Health Care

**C0FFINCASE** · 22 Mar. 2010 01:14pm

So how do you feel about this reform? We'll be the ones paying for it all.

Last night health care reform is well on its way to being passed.

Some prominent issues to consider:

Votes were obtained behind close doors via arm twisting and deals.

The current version of the bill was not read by any one, it was printed only 72 hours ago today.

People begin paying taxes now but see no results for two years.

Medicare and Medicaid will be expanded to include most people while its budget is cut.

The bill included several things that don't have any thing to do with health care and since no one got to read it before the vote who knows what we just agreed to, i.e. Student Loans were taken over by the government and now if you have a loan you'll be charged a ton of money yo pay for health care.

Taxes are about to go up, particularly the income tax.

The taxes to pay for this bill will cut the deficit by 100 billion dollars, but only after adding 940 billion dollars to that. And it only after if we cut the medicare and medicaid and pay doctors less.

Their is an obvious opposition to the bill that was ignored.

38 states have declared the bill unconstitutional and are banding together and taking this to court to get it repealed.

**Raivu** · 22 Mar. 2010 01:17pm

ok. I'm on Medicare and I know nothing about any of this.

What changes are going to happen to my healthcare?

**C0FFINCASE** · 22 Mar. 2010 04:34pm

Originally Posted by Raivu

ok. I'm on Medicare and I know nothing about any of this.

What changes are going to happen to my healthcare?

You're about to get less care so someone else can get that same care and you're going to have to wait to wait for a few years to see a doctor. If you are on medicine you're going to most likely face a shortage once the programs kick in and then you may have less given to you despite needs. Also your medical needs will be evaluated on a cost effectiveness basis, ie if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die, but they won't take away that health care plan or the taxes that go along with you.

**Raivu** · 22 Mar. 2010 07:53pm

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

You're about to get less care so someone else can get that same care and you're going to have to wait to wait for a few years to see a doctor. If you are on medicine you're going to most likely face a shortage once the programs kick in and then you may have less given to you despite needs. Also your medical needs will be evaluated on a cost effectiveness basis, ie if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die, but they won't take away that health care plan or the taxes that go along with you.

yeah, fuck that. *flips a table*

22 Mar. 2010 10:08pm

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

You're about to get less care so someone else can get that same care and you're going to have to wait to wait for a few years to see a doctor. If you are on medicine you're going to most likely face a shortage once the programs kick in and then you may have less given to you despite needs. Also your medical needs will be evaluated on a cost effectiveness basis, ie if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die, but they won't take away that health care plan or the taxes that go along with you.

It'd be more appropriate if you didn't lie to scare the kid.
The time to see a doctor is not possibly calculable, and "years" is simply absurd. If you want to compare it to countries that actually have a similar health care system, it will be weeks at the most, depending on the disease.
A shortage of medicine is retarded. Medication can be mass produced, fast. If we kept the same amounts of medication that we have now, there would be a shortage. Obviously companies that produce said medicine are going to produce more. It would be retarded for them not to, since it would make them more money to do it. "Every day, 100 people want to buy my product. But I choose to only make 10 so that the other 90 face a shortage." Sure thing.
It's always cheaper to die, so don't give that BS. Moreso, doctors will be encouraged to prescribe you what you need, not what will make them the most money. Thusly, you'll get better medication at a cheaper cost per person (that would otherwise be able to afford it) than the capitalist system.
And ironically enough, you say "if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die" as if it's a bad thing (and it is), but support the alternative of "if you can't afford treatment, you die" as if it's so drastically different.

**CL0V3R** · 22 Mar. 2010 11:04pm

Honestly Coffincase I'd agree with you more if your argument wasn't based on moral vs fact. This is america, there has always been underhanded deals to make things pass, so don't act like this is anything new. The main part of your argument I can't agree with is your are giving a lot of misinformation with your scare tactics like your comment towards Raivu. Part of me wonders if you actually understand the bill or are just one of those people who's watched zeitgeist one too many times.

The break down from my personal understanding is the following:

*More people will be eligible for Medicaid.
*There will be less money put into medicaid initially but there will be more taxes on families/people who make over 200-250k$ Income bracket. Part of that taxes is going to fund medicaid.
*People who before couldn't get insurance now can't be rejected due to various health problems when that part come into effect.
*Companies with over 50 employees will be forced to give their workers insurance or face a 2k fine.
*You will be eventually forced to get insurance by 2014.

