Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/4/10 02:06 AM, TheThing wrote: it gives a subsidy to buy insurance to those who can't afford insurance, or you can pool your money with others.

Thats why it says "Sign up for MassHealth" while you are in the emergency room getting care already. Do you think the people that couldn't afford insurance last month will be able to afford it now? And do you think a healthcare provider will be able to turn someone away for any reason now? This is really an expansion of entitlements, which will cost the taxpayer much more. Whereas I have to pay for my own insurance because I have a decent job AND pay for someone elses to have insurance too.

I don't give a fuck about the moral debate, why should have to fund a subsidy for people's healthcare, food, and rent.

Open up state hospitals, food kitchens, and public housing for transitional purposes, but I don't agree with random money handouts - it is much more liable to abuse.

I'm not against welfare to those in despair, but the abuse is growing larger everyday. It is undeniable that if someone knows there is free money out there, they are going to collect, tell their friends, and the scheme will grow.

Of course, the way to combat that would be to hire more workers to thoroughly check all claims, but that could cost just as much.

WIC is abused, EBT money are abused, and section 8 public housing is abused. This brand new healthcare system will be too. All the while, neighborhoods are getting cleaned up, police are getting more money, and the "ghettos" are getting rennovated. I'd continue talking about the abuses by the people I know, but that proof doesn't really cut it. BUT, if you are an unemployed single alcoholic living with your mother, you are entitled in Massachusetts to a $200 on your EBT card every month

---

At 4/4/10 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/4/10 02:40 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/4/10 02:06 AM, TheThing wrote: The CBO even predicts that this will cut the deficit by $13 Billion a year

Can I see some proof

The number has been tossed around political talk shows. The only proof I'd show you would be no different than the proof you'd get by googling it.

The only way it reduces the deficit is because they scored what Congress sent them.

Well, yeah. I mean, the CBO can't do accounting on imaginary bills, or add in bills that may be germane and are on the docket.

Yeah, imaginary deficit reduction!

You could also say that there's a $15 Billion increase in defense spending (I made that up), so anything the healthcare bill saves is gone.

The numbers the CBO were on the bill being discussed - the Healthcare bill. So anything they say is what that particular bill (not any other bill) will do.

Logical thinking - you should try it some time.

At 4/4/10 10:17 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 4/4/10 02:06 AM, TheThing wrote: it gives a subsidy to buy insurance to those who can't afford insurance, or you can pool your money with others.

Thats why it says "Sign up for MassHealth" while you are in the emergency room getting care already.

So? The people are already paying for anyone who walks into an emergency room without a way to pay for it. Legally, doctors can't turn away anyone from the emergency room, and if the person can't pay, we do. So in reality, that system would reduce costs to some degree.

Do you think the people that couldn't afford insurance last month will be able to afford it now?

Well, no. Because those subsidies and insurance pooling parts of the bill don't take effect immediately. But when the government is paying a substantial part of the premiums, I imagine the people who couldn't afford it last month will be able to afford it when the system gets in place.

And do you think a healthcare provider will be able to turn someone away for any reason now?

So you're saying that we should make sure that the person with treatable cancer shouldn't get the ability to treat it? You're saying that pregnant women shouldn't get insurance because babies are "preexistanting conditions?"

This is really an expansion of entitlements, which will cost the taxpayer much more.

Yes it is, and no it won't. Most people (I believe the number is 26 million, although that may be slightly off) will be in the "insurance pool", meaning that very few people (~6 million) will be receiving the subsidies from the government. So there really won't be that much paid out. And with Medicare being cut $50 Billion a year, a lot of the costs are covered.

Whereas I have to pay for my own insurance because I have a decent job AND pay for someone elses to have insurance too.

You also pay for police protection right? How many times have you called the cops in your life? Personally, I don't think it's fair for me to have to pay for the policemen that somebody else uses. Same goes for the fire department. And I'm rarely ever in the library. I don't usually drive places, so I don't know why I have to pay for the roads, or why I have to pay for roads hundreds or thousands of miles away. I'm also in New Jersey - far away from anywhere Border Patrol works.

I could go on, but that would just be laboring the point; the point that we all pay for things we don't use ourselves.

I don't give a fuck about the moral debate

Um, that's what it is - whether it's moral to help somebody when they are in need by giving up your hard-earned money.

Open up state hospitals, food kitchens, and public housing for transitional purposes, but I don't agree with random money handouts - it is much more liable to abuse.

Look, even in the healthiest economies, there's still a certain percentage (goes between 2% and 4%) that are just unable to work. Mental or physical disability, severe social problems, or just unable to work and make a profit (transportation costs, etc). So your "transitional" social services would never work on these people.

I'm not against welfare to those in despair, but the abuse is growing larger everyday. It is undeniable that if someone knows there is free money out there, they are going to collect, tell their friends, and the scheme will grow.

Of course, the way to combat that would be to hire more workers to thoroughly check all claims, but that could cost just as much.

WIC is abused, EBT money are abused, and section 8 public housing is abused. This brand new healthcare system will be too.

Way to avoid my point. I understand that there's corruption. But there are 2 options - allow it to happen, or expand the workforce so that more care can go into each case to make sure it's legitimate. Both cost money, it just depends where it's going.

All the while, neighborhoods are getting cleaned up, police are getting more money, and the "ghettos" are getting rennovated.

And this is relevant because...?

---

At 4/4/10 11:59 PM, TheThing wrote:

At 4/4/10 10:17 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Thats why it says "Sign up for MassHealth" while you are in the emergency room getting care already.

So? The people are already paying for anyone who walks into an emergency room without a way to pay for it. Legally, doctors can't turn away anyone from the emergency room, and if the person can't pay, we do. So in reality, that system would reduce costs to some degree.

It would reduce costs because of pooling (remember, these people havent paid into MassHealth at all) or because they would receive worse care? Clarify.

subsidies and insurance pooling parts of the bill don't take effect immediately. But when the government is paying a substantial part of the premiums, I imagine the people who couldn't afford it last month will be able to afford it when the system gets in place.

The government paying for premiums how? With tax money? Of course. That money has to come from somewhere. I believe that is unjust, and part of the American Revolution is about fighting unjust taxation... which is inevitable with this bill.

