread the thread and guess who it was directed at. I'll ignore what you wrote here so that I don't see you in a bad light for something you should have never been given the opportunity to mistakenly say.

At 11/9/09 06:45 PM, adrshepard wrote: Are we talking about income or health insurance? Not having health insurance makes you poor? I didn't know that.

If you get sick it does! And it bankrupts a lot of other people to. And having health insurance is making people poor as well. So, we're talking about both.

From a national standpoint, improving public health has very limited returns after a certain level. I think the US is pretty close to that level.

I don't and I disagree. Mainly because I know people who don't have it and am consistent communication with people on these boards alone which disprove your point. Plus nearly all of the research done shows healthy people lead to savings all around.

At 11/9/09 06:47 PM, adrshepard wrote: That and its not even going to take effect until 2013 or 2014, I think, so hopefully your brother isn't terminally ill.

He is not terminally ill, and he is actually just going through severe depression and medication hasn't been of much help anyway. My mother is also very sick, and I've tried everything to get the medicine for her, but I've had no luck.

At 11/10/09 08:39 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If you get sick it does! And it bankrupts a lot of other people to. And having health insurance is making people poor as well. So, we're talking about both.

What's making people poor isn't that they're paying for insurance.

It's that they're paying for both Medicare, Medicaid, and their own Insurance.

They're getting stuck with 3 bills, two of which a lot of the time doesn't even cover them and they're forced to pay.

Along with a few other things, I just think it's kind of funny that the Government forces people to pay for other people's Health Care through their taxes, then blames the Insurance Companies for people not being able to afford their rates.

Do you really think that you can simplify my feelings for health care to just that one factor?
Because I'm telling you--

there is more.

That goes for anyone. I could reduce your stances against abortion, gay marriage, and etc and simply chuck it up to religion.

but that would be unfair because there are more than those factors going into your opinions. (though, your religious beliefs are tied to them.)

Be fair to me and don't reduce everything to one thing (and don't say it obnoxiously either .)

I'm willing to talk about illegal immigrants. It's definitely not a closed subject for me.
but at least come up with a paragraph, actually arguing for a point.

Although--
Like I said...
Health Care Reform doesn't include illegal immigrants.

or pick up the tab for abortions (unless it's a dire circumstance)

At 11/10/09 05:05 PM, fli wrote: Do you really think that you can simplify my feelings for health care to just that one factor?

No.

Because I'm telling you--

I even said it was a half-serious joke.

there is more.

I just find it ironic that someone who comes from an "illegal background" would bring up illegals being covered by other people's taxes. Taxes the illegals aren't paying.

I'm willing to talk about illegal immigrants. It's definitely not a closed subject for me.
but at least come up with a paragraph, actually arguing for a point.

There were several posts of that targeted to various individuals.

Although--
Like I said...
Health Care Reform doesn't include illegal immigrants.

It does when each state is restricted from identifying people as they come in to receive that Health Care.

Loopholes are fun.