Here is a link of the break down of the bill if anyone is interested:
When health care bill's provisions would take effect | McClatchy

Honestly if you want to talk about health care letting you die, before the bill was passed was a good example. The sick couldn't afford their bills for medical so instead of being able to seek help they wouldn't.

Quote from Eddie Hall
Hall says allowing people with pre-existing conditions to have access to healthcare sounds nice, but may end up with extraordinary costs. He said, "The day they can buy coverage and go in the next day and have the procedure done is going to run the cost out of the ceiling."

So prior to this most people couldn't just waltz in and get an expensive but necessary procedure done. Honestly this world is about money for the most part no one gives a shit about you, right now they'd sooner let you die anyways.

I've been rejected for health insurance myself due to being in that "high risk" category". I was so afraid to spend any money that I refused to go to the hospital until my boyfriend dragged me kicking and screaming. I knew we didn't have the money for it so I didn't want to go since I had been their three days ago. It turned out my appendix was about to burst and they missed it the first time I was dragged in their. (I'm lucky now even though I'm about 20k in debt for the first time I was there and they didn't fix anything. I was lucky enough to get on Ahcccs now so I can see a specialist for the first time in years.)

Also about not seeing any part of the taxes for two years, think about it. It will take a certain amount of money to put things in motion. With out that money you can't. Think of it just like you would if you were saving up money for a car. You don't have the money so you have to save it, it takes you two years but you finally have that down payment on the car you wanted.

I have to agree some parts of the bill are haphazard and seem kind of out their, but in the long run I suppose it's better than nothing.
I don't personally agree with idea of forcing everyone to get health insurance or facing a fine.

I think more of what we should focus on is the idea that the whole medical field is a joke. Honestly I can't see us fucking it up more than it already is.

In any case I'm not so sure how much you actually understand the bill before jumping on the "government is socialist plz" band wagon.

**C0FFINCASE** · 23 Mar. 2010 12:15am

Originally Posted by CL0V3R

Honestly Coffincase I'd agree with you more if your argument wasn't based on moral vs fact. This is america, there has always been underhanded deals to make things pass, so don't act like this is anything new. The main part of your argument I can't agree with is your are giving a lot of misinformation with your scare tactics like your comment towards Raivu. Part of me wonders if you actually understand the bill or are just one of those people who's watched zeitgeist one too many times.

I understand the bill. I read it while I watched the vote. I understand it. An I've talked to lots of people about the effects of the way the bill will work and be paid for. My scare tactics are based in the fact I am afraid and angry.
An I'm so pissed that the conservatives are like "Well I support the spirit of the biil." I don't support any of it. If your poor and sick and can't afford treatment then hurry up and die.

**cony** · 22 Mar. 2010 11:30pm

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

You're about to get less care so someone else can get that same care and you're going to have to wait to wait for a few years to see a doctor. If you are on medicine you're going to most likely face a shortage once the programs kick in and then you may have less given to you despite needs. Also your medical needs will be evaluated on a cost effectiveness basis, ie if its cheaper for you to die than get treatment you die, but they won't take away that health care plan or the taxes that go along with you.

your blowing that a little out of prportion i think i mean the doctors have the hipocratic oath or whtever it is. i doubt they will let you die. they wont put in as much effort but they wont just let you die.

**C0FFINCASE** · 23 Mar. 2010 12:05am

Originally Posted by cony

your blowing that a little out of prportion i think i mean the doctors have the hipocratic oath or whtever it is. i doubt they will let you die. they wont put in as much effort but they wont just let you die.

Doctor's don't get to decide, the agencies the government sets up do and the Hippocratic oath is shit, its just a tradition they do, it means nothing.

**Souleater** · 22 Mar. 2010 01:40pm

I get free health insurance so Idont really care. And it is already paid for by the government. So the fact that Obama is trying to make health care more accessable is good, how he is doing it and why he is doing it is all wrong.

I dont support it because of the way our economy is right now.

**Tatsuo** · 23 Mar. 2010 12:32am

Interesting debate that is occurring at the moment, I have to see this...haha...You guys know my stance on the newly passed bill, I feel that it will be a good thing in the long run.

**DarkEternity** · 23 Mar. 2010 01:44am

I get blue cross through my job but I'm totally opposed to the new HC bill. All its doing is causing more harm to the country and its citizens then helping it.
Obama's essentially making it so that if you're rich you live if your poor you're left to rot because you cant afford it.