And do you think a healthcare provider will be able to turn someone away for any reason now?

So you're saying that we should make sure that the person with treatable cancer shouldn't get the ability to treat it? You're saying that pregnant women shouldn't get insurance because babies are "preexistanting conditions?"

No... but obviously you don't recognize that fact that there is so much garbage in the bill was rushed in with all the common sense practical ideas for healthcare reform. I'm not saying "Lets do nothing for nobody", but to counter your examples let me give you one...

In the pursuit of happiness, a man decides to eat 30 big macs a day. In a year he become morbidly obese. He decides to walk into a hospital and demand treatment (since now healthcare is a 'right'). Is his obesity a "preexisting condition", or is the "preexisting condition" his overactive thryroid or a metabolic disease, or maybe a food addiction or mental illness? Explain to me why we should trust POLITIANS to define the boundries of disease and illness.

This is really an expansion of entitlements, which will cost the taxpayer much more.

Yes it is, and no it won't. Most people (I believe the number is 26 million, although that may be slightly off) will be in the "insurance pool", meaning that very few people (~6 million) will be receiving the subsidies from the government. So there really won't be that much paid out. And with Medicare being cut $50 Billion a year, a lot of the costs are covered.

These numbers really mean nothing, they are promotional. You'll find that much more that 26 million people can't afford health insurance even though some may already pay for it. You'll find that employers with decreasing revenues may not be able to afford health plans for many employees. And you'll also find that MUCH MORE than 6 million people will be receiving subsidies under this plan.

But alas, you won't find anywhere in the bill stating that these numbers are going to be available to the public so we can actually know the figures when they begin to skyrocket. This will be another secretive and non-transparent waste of money sinking us further and further into debt... but we're used to that by now, so we might as well pretend that the government's estimation is spot on, right?

And the Medicare savings ARE NOT the government's to play with. That is our money out of a direct payroll tax and we should have that tax cut if we are saving so many billions.

Whereas I have to pay for my own insurance because I have a decent job AND pay for someone elses to have insurance too.

You also pay for police protection right? How many times have you called the cops in your life? Personally, I don't think it's fair for me to have to pay for the policemen that somebody else uses. Same goes for the fire department. And I'm rarely ever in the library. I don't usually drive places, so I don't know why I have to pay for the roads, or why I have to pay for roads hundreds or thousands of miles away. I'm also in New Jersey - far away from anywhere Border Patrol works.

I could go on, but that would just be laboring the point; the point that we all pay for things we don't use ourselves.

Oh lets add another one onto the list, shall we? While we are at it, lets buy up the oil industry and regulate fuel prices, and then buy up the food industry and regulate food prices. What don't you think the government should control?

I don't give a fuck about the moral debate

Um, that's what it is - whether it's moral to help somebody when they are in need by giving up your hard-earned money.

Fuck that, I know people directly that need help financially but I myself cannot afford to help them out when budgeting and frugality have become a way of life since our last 'economic crisis'. You talk so idealistically about money, like you and Obama should be bed-buddies. And he himself would be in huge debt if he didn't get a huge book deal to pay off his student loans before he became president.

This isn't just a moral debate it is also a financial one as well.

Open up state hospitals, food kitchens, and public housing for transitional purposes, but I don't agree with random money handouts - it is much more liable to abuse.

Look, even in the healthiest economies, there's still a certain percentage (goes between 2% and 4%) that are just unable to work. Mental or physical disability, severe social problems, or just unable to work and make a profit (transportation costs, etc). So your "transitional" social services would never work on these people.

Im not saying "transitional" social services are for everyone.

Of course, the way to combat that would be to hire more workers to thoroughly check all claims, but that could cost just as much.

WIC is abused, EBT money are abused, and section 8 public housing is abused. This brand new healthcare system will be too.

Way to avoid my point.

No, I'm just ignoring that fact that you equate the cost of abuse to the cost of correcting the abuse, which is very inaccurate

All the while, neighborhoods are getting cleaned up, police are getting more money, and the "ghettos" are getting rennovated.

And this is relevant because...?

You are paying for it. That is if you are a taxpaying American citizen.

---

The forums need a goddamn spellcheck, I misspelled politicians in caps.

---

At 4/4/10 11:59 PM, TheThing wrote:

Oh hi

At 4/5/10 01:39 AM, Gunner-D wrote: The forums need a goddamn spellcheck, I misspelled politicians in caps.

Use firefox

---

At 4/5/10 01:35 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 4/4/10 11:59 PM, TheThing wrote: So? The people are already paying for anyone who walks into an emergency room without a way to pay for it. Legally, doctors can't turn away anyone from the emergency room, and if the person can't pay, we do. So in reality, that system would reduce costs to some degree.

It would reduce costs because of pooling (remember, these people havent paid into MassHealth at all) or because they would receive worse care? Clarify.

Because of pooling. Emergency room care is emergency room care. They check injuries first, not wallets.

subsidies and insurance pooling parts of the bill don't take effect immediately. But when the government is paying a substantial part of the premiums, I imagine the people who couldn't afford it last month will be able to afford it when the system gets in place.

The government paying for premiums how? With tax money?

Refer to my "we pay for what we don't use" argument.

I believe that is unjust, and part of the American Revolution is about fighting unjust taxation... which is inevitable with this bill.

As much as I love this country, and love the ideas the Constitution set in motion, the American Revolution was just a group of whiny bitches. Even though the Americans were British subjects, they were paying significantly less in taxes than those who were in England. And even after the Seven Years war, which was fought on American soil to protect Americans, the Colonists refused to pay for it.

Hell, the Tea Act lowered the taxes on British tea, to prevent smuggling.

So you're saying that we should make sure that the person with treatable cancer shouldn't get the ability to treat it? You're saying that pregnant women shouldn't get insurance because babies are "preexistanting conditions?"

No... but obviously you don't recognize that fact that there is so much garbage in the bill was rushed in with all the common sense practical ideas for healthcare reform.

Had your side said "hey, this is going to pass no matter what we do, so why don't we, instead of complaining about it, actually try to get some stuff we want in there. I mean, clearly there are a few on-the-fence Democrats who might agree with us", then maybe the garbage would have been taken out.

Explain to me why we should trust POLITIANS to define the boundries of disease and illness.

Tell me why we should trust greedy corporations who seek profit over helping people to decide where that boundary lies.

Preexisting condition was s term created by the health insurance industry to make it easier to turn people away. All the government is doing is saying "you can't deny somebody a policy because they came to you after they had a problem". The government isn't saying that the companies can't charge a high premium or whatever, but the person can't be turned away.

These numbers really mean nothing, they are promotional. You'll find that much more...

Do you have any proof? I mean, I can't dig up proof for my side, but the Democrat's talking point is that this bill will cover 32 million people who don't have insurance right now, and, like I said, the specifics on who's going into pools and getting subsidies are rough recollections.

Besides, who cares how many people pool? The government won't be paying much to run the pools, and they don't contribute into the pools at all. It's the subsidies that will cost the most, and based on the requirements of the bill, about 6 million will be receiving them.

But alas, you won't find anywhere in the bill stating that these numbers are going to be available to the public

Well yeah, the bill wouldn't state that. It's up to those in Congress to talk with the CBO to figure out those numbers, then relay them back to the public.

so we can actually know the figures when they begin to skyrocket.

They'll grow as the population does. In fact, subsidies may shrink (as a percentage of the population) in coming years, as the economy recovers and those people get jobs that may/may not have benefits. And with those subsidies going right to private industry, that will stimulate the kind of economic growth the Conservatives masturbate to.

This will be another secretive and non-transparent waste of money sinking us further and further into debt... but we're used to that by now, so we might as well pretend that the government's estimation is spot on, right?

Wow, somebody ate the cynical pill, and washed it down with some un-supported-fact juice in a impossible-to-predict-so-we'll-just-have -to-wait-and-see cup.

And the Medicare savings ARE NOT the government's to play with. That is our money out of a direct payroll tax and we should have that tax cut if we are saving so many billions.

Fine, you can have the money back on your paycheck. But don't be surprised if your income tax is raised. It's either you pay for it now, or you pay later. Or you don't see any deficit/debt reduction.

I could go on, but that would just be laboring the point; the point that we all pay for things we don't use ourselves.

Oh lets add another one onto the list, shall we? While we are at it, lets buy up the oil industry and regulate fuel prices, and then buy up the food industry and regulate food prices. What don't you think the government should control?

Alright, what the fuck are you talking about? The things I listed are common, everyday, accepted things that we pay for in taxes, whether we use them or not.

This idea that the government is taking over healthcare is ridiculous. All they are doing is paying for those who can't afford it, along with adding some consumer protections. They aren't regulating prices, they aren't taking over the companies.

Fuck that, I know people directly that need help financially but I myself cannot afford to help them out when budgeting and frugality have become a way of life since our last 'economic crisis'.

Can you clarify this, because what I'm reading is that, since people are cutting back and saving money, you can't afford to help people?

You talk so idealistically about money

No, I talk idealistically about people. I live in a world where people are retarded. They would rather donate $100 to a charity to help the poor than see a $50 increase in taxes to help the poor, and the government is probably more transparent than a lot of charities.

This isn't just a moral debate it is also a financial one as well.

I tied the 2 together. Would you give up $100 a month of your money to help someone in need? Morality and finances each play a role.

Im not saying "transitional" social services are for everyone.

But you are suggesting that America should replace continual services with temporary services, so they would have to be for everyone.

No, I'm just ignoring that fact that you equate the cost of abuse to the cost of correcting the abuse, which is very inaccurate

Look, I don't know how many more employees would be needed, which means that I don't know the cost of hiring the amount needed to curb the fraud, nor do I know the amount of fraud that goes on, which means I can't definitively say that hiring more people to combat false claims would save more money than just paying out the false claims. Either one could be cheaper, and they both have their own repercussions with the public.

You are paying for it. That is if you are a taxpaying American citizen.

Refer to my "we pay for what we don't use" argument.

At 4/5/10 02:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/4/10 11:59 PM, TheThing wrote:

Oh hi

It's going to be hard to say exactly what this bill will cost, especially since it's a work in progress, with things being added and subtracted all the time (and that was an argument from 2 months ago). Also, he doesn't take into account any reduction in costs this bill might have, so there could be savings there.

---

At 4/4/10 02:40 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/4/10 02:06 AM, TheThing wrote: The CBO even predicts that this will cut the deficit by $13 Billion a year

Can I see some proof

There needs to be no fucking American proof. The god damn concept of state assisted health care comes from places like Canada that have higher satisfaction rates and lower GDP spending in relation to health care. Proof that it reduces spending overall is evident, as with any socialistic concept: it is highly more efficient and intelligent than what is going on now.

The proof is everywhere, all around the world, just open your eyes and perhaps you can see the future of a communal system. Regardless of the scare tactics imposed, you are blind if you need "proof" for a system that works.

---

At 4/5/10 11:07 PM, TheThing wrote: the American Revolution was just a group of whiny bitches ... I live in a world where people are retarded ... Wow, somebody ate the cynical pill, and washed it down with some un-supported-fact juice in a impossible-to-predict-so-we'll-just-have -to-wait-and-see cup.

It is clear to me that you trust 'government', not referring solely to American democracy. When I ask "Why do you think we should have to pay for these things?", you respond, "Because we have to." I find cynicism to be one of my better attributes. And just to tell you, we are drinking from the same cup.

Do you have any proof? I mean, I can't dig up proof for my side

See what I mean?

---

At 4/5/10 11:29 PM, drDAK wrote: There needs to be no fucking American proof. The god damn concept of state assisted health care comes from places like Canada that have higher satisfaction rates and lower GDP spending in relation to health care.

Yeah because they RATION CARE. They say "yep, we're spending this much money on healthcare, anything above this amount gets cut off. Oh look we don't spend much LOL"
meanwhile Canadians have to have a raffle system to determine who gets a doctors appointment this week.

The proof is everywhere, all around the world, just open your eyes and perhaps you can see the future of a communal system. Regardless of the scare tactics imposed, you are blind if you need "proof" for a system that works.

He said that the congressional budget office made a claim about the finance involved with the health bill so I fucking wanted him to show me where the CBO ITSELF said this.
Retard

---

At 4/6/10 04:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:.

meanwhile Canadians have to have a raffle system to determine who gets a doctors appointment this week.

this shows your ignorance on the subject or you were trying to be funny either way it shows your bias.