**Onion** · 23 Mar. 2010 01:51am

Why doesn't Obama just fuse the US with Canada while he's ahead?

That wasn't a joke, btw.

~~~~~
On a serious matter, I am all for the health care bill because I think it will help out a lot in current times.

**C0FFINCASE** · 23 Mar. 2010 01:54am

Originally Posted by Onion

On a serious matter, I am all for the health care bill because I think it will help out a lot in current times.

This is because you don't understand economic or have the ability to look at the current system and those like the one Obama is passing and see how that will work, and you obviously aren't fronting the bill(yet).

**Onion** · 24 Mar. 2010 11:34am

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

This is because you don't understand economic or have the ability to look at the current system and those like the one Obama is passing and see how that will work, and you obviously aren't fronting the bill(yet).

It seems like you're assuming a lot about my life; assuming that I don't know about the current economic situation; assuming that I don't live in and know about this era. Assuming is bad because you'll generally get your assumption wrong, like you just did. I know what I'm talking about when I say that this will help out, and I have reasons and support why it will work. So, next time, don't just reject my post and deny my lifestyle. You should be more opened towards others opinions.

The way the health care bill is, everyone pays, everyone gets treated. Hell, what could go wrong?

**C0FFINCASE** · 24 Mar. 2010 01:10pm

Originally Posted by Onion

It seems like you're assuming a lot about my life; assuming that I don't know about the current economic situation; assuming that I don't live in and know about this era. Assuming is bad because you'll generally get your assumption wrong, like you just did. I know what I'm talking about when I say that this will help out, and I have reasons and support why it will work. So, next time, don't just reject my post and deny my lifestyle. You should be more opened towards others opinions.

The way the health care bill is, everyone pays, everyone gets treated. Hell, what could go wrong?

I'm open to lots of thing. I'm not open to being rob so you get health care.
Everyone who wants healthcare should buy it themselves, if they can't afford it, tough. We ought to make it so the hospitals turn you down if you can't pay or have insurance either. F'in moochers
As to what could go wrong: placing the country into more debt, clogging a already over burdened systems of medicare and medicaid, that the quality of healthcare will decline, that the shortage of doctors is now never going to get better, that if its more cost effective for you o die then you get to die untreated, and the government is give unprecedented power of you and the door is open for more expansion and take over.

23 Mar. 2010 04:21am

Actually, economically speaking, it will help. "Take from the rich, give to the poor." The poor don't have to spend as much on health care, and can thus spend the money on other things. That's also not to mention people who can't get a job due to illnesses for which they can't get treatment due to the fact that they can't get a job to afford it. The rich who have enough to pay for health care still have enough to spend on other things. In a nutshell, the lower class is getting more to spend; while the spending of the upper class isn't going to change.

**C0FFINCASE** · 23 Mar. 2010 01:22pm

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

Actually, economically speaking, it will help. "Take from the rich, give to the poor." The poor don't have to spend as much on health care, and can thus spend the money on other things. That's also not to mention people who can't get a job due to illnesses for which they can't get treatment due to the fact that they can't get a job to afford it. The rich who have enough to pay for health care still have enough to spend on other things. In a nutshell, the lower class is getting more to spend; while the spending of the upper class isn't going to change.

It works for the poor I'm sure. But since our economy is a bit more complex than rich/poor. More than just the rich pay. The rich, the middle class, the people between those two and the people between middle class and poor pay. Being in the group that has to pay for something for someone else is hardly fair to me. An the poor aren't getting money, they don't have health care you're giving it to them, and they continue on the way they are going. Economy wise we're adding 90 billion dollars to our debt at least and that after the 10 billion we take off in ten years by paying these taxes.

**Slash** · 24 Mar. 2010 10:16pm

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

Actually, economically speaking, it will help. "Take from the rich, give to the poor." The poor don't have to spend as much on health care, and can thus spend the money on other things. That's also not to mention people who can't get a job due to illnesses for which they can't get treatment due to the fact that they can't get a job to afford it. The rich who have enough to pay for health care still have enough to spend on other things. In a nutshell, the lower class is getting more to spend; while the spending of the upper class isn't going to change.

No it doesn't.