---

At 4/6/10 01:41 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 4/5/10 11:07 PM, TheThing wrote: the American Revolution was just a group of whiny bitches ... I live in a world where people are retarded ... Wow, somebody ate the cynical pill, and washed it down with some un-supported-fact juice in a impossible-to-predict-so-we'll-just-have -to-wait-and-see cup.

It is clear to me that you trust 'government', not referring solely to American democracy. When I ask "Why do you think we should have to pay for these things?", you respond, "Because we have to." I find cynicism to be one of my better attributes. And just to tell you, we are drinking from the same cup.

I'm cynical about people in general, not government. I believe, for the most part, that the more competent people are in Washington, making decisions. I don't trust Joe Six Pack to understand and assess a complex political situation, then create a comprehensive plan to fix it and prevent future problems, all while taking into consideration the possible outcomes such a plan would have on the political and social landscapes of America.

Do you have any proof? I mean, I can't dig up proof for my side

See what I mean?

It was an unfinished thought that I thought was finished. The numbers are out there, I just don't have the pages bookmarked. Anything I find will be what you find using Google, so if you want to fact check me, go ahead. I already gave my disclaimer that the numbers were rough estimates of what I remembered.

At 4/6/10 04:44 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/5/10 11:29 PM, drDAK wrote:

Yeah because they RATION CARE. They say "yep, we're spending this much money on healthcare, anything above this amount gets cut off. Oh look we don't spend much LOL"

First off, you should trust him; he's a doctor.

And secondly, wow, I understand this is the internet, but I thought that the Newgrounds forum wouldn't be so full supported, highly untrue facts.

Yes, there are long delays for surgeries and similar procedures, but A) you don't pay for it, and B) illnesses and diseases are caught much earlier, since you go to the doctor every month, rather than whenever you need a physical or something feels wrong.

That's another problem Americans have - we wait until it's too late before seeing the doctor. We'd be a lot healthier if we had monthly visits, but many can't afford that, so they only go when they feel really bad.

meanwhile Canadians have to have a raffle system to determine who gets a doctors appointment this week.

Unlike in America, where you need to win the lottery to get a doctor's appointment.

He said that the congressional budget office made a claim about the finance involved with the health bill so I fucking wanted him to show me where the CBO ITSELF said this.

Fact check me. My numbers and facts aren't coming from my ass (unlike your's). Hell, the numbers I'm giving are being said on Fox News (since I do tune in from time to time). The only numbers I'm not sure of are the amount get subsidies and the subsequent amount going into the pools.

Retard

Ad hominid attacks never make you look intelligent, or at the very least like your side is the correct one.

---

At 4/6/10 09:44 PM, TheThing wrote: That's another problem Americans have - we wait until it's too late before seeing the doctor. We'd be a lot healthier if we had monthly visits, but many can't afford that, so they only go when they feel really bad.

You really are an idealist, and I admire that. But have you ever thought that maybe procrastination and poverty aren't the main reasons why people don't schedule monthly doctor visits? Maybe people just don't want to be 'healthy', or only have a desire to be 'healthy' some of the time.

Sometimes I think that the desire for instant gratification i.e. a drag of the cigarette / the next big mac / loungin instead of activity, outweigh a person's desire for health. I'm pretty sure in all the healthcare debate, Obama did not bring up the fact that our society is diseased with companies that profit from sapping our health.

---

At 4/7/10 09:01 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Maybe people just don't want to be 'healthy', or only have a desire to be 'healthy' some of the time. Sometimes I think that the desire for instant gratification i.e. a drag of the cigarette / the next big mac / loungin instead of activity, outweigh a person's desire for health.

You may be right there for some people, but I'm talking about things like cancer and diabetes, or even high blood pressure. Monthly visits will greatly increase the chances that those are found earlier, and prevented/treated effectively.

Besides, a little indulgence in moderation doesn't hurt. But when you over do it, that's when it becomes dangerous. And who knows, maybe monthly doctor visits will change a person's outlook on taking another Big Mac.

I'm pretty sure in all the healthcare debate, Obama did not bring up the fact that our society is diseased with companies that profit from sapping our health.

Because that's a stupid argument. Other nations that have fast food and other unhealthy restaurants are still pretty skinny, both with and without socialized medicine. Which means it's the American lifestyle that's the problem, and maybe with this new bill that includes the clause for preventative medicine, we'll change that enough to become more fit.

---

At 4/7/10 10:56 PM, TheThing wrote:

At 4/7/10 09:01 AM, Gunner-D wrote: I'm pretty sure in all the healthcare debate, Obama did not bring up the fact that our society is diseased with companies that profit from sapping our health.

Because that's a stupid argument. Other nations that have fast food and other unhealthy restaurants are still pretty skinny

I'm not talking exclusively about obesity. There are many unhealthy industries in this country. Maybe the government should do their best to regulate those industries in order to make us healthier. Because after all, shouldn't that be the purpose of a healthcare bill? To make Americans healthier?

I'm pretty sure I must be 'uninformed', because I thought it was the government's job to protect us from those who want to do harm to us. You could argue all day that the greedy insurance companies are trying to do harm to us by raising premiums and make incredible profits from it (which I've yet to see any facts to show that higher premiums are the result of corporate greed), but in the end, you'd have to blame the doctor for having such a high salary, or the nurse for working overtime. Someone you could blame are the unions for such escalating healthcare costs, but lets face it, no Democrat is going to get on the bad side of the unions.

Insurance companies assess risk, and charge accordingly. And according to your numbers, there are tens of millions of people who cannot afford health insurance today. You argue that government should aggregate these people and create a pool of customers that would create, in essense, a health insurance company for low income people. Fair enough.

But if this was actually affordable in our free market society, wouldn't you think some entrepreneur would have seized this multi-million client market, even if the profits were less-than-enornmous? IMO yes.

So, without constantly repeating points about entitlements/subsidizes/increased taxation, why does government involvement in this issue (supplying low income Americans with affordable health insurance) make it affordable?

And to address the Medicare cuts, where is that money coming from (without dumping benefits, as the President said he wouldn't)? You can't expect corporations to be forced into an extreme tax burden without transferring the costs onto us. And without an extreme amount of expenses into bureaucracy, you can't take 50 billion dollars a year out of nowhere.

If you have any idea how government is going to cut 50 billion in Medicare a year, you let me know.

maybe with this new bill that includes the clause for preventative medicine, we'll change that enough to become more fit.

Nice. Do you think they could prescribe me a pill that would prevent me from criticizing the government?

---

It seems the mods don't like the fact that the bill helps child molesters so much they had to delete the topic I made about it.

This isn't a bill anymore, it's a law.

---

At 4/7/10 11:55 PM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 4/7/10 10:56 PM, TheThing wrote:

At 4/7/10 09:01 AM, Gunner-D wrote: I'm pretty sure in all the healthcare debate, Obama did not bring up the fact that our society is diseased with companies that profit from sapping our health.

Because that's a stupid argument. Other nations that have fast food and other unhealthy restaurants are still pretty skinny

I'm not talking exclusively about obesity. There are many unhealthy industries in this country.

There are plenty of other countries that smoke more, and drink more than Americans, but are still much healthier overall than us.

Maybe the government should do their best to regulate those industries in order to make us healthier.

There aren't too many more regulations the government can put on the industries. It's up to the people to change their lives at this point.

You could argue all day that the greedy insurance companies are trying to do harm to us by raising premiums and make incredible profits from it (which I've yet to see any facts to show that higher premiums are the result of corporate greed),

In California, Wellpoint wanted to raise premiums 40%, even though they made a multi-Billion dollar profit in the last quarter alone. You're telling me that because of a smaller pool of customers, they couldn't dip into their profits a little bit and not raise rates so drastically?

Other companies around the country have done similar things, raising rates up to 20%-30%, far above cost of living increases and the loss of customers, even after posting massive profits.

but in the end, you'd have to blame the doctor for having such a high salary, or the nurse for working overtime.

Or the cost of their malpractice insurance, to some degree, also contributes to the rise in salaries/costs.

Someone you could blame are the unions for such escalating healthcare costs, but lets face it, no Democrat is going to get on the bad side of the unions.

I'll give you that, but there isn't going to be a Republican who is going to get on the bad side of corporations, either.

Insurance companies assess risk, and charge accordingly.

And there are people who are perfectly healthy, and low risk, but still can't afford insurance.

And according to your numbers, there are tens of millions of people who cannot afford health insurance today. You argue that government should aggregate these people and create a pool of customers that would create, in essense, a health insurance company for low income people. Fair enough.

Well, not so much an insurance company. The pooling basically allows this relatively large group of customers the ability to negotiate lower rates. In return for charging less, the company is guaranteed that many customers.

But if this was actually affordable in our free market society, wouldn't you think some entrepreneur would have seized this multi-million client market, even if the profits were less-than-enornmous? IMO yes.

There basically isn't going to be a profit in this. Since the government is the one setting up and running these pools, taxes will pay for the person(s) in charge. Otherwise, the fee attached to the running the pool would be too much, and the customers might as well just pay for the regular insurance.

why does government involvement in this issue (supplying low income Americans with affordable health insurance) make it affordable?

Answered above. They would remove the fees associated with running the pools, and instead spread that cost over every American, rather than just the few who are buying into the pools.

And to address the Medicare cuts, where is that money coming from (without dumping benefits, as the President said he wouldn't)? You can't expect corporations to be forced into an extreme tax burden without transferring the costs onto us. And without an extreme amount of expenses into bureaucracy, you can't take 50 billion dollars a year out of nowhere.

Yes you can, or at least a lot of money. You see, for the past 10 years, the government has given both a subsidy and a tax break to companies under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. I can't remember which, but the government is taking either the subsidy or the tax break away. This will save the government Billions. It was on the news probably a week ago about how huge companies will be losing a few hundred Million because of this. Of course, I don't know how they survived before the drug plan if they are complaining that much.

I'm not sure yet if doing this will cut all of the proposed $50 Billion a year, but I'm sure it takes a huge step to getting there.

maybe with this new bill that includes the clause for preventative medicine, we'll change that enough to become more fit.

Nice. Do you think they could prescribe me a pill that would prevent me from criticizing the government?

Actually yeah, and it only takes 1 pill - cyanide

NOTE - don't take this as me wanting you to die. I'm only saying that the only way to prevent you from criticizing the government would be for you to die

---

At 4/8/10 07:56 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: It seems the mods don't like the fact that the bill helps child molesters so much they had to delete the topic I made about it.

This isn't a bill anymore, it's a law.

Why don't you just take what your OP was an put it up here, in the healthcare bill thread.

---

At 4/8/10 09:30 PM, TheThing wrote: There are plenty of other countries that smoke more, and drink more than Americans, but are still much healthier overall than us.
There aren't too many more regulations the government can put on the industries. It's up to the people to change their lives at this point.

I don't know where you get your facts about these undefined other nations, but lets say they consume more cholesterol, more sodium, and saturated fat, and we'll see if they 'healthier' overall than us.

I agree with you that it is up to people to change, however, you talk about giving low-income people access to better healthcare.. yet they are the ones who have the least amount of choice when it comes to the quality of food they can purchase. And do you think access to a doctor is going to make these people be able to afford organic foods (even if they wanted to, or were educated enough to make that choice)? Or is their choice still going to be the high preservative, high fat, in-the-can stuff?

Not to mention the government generates huges revenue off of our unhealthy habits and vices, do you really think this is about the wellbeing of the poor? Or is this access to healthcare just another way the govt can say "We're making your all equal one step at a time"?

In California, Wellpoint wanted to raise premiums 40%, even though they made a multi-Billion dollar profit in the last quarter alone. You're telling me that because of a smaller pool of customers, they couldn't dip into their profits a little bit and not raise rates so drastically?

Other companies around the country have done similar things, raising rates up to 20%-30%, far above cost of living increases and the loss of customers, even after posting massive profits.

Even though rates have been raising for years, you don't think it has anything to do with speculation into the government's plan to introduce new taxes for the goods and services these insurance companies provide (which is now law)?