The rich hire people. If they get less money, their employees get less in their paychecks and they might even have to fire some people. Also, a lot of the rich have huge house payments, car payments, etc. They get higher taxes, so then it will take them even longer to pay those off and and some might even have to resort to selling their stuff.

I don't like the thing where companies are required to give healthcare to their employees. I think that this rule should depend on how much that company makes each year. This law is really going to suck for family owned businesses.

**CL0V3R** · 25 Mar. 2010 12:49am

Originally Posted by Slash

No it doesn't.

The rich hire people. If they get less money, their employees get less in their paychecks and they might even have to fire some people. Also, a lot of the rich have huge house payments, car payments, etc. They get higher taxes, so then it will take them even longer to pay those off and and some might even have to resort to selling their stuff.

I don't like the thing where companies are required to give healthcare to their employees. I think that this rule should depend on how much that company makes each year. This law is really going to suck for family owned businesses.

"Family owned businesses" Usually don't have 50+ people working for them. :/

**C0FFINCASE** · 25 Mar. 2010 12:59am

Originally Posted by CL0V3R

"Family owned businesses" Usually don't have 50+ people working for them. :/

Actually prime example my dad run a company that is owned by two men who started it in the 80s(family owned and operated). They are wealthy but as soon as Obama let Bush tax cuts go away, they instantly had every one working their take a hit on their pay and fired a bunch of people. Now with these new health taxes coming up they are preparing a new list of people to fire, closing branches, and people are going to get less pay because it takes x amount of money fr them to cover costs of company and their personal finances.
Its an engineering company and they've expanded to deal with all of Florida and parts of Georgia and Tennessee.

23 Mar. 2010 05:59pm

Everyone pays. The question is how much they get back. The lower class gets health care valued at more than they pay in taxes. The middle class gets health care equivalent in value. The only people losing money are the upper class. Give or take a nominal amount.

I'm not up to date on the debt it will cause, but I really can't say I care. We managed to spend even more on a war that nobody supported (i.e. less people than support health care reform). It's as if it's only okay to increase our debt if a republican does it. However, the original bill wasn't going to increase the debt at all. It was going to reroute money from other, unused government sources which were simply flushing the money down the drain. It was all the revision to please conservatives that caused the new cost.

**sighkick** · 23 Mar. 2010 09:48pm

Why would i want a health care bill that they woudn't user for their families...If Obama's not gonna use it then why would or should I

24 Mar. 2010 07:15am

Originally Posted by Kojinako

Why would i want a health care bill that they woudn't user for their families...If Obama's not gonna use it then why would or should I

You serious? He's the motherfucking president. I don't think we can afford to give every person in America two doctors to follow them around at all times. That in itself is preposterous beyond words.

23 Mar. 2010 10:17pm

I support it. I like the fact that people can stay on their family health care until they are 26, and companies will be required to give health care to employees.

~Fluxo

24 Mar. 2010 07:11pm

Cite a study that shows that the healthcare of countries that have socialized healthcare is of less quality.
Stop saying "if it's more cost effective to die, then you die untreated," as if it's any different than your saying "anyone without enough money for treatment should die untreated." It's like you're arguing against yourself.

**C0FFINCASE** · 24 Mar. 2010 07:27pm

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

Cite a study that shows that the healthcare of countries that have socialized healthcare is of less quality.
Stop saying "if it's more cost effective to die, then you die untreated," as if it's any different than your saying "anyone without enough money for treatment should die untreated." It's like you're arguing against yourself.

Britain, Switzerland, Soviet Union,N. Korea(well people don't leave N. Korea) and China have lower quality care than we did. They would come here for because of that. In general we have the best health care in the world because the free market system promotes higher standards. When you get more for being better, better is an objective. When you get the same no matter how good you are you no longer are motivated and your work quality suffers. People in Britain pull their own teeth in their garage because they can't see a dentist before their teeth rot.

No, if I'm pay for you and you die any way untreated I've lost money. If yo have to pay, can't and die then I've lost nothing. See how that one works?

24 Mar. 2010 09:17pm

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

Britain, Switzerland, Soviet Union,N. Korea(well people don't leave N. Korea) and China have lower quality care than we did. They would come here for because of that.

I said cite a study, not list countries with socialized health care.

No, if I'm pay for you and you die any way untreated I've lost money. If yo have to pay, can't and die then I've lost nothing. See how that one works?