Without so much government intervention, wouldn't you think the free market would take care of this? If there was a product that was too expensive for the demand, someone is going to offer one relatively the same at an affordable rate. But government favors certain companies, contracts to certain companies, and subsidizes certain companies... most likely the same companies that are running up premiums and making those profits.

Insurance companies assess risk, and charge accordingly.

And there are people who are perfectly healthy, and low risk, but still can't afford insurance.

Then, in reality, those people need to do some better shopping for health plans. They don't need the same coverage as a 50 year old handicapped obese man or a 90 year old tube fed woman.

There basically isn't going to be a profit in this. Since the government is the one setting up and running these pools, taxes will pay for the person(s) in charge. Otherwise, the fee attached to the running the pool would be too much, and the customers might as well just pay for the regular insurance.
They would remove the fees associated with running the pools, and instead spread that cost over every American, rather than just the few who are buying into the pools.

We'll see how successful the government is at administering this program at a low cost to us all. Obviously you can tell I am against my money being used for the government to waste, which it will be mostly wasted.

Yes you can, or at least a lot of money. You see, for the past 10 years, the government has given both a subsidy and a tax break to companies under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. I can't remember which, but the government is taking either the subsidy or the tax break away. This will save the government Billions. It was on the news probably a week ago about how huge companies will be losing a few hundred Million because of this. Of course, I don't know how they survived before the drug plan if they are complaining that much.

Hence high premiums and profits, I suppose. And don't worry, these companies will pass the costs onto the future clients. The savings won't come from NOWHERE, they come from US.

Actually yeah, and it only takes 1 pill - cyanide

Euthanasia is illegal, and obviously you know little of the advances of psychiatric medicine.

NOTE - There is nothing you or I could do about this bill anymore, the debate is over, and your side won. However, I'm still willing to argue about how bankrupt the US is and how we can't afford new entitlements, let alone the old ones.

---

At 4/6/10 09:44 PM, TheThing wrote: And secondly, wow, I understand this is the internet, but I thought that the Newgrounds forum wouldn't be so full supported, highly untrue facts.
Yes, there are long delays for surgeries and similar procedures, but A) you don't pay for it,

I guess taxes don't exist

and B) illnesses and diseases are caught much earlier, since you go to the doctor every month,

wait...so there's longer waits and yet you go to the doctor more often? Even though its extremely hard to get a doctor's appointment? COOL

rather than whenever you need a physical or something feels wrong.
That's another problem Americans have - we wait until it's too late before seeing the doctor.

It's in the insurance companies best interests to put you through as many tests etc to catch your diesease earleir on because it will be cheaper for them to treat. duh.

i mean the MRI to paitent ratio of America is FAR greater than Canada.

I think you're the one pulling facts out of your arse.

Unlike in America, where you need to win the lottery to get a doctor's appointment.

What you actually just said: "I'm a dumbass because I don't know that the AMA lobbied the state to restrict the supply of doctors, which is why doctors per-capita has shrunk since 1960 and since demand for medical services are inelastic the price has skyrocketed. "

Fact check me. My numbers and facts aren't coming from my ass (unlike your's). Hell, the numbers I'm giving are being said on Fox News (since I do tune in from time to time). The only numbers I'm not sure of are the amount get subsidies and the subsequent amount going into the pools.

1. You didn't post any proof.

2. the validity of your claim was not why I got all bold and underliney. The fact that he said I should "just open your eyes and look at the world" (WTF LOL) for proof, despite the fact that the proof I wanted came from a specific source, the CBO, IS why.

Ad hominid attacks never make you look intelligent, or at the very least like your side is the correct one.

Have you actually read this guys posts? He's nuts.

---

At 4/6/10 08:11 AM, thedo12 wrote: this shows your ignorance on the subject or you were trying to be funny either way it shows your bias.

I'm obviously not saying this is the basis of canadian health care but i wasn't just pulling it out my ass

John Stossel - Sick in America

Here is another example of getting doctors in Canada, albeit an extremely biased and 'trying to be funny' example.

---

At 4/9/10 10:30 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

John Stossel - Sick in America

I didn't watch the whole thing but there first example of showing how free give aways create long wait times because of larger demand is only really true when it's a limited deal. Its the same principles that business use when putting on "limited time sales" and such of course these are going to create long wait times in short intervals.

This is not to say that destroying that point destroy's there whole argument , just that these things are full of false arguments that appear strong on superfical level.

Here is another example of getting doctors in Canada, albeit an extremely biased and 'trying to be funny' example.

Yeah im sure you could find anecdotal evidence for both sides of the argument , neither of which show which method is better. And there's stuff near the end of the video that just factualy wrong.

Not to say that Canadas healthcare system isn't severely flawed , just that it's better then leaving it all to privatization . Although if healthcare costs in the u.s. were cheaper and more I might just lean to the other side.

---

It's not a fight of Coverage v. Prosperity; It's a fight of Republican v. Democrat.

The Republicans give hell because the Democrats proposed it.
It would be COMPLETELY flip-side if a Republican Administration proposed it.

Also, like hell the Insurance Companies are going to go down without a fight.

But basically, this is good for me. My parents are unemployed and too old for anyone to hire them, we're living on the edge and we had no insurance. So I can see why it looks so promising to me.

---

At 4/9/10 04:10 PM, thedo12 wrote: I didn't watch the whole thing but there first example of showing how free give aways create long wait times because of larger demand is only really true when it's a limited deal. Its the same principles that business use when putting on "limited time sales" and such of course these are going to create long wait times in short intervals.

...and yet there are ridiculously long wait times for Canadian healthcare?

I mean how can you argue with the fact that if something is free, demand will increase?

This is not to say that destroying that point destroy's there whole argument , just that these things are full of false arguments that appear strong on superfical level.

nah

just that it's better then leaving it all to privatization .

no no no no

the problem isn't privatisation. On the contrary.

If there was a legitimate free market in health insurance, prices would be much lower and companies would struggle to have such strict existing condition policies.

Instead, government interferes and screws things up, like preventing insurance from being sold across state lines etc

also they do things like artificially restricting the number of doctors there are, which results in a shortage of doctors and hence higher pricces

---

At 4/9/10 04:18 PM, igott wrote: The Republicans give hell because the Democrats proposed it.
It would be COMPLETELY flip-side if a Republican Administration proposed it.

Kind of a meaningless thing to say because:

1. republicans wouldnt propose it
2. If they did propose it, they wouldn't oppose it...?

Also, like hell the Insurance Companies are going to go down without a fight.

The small ones will be too weak to do anything and a lot of them will probably close (eventually), the large ones will make all kinds of sweetheart deals and use political pull to actually make this benefit them.

But basically, this is good for me.

The government giving me a bunch of money for nothing would be good for me but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

---

Hate to say it...

But the military will cover my healthcare. So, why should I care?

---

At 4/10/10 03:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/9/10 04:18 PM, igott wrote: The Republicans give hell because the Democrats proposed it.
It would be COMPLETELY flip-side if a Republican Administration proposed it.

Kind of a meaningless thing to say because:

1. republicans wouldnt propose it
2. If they did propose it, they wouldn't oppose it...?

Probably. Republicans originally wanted to end all federal government involvement in education, then you had the no child left behind act. Republicans originally wanted to devolve the entitlement system, but then you have Obama care and the Republicans become the staunch defenders of medicare.

If the US government lasts long enough, i can imagine an Establishment Republican party defending Obama care when the free market is blamed for the old plan's failings and finally a single payer system is introduced.

Also, like hell the Insurance Companies are going to go down without a fight.

The small ones will be too weak to do anything and a lot of them will probably close (eventually), the large ones will make all kinds of sweetheart deals and use political pull to actually make this benefit them.

But basically, this is good for me.

The government giving me a bunch of money for nothing would be good for me but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

---

At 4/10/10 03:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: no no no no

the problem isn't privatisation. On the contrary.

If there was a legitimate free market in health insurance, prices would be much lower and companies would struggle to have such strict existing condition policies.

Instead, government interferes and screws things up, like preventing insurance from being sold across state lines etc

also they do things like artificially restricting the number of doctors there are, which results in a shortage of doctors and hence higher pricces

ok this is what you need to prove in order to convince me that pure capitalism will lead to lower prices, better care ect:

The only way really you could prove this is by going to countrys with mostly captialized healthcare (most of which are 3rd world countrys in africa) and showing that it has a better system. Or doing a small scale experiment where you pick random farmers , doctors , business ect: and get them to create a "libertarian utopia" and then record health care prices , polices , and care over the period of 10-25 years. Of course you couldn't let them know what the true purpose of the study was.

---

At 4/10/10 09:55 AM, thedo12 wrote:

At 4/10/10 03:34 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: no no no no

The only way really you could prove this is by going to countrys with mostly captialized healthcare (most of which are 3rd world countrys in africa) and showing that it has a better system. Or doing a small scale experiment where you pick random farmers , doctors , business ect: and get them to create a "libertarian utopia" and then record health care prices , polices , and care over the period of 10-25 years. Of course you couldn't let them know what the true purpose of the study was.

What is it with people thinking that Africa is this incredibly free country. There's a difference between stability and statism.

Second, You have to disassociate correlation with causation and likewise remember cause and effect are often times separated from one another in terms of time. the Obamacare plan does not take effect until '14, and the effects of Obama care will probably not show themselves until a year or two afterward.

If you're driving in a car A and you shoot the wheels, the car will keep rolling for a period of time. If you're revving up the engines of a car and you haven't even gotten into car B it would be fallacious to say that the reason the car isn't going as fast as car A is because you didn't shoot the wheels. A third world country could implement a national health care service but due to it's lack of productive capacity it's health care system would very likely be inferior to a developed countries health care, also it still begs the question of whether the enormous government expenditures needed to cover every citizen comes at the cost of ever becoming a developed country, developed countries can barely afford their universal coverage, so what hope does a third world country have of getting the same quantity and quality with a smaller productive capacity and [very likely] a larger population to boot.

Cuba apparently has a great Health care system (Though i am skeptical of this for a number of reasons that I won't bore you with unless you ask), the question is, in light of marginal utility, are Cuba's resources being used to their most valuable purposes? Probably not. Theoretically a country could invest 100% of it's productive capacity into nothing but Healthcare, but at what cost?

Third, I would kill for the US government to allow a bunch of people to secede and create their own rules on Health care. The problem is that in order for regulations intended to raise prices to be effective, you necessarily have to make the monopolistic. What makes the AMA's monopoly on medical licensing effective is that there is no way to opt out of it.

If you want to make a judgment about Health care, The only Emprical assessment that i think is necessary is simply to look at the fact that Government spending on Health care has skyrocketed with nothing to show for it, it's a general rule that when the Government spends more money on something, the quantity and quality remain the same or fall. (College Education, Public Education, Health care, Energy, etc.)

Relative to other Countries the united states had a superior health care system prior to the introduction of the AMA monopoly, medicare, medicaid, FDA, etc.

And what allows countries with a single payer system to appear more efficient in that they are spending less money on Health care is the rationing. If the government refuses to spend up to a certain point, and simply have those that need health care wait for it. The UK has been particularly cute and claimed that the waiting lines have been cut by refusing to put them on the lines.

And by Cute i mean, Portal Weighted Companion cube cute.

Not having a single payer system does not make a nation's health care system doesn't make your Health system free by any standard. And that the advocates for more state control of Healthcare can only shrug upon the inquiry as to why the removal of the various laws and regulations couldn't possibly have any effect on the price or quantity or quality of healthcare is a gauge on their intellectual bankrupcy.

---

At 4/9/10 09:02 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 4/8/10 09:30 PM, TheThing wrote: There are plenty of other countries that smoke more, and drink more than Americans, but are still much healthier overall than us.

I don't know where you get your facts about these undefined other nations, but lets say they consume more cholesterol, more sodium, and saturated fat, and we'll see if they 'healthier' overall than us.

Like I said, there are plenty of countries that don't consume more cholesterol, sodium and saturated fat. It's common knowledge that most Europeans are overall healthier than Americans, and they have fast, cheap food that is fattening, just like we do.

you talk about giving low-income people access to better healthcare..

Not really. There are people making $40,000 a year who can't afford insurance. Granted, that isn't a lot, but it sure isn't what many would consider "low-income".

yet they are the ones who have the least amount of choice when it comes to the quality of food they can purchase.