If you pay for me, then I won't die untreated. So, no, I don't see how that one works.

**Onion** · 25 Mar. 2010 11:34am

They should donate more.

**-Matt-** · 25 Mar. 2010 12:02pm

In my opinion, were all screwed.

**Onion** · 27 Mar. 2010 01:48am

Originally Posted by -Matt-

In my opinion, were all screwed.

I don't think so at all. P=

**C0FFINCASE** · 28 Mar. 2010 11:36pm

Advice:
Get scholarships. Do the work and you can get a free ride any where. They will give you money for all kinds of crap, simple google search will get you the apps.
Also chose a practice degree. Following your dreams to be an artist is nice but being a lawyer that likes to draw is more practical.

**AtomicJake** · 28 Mar. 2010 11:39pm

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

Advice:
Get scholarships. Do the work and you can get a free ride any where. They will give you money for all kinds of crap, simple google search will get you the apps.
Also chose a practice degree. Following your dreams to be an artist is nice but being a lawyer that likes to draw is more practical.

Being a lawyer who can draw isn't practical if you aren't skilled enough to be a lawyer. Saying that getting an art degree is impractical is pretty ignorant, especially in the case of video production. There's a pretty big market for that right now.

Also, it's not that I'm not intelligent, but I'm not very good at school, so any decent scholarship isn't really within reach. If anything, I'll be going to art school on an art scholarship.

**Rundeer** · 28 Mar. 2010 11:42pm

Originally Posted by AtomicJake

Being a lawyer who can draw isn't practical if you aren't skilled enough to be a lawyer. Saying that getting an art degree is impractical is pretty ignorant, especially in the case of video production. There's a pretty big market for that right now.

Also, it's not that I'm not intelligent, but I'm not very good at school, so any decent scholarship isn't really within reach. If anything, I'll be going to art school on an art scholarship.

There are a lot of different scholarships that really have nothing to do with school/grades. There are probably a bunch that have to do with film production/media.

**AtomicJake** · 28 Mar. 2010 11:44pm

Originally Posted by Rundeer

There are a lot of different scholarships that really have nothing to do with school/grades. There are probably a bunch that have to do with film production/media.

Yeah, it'll be the film production/media scholarships that I could attain. However, it'll be a combination of student loans and me working a lot. Hopefully with something of a scholarship.

**C0FFINCASE** · 29 Mar. 2010 12:09am

Originally Posted by AtomicJake

Being a lawyer who can draw isn't practical if you aren't skilled enough to be a lawyer. Saying that getting an art degree is impractical is pretty ignorant, especially in the case of video production. There's a pretty big market for that right now.

Also, it's not that I'm not intelligent, but I'm not very good at school, so any decent scholarship isn't really within reach. If anything, I'll be going to art school on an art scholarship.

Hm, who's ignorant? The college student who has switched majors several times, among them artist, musician, lawyer, and philosopher. I'm a bit more in touch with what scholarships a person can get, the job market, and the economy. Video production requires skill and talent like any art form. Skill can be taught and talent can't. An you have to develop talent otherwise its nothing. Also even if there is a demand now, your in high school, looking at about 5 years or more before hitting the market yourself for a need that isn't growing, especially in this economy. On top of that looking at the expected wage there are far safer bet, just saying. But then again going back to health care reform, more money may not be best.

**Rundeer** · 29 Mar. 2010 12:16am

Originally Posted by C0FFINCASE

Hm, who's ignorant? The college student who has switched majors several times, among them artist, musician, lawyer, and philosopher. I'm a bit more in touch with what scholarships a person can get, the job market, and the economy. Video production requires skill and talent like any art form. Skill can be taught and talent can't. An you have to develop talent otherwise its nothing. Also even if there is a demand now, your in high school, looking at about 5 years or more before hitting the market yourself for a need that isn't growing, especially in this economy. On top of that looking at the expected wage there are far safer bet, just saying. But then again going back to health care reform, more money may not be best.

I think what he's trying to say is that there's no point in doing something you have no interest/skill in, just to be more secure job-wise. I think the last thing I would want to do with my life is be a doctor or lawyer, so I'm not going to become one just because art is risky.

**AtomicJake** · 29 Mar. 2010 02:03am

Originally Posted by Rundeer

I think what he's trying to say is that there's no point in doing something you have no interest/skill in, just to be more secure job-wise. I think the last thing I would want to do with my life is be a doctor or lawyer, so I'm not going to become one just because art is risky.

Exactly correct.

Poll Results: Support the health care bill?

Thread: Health Care

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Health Care

Posting Permissions