I'll give you that. But as you said earlier, fat, high cholesterol, etc., isn't the only thing people go to the doctor to fix, or can be prevented by changing your diet (family history, etc.)

Or is their choice still going to be the high preservative, high fat, in-the-can stuff?

Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but maybe they'll start to think twice about eating McDonald's 4 times a day. A lot of those people just don't know, and a Doctor's visit can change that.

Not to mention the government generates huges revenue off of our unhealthy habits and vices,

I get smoking and gambling, but how is being fat or catching an STD from a hooker generate profit for the government?

Even though rates have been raising for years, you don't think it has anything to do with speculation into the government's plan to introduce new taxes for the goods and services these insurance companies provide (which is now law)?

Those taxes are only on the most expensive plans. And like I said earlier, they are getting 32 million new customers.

Without so much government intervention, wouldn't you think the free market would take care of this? If there was a product that was too expensive for the demand, someone is going to offer one relatively the same at an affordable rate.

Doesn't work like that. In most states, 1 insurance company has most of the policies. Whether they're the cheapest or not doesn't matter; it's what doctors will accept that insurance. The bigger the company, the more likely a doctor will accept the insurance. So another company may be more affordable, but the doctors in your area may only plans from other companies with more expensive plans.

But government favors certain companies, contracts to certain companies, and subsidizes certain companies

To be honest, I don't think the government is really doing any of that with the insurance companies. Construction or military companies, yes, but not insurance.

Then, in reality, those people need to do some better shopping for health plans. They don't need the same coverage as a 50 year old handicapped obese man or a 90 year old tube fed woman.

Refer to my monopoly argument.

We'll see how successful the government is at administering this program at a low cost to us all. Obviously you can tell I am against my money being used for the government to waste, which it will be mostly wasted.

Almost all government programs have significantly lower administration costs than competing private companies. For example, the Post Office runs at about 10% administration cost, while FedEx runs at about 30%.

Hence high premiums and profits, I suppose. And don't worry, these companies will pass the costs onto the future clients. The savings won't come from NOWHERE, they come from US.

They would (in most cases) be idiotic to do that. For example, I almost laugh every time I see a "don't raise energy taxes because they'll pass the cost to us" commercial. Remember what happened when gas was $4.00+ a gallon? People drove less, and car companies made a fortune on fuel efficient cars. In the long run, gas companies will lose more per year then they gained at the time.

Euthanasia is illegal, and obviously you know little of the advances of psychiatric medicine.

As I said, it was only a joke. You'll never stop criticizing the government until you're dead, whether on other medication or not.

NOTE - There is nothing you or I could do about this bill anymore, the debate is over, and your side won. However, I'm still willing to argue about how bankrupt the US is and how we can't afford new entitlements, let alone the old ones.

I understand that, and I thought we were already debating about whether or not we can afford the bill. I mean, if people really don't want it, and the Republicans win Congress (which they won't), they just won't fund the bill.

To elaborate on my prediction, Republicans will make the Senate 54-46 (+ or - 1) in favor of Democrats, and in the House, depending on how many seats are open, will go something like 235-200 in favor of Democrats.

---

At 4/11/10 01:29 AM, TheThing wrote: Like I said, there are plenty of countries that don't consume more cholesterol, sodium and saturated fat.

You didn't say that.

Not really. There are people making $40,000 a year who can't afford insurance. Granted, that isn't a lot, but it sure isn't what many would consider "low-income".

I don't make more than 40k a year and I pay full price for health insurance.

I'll give you that. But as you said earlier, fat, high cholesterol, etc., isn't the only thing people go to the doctor to fix, or can be prevented by changing your diet (family history, etc.)

Ok, I'll give that to you too. Genetic predisposition is a fact. One may get cancer/disease at an early age. It has a lot to do with lifestyle (which you state as an individual responsibility). But a doctor's visit does help. Have you ever heard of free clinics or other forms of pro bono healthcare? Maybe the government should help those good and charitable doctors? Nope. Just the hacks willing to take a cut rate with this "new","afforable", low income health insurance.

They'll stick a sign outside their office, like the one I drove by today that said "Accepting Mass Health", except it will say "Accepting National Health". More low quality health service providers.

Maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but maybe they'll start to think twice about eating McDonald's 4 times a day. A lot of those people just don't know, and a Doctor's visit can change that.

If they eat McDonalds four times a day, they aren't poor. I feed 140 people for under 5 dollars each daily. Even the dollar menu couldn't beat that.

I get smoking and gambling, but how is being fat or catching an STD from a hooker generate profit for the government?

McDonalds pays taxes generated from those 4 meals a day. How about getting an STD from a tramp you met drinking at a bar? The govt made a profit off of the drink you bought that impared your judgement. Stupid example.

Those taxes are only on the most expensive plans. And like I said earlier, they are getting 32 million new customers.

Which, you say, my taxes help pay for. And I don't want to help pay for those 32 million new plans.

But government favors certain companies, contracts to certain companies, and subsidizes certain companies

To be honest, I don't think the government is really doing any of that with the insurance companies.

Don't be ignorant. UMASS Memorial, a private company. Look it up. Ultra-subsidized by the state. One of the largest employers in my region. They offer ONE insurance company to their employees. Is that not favoritism?

Almost all government programs have significantly lower administration costs than competing private companies. For example, the Post Office runs at about 10% administration cost, while FedEx runs at about 30%.

According to your argument, FedEx should be out of business. But behold, they must offer a better service (or at least a more convincing brand).

Remember what happened when gas was $4.00+ a gallon? People drove less, and car companies made a fortune on fuel efficient cars. In the long run, gas companies will lose more per year then they gained at the time.

Bad example. I remember specifically the summer of 08. And I remember the big economic crisis occuring those same months. You can't make this claim without acknowledging the BIG picture.

You'll never stop criticizing the government until you're dead, whether on other medication or not.

You'll probably defend it til your dead, whether you get elected to office or not.

To elaborate on my prediction, Republicans will make the Senate 54-46 (+ or - 1) in favor of Democrats, and in the House, depending on how many seats are open, will go something like 235-200 in favor of Democrats.

Wow, party predictions. How do you independent candidates will do? I hope better than you will predict.