Obama Healthcare

[Locke4God]

I just wanted to start off with a simple explanation, and a rational one, defining my views. I'm against the Healthcare bill and generally against Obama, but I wanted to explain why instead of extending an emotional response.

The Healthcare debate initially was premissed on the idea that it's a right.

A right, such as the rights to own a gun, drive a car, or smoke cigarettes, is always accompanied by responsibility. You have the responsibility to use them safely and accept their consequences. If you use or missuse your rights, you may go to jail, loose your liscense, or get lung cancer, and you accept the responsibility for those consequences by exorcising your rights.

But getting Healthcare which you wouldn't pay for doesn't bare you any responsibility. In fact it puts the responsibility for paying for your care on others, and there is no such thing as a right you can possess that forces responsibility on others. It's really not even debateable. It's not a right.

[Clint]

There should have been universal health care ever since the concept of health care came into... conception. I'm on my dad's insurance still, due to the fact that I'm still in school and younger than 24, but the company that he works for is suffering, so now, he has to pay full price for health care, which leaves him and my mom about 30 bucks for food and shit. His company is likely to go out of business within a year, which would leave my dad, my mom, and myself without health care. Now my dad and my mom could apply for Medicaid if that happened, however, that would leave me out in the cold. If that happened, I would have to get arrested in order to receive medical treatment. Let me repeat myself, I would have to get myself arrested and become a prisoner in order to receive medical treatment.

If health care is a true right, then why the hell do prisoners get it for free when the working class has to struggle to have it? It takes 300,000 dollars a year to hold one prisoner. 300,000 dollars a year. That's 265,000 dollars more than my family makes in a year. People who go to prison may lose some rights, but they still have it made better than most people out in the general population.

[Sasquatch]

Alright, it's late and I'm not going to spend too much time on this tonight, but I wanted to, at least, hop in quick and make a few points, so I can come back later and correct all the insults and false accusations.

First, come on children, please do not be so ignorant as to think that every Republican (or even "most") is some sort of racist, inbred, shotgun-toting, Bible-thumping hillbilly. That would be about as ignorant as to stereotype liberals as pot-smoking, tree-hugging, Satan-worshiping, gun-hating gay vegans.

Second, anybody who tells you that people in America cannot get health care without health insurance is full of shit. It's that simple. Either they're full of shit and don't know it -- but instead of trying to get more information and learn, ignorantly fall back on what they DON'T know -- or they're full of shit and DO know it, and are intentionally lying to try to make America or its health system look worse than it is. For one thing, there are dozens of government programs, through local, state, and federal level, to pay for a person's health care. Second, there are thousands upon thousands of charitable organizations, including religious institutions, that would help cover treatment costs. Third, hospitals, by law, must offer financing programs, and their payments can be almost nothing -- you can pay five bucks a month if you want, and as long as you're paying it, you're fine (and even if you don't, medical bills do not go on your credit record). And fourth (and most importantly), NO TREATMENT CAN BE DENIED ON FINANCIAL GROUNDS. It is illegal for a hospital or doctor to refuse to give testing or treatment because somebody might not be able to pay. Doing so would violate their Hippocratic Oath and they'd never practice medicine again. So again -- the claim that "if somebody doesn't have health insurance, they cannot get medical treatment" is complete bullshit.

Third, unless somebody can come up with some credible evidence that Fox News is biased, shut the hell up about it. Quit spouting the bullshit claim that Fox News has a heavy conservative bias just because you don't like the fact that they don't have a heavy liberal bias like most of the rest of American news sources. And here's some news for you: "credible evidence" does not mean youtube videos of Bill O'Reilly. He is not a reporter, he's a commentator -- it is not his job to report the news, it's his job to give his opinions on news stories. So if you're going to claim that Fox News is biased, back it up with something substantial. (I wouldn't try to claim that the Yankees are the worst team in baseball, then "prove it" by posting some videos or articles on specific games, or a few videos of errors, strikeouts, passed balls, hits into double-plays, etc. -- I'd find numbers and compare them to other teams. So please, be smart enough to try to find some numbers, some credible evidence, that Fox News is biased in their reporting.)

Fourth, there needs to be a lesson on the word "free". If money is forcibly taken from you without your consent and a sub-par service is provided in exchange, there's nothing "free" about that. That is completely NOT free. If you walk into a Pizza Hut and the cashier pulls a gun on you and forces you to hand over your wallet, then gives you a plate of breadsticks, those breadsticks weren't "free" at all ... though I suppose some people are living happy lives off the teat of the taxpayer, so ignorance is bliss.

Finally, some people need to realize that there's a reason American healthcare is expensive -- because it's the best. I spoke to a guy from Canada once who was proud because his province just got their third MRI machine -- some American hospitals have two or three MRI machines. There are cities in Michigan that make their money by providing health services to Canadians who come across the border because the Canadian government refuses to pay for their treatment. America has developed a large majority of the medicines and procedures that are used around the world -- how do you think those medicines came to be? Research and development costs money. The same medications and technology that is given away by the United States costs American money to develop. There are credible reports of people waiting two years or more for Britain's NHS to let them see a specialist -- and of English people pulling their own teeth out of their mouths because the NHS took way, way, way too long to fit them into a dentist.

[Govinda]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare? Even if it's just a few. I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable? Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

And yes, I remember the scenario a few years ago with the English and their dentists. Basically, there were no dentists, and the few that were around had too many patients. These days there are plenty of dentists who started training when they saw the gap. I don't get why someone would pull their own teeth out though, most people just went to A&E if things got too bad. Luckily, since Scotland was devolved by then, we didn't face a fraction of the same problems.

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more. Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey. The universities in cities mostly have medical research centres based in city hospitals; while Dundee's university may be shit, it's the best place to learn medicine in Scotland, simply because the Ninewells hospital is massive and drowning in investment funding from charities, business, and even the government. A lot of good comes out of Ninewells which, considering it's in Dundee, is an achievement.

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch. For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story. And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine? Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology? Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations. Ever heard of TRIPs? Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property, part of the 1994 Round of the ITO (International Trade Organisation, then the General Treaty on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)). Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country. It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO (who probably shouldn't be, it's all TRIPs and NPT's and....another day, another day) who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof. Eventually someone will create a similar product in India or China, and the price will drop from $100 per pack to 50 cents per pack. They're just as bad with machinery. Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world. Western countries can afford to buy from America, but the rest of the world can't. (TRIPs is bad for America too, since we can charge whatever the **** we like on new things, but they make far more from it than they lose; plus they can pretty much buy anything anyway).

[Zargabaath]

Health care is not a right. Nobody has the right to a service; the only right a person has is the right to life. Life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action; the right to life is the freedom to engage in self-generated and self-sustaining action – to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment, and the enjoyment of their own life (such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The right to life means that a person has the right to support their life by their own work and the person cannot be deprived of their life for the benefit of another person nor of any number of other people. The notion that someone has the right to forcibly receive service from someone else is in nature not a right. Nobody has the right to initiate force against another human being; there is no right to violate the rights of others, yet so many of you think that people do. Health care is a service, it is not something given to humanity by nature, it is the product of people who have worked hard to acquire the skills needed to be sufficient in their trade in which they intend to make a living from. Many of you here believe that is totally within your rights to force people to either give you a free service or for other people to pay for your expenses. The only person responsible for their expenses is themselves, not others- people are not the caretakers of other people, they are not chattel as many of you want them to be. You do not respect their right to life at all, you would wish them a life a slavery paying for those who leach off of them. Those who support universal health care support the enslavement of humanity; that some people have more rights than others, that some people’s rights are not as important as others. Nobody’s rights can be violated, that is the nature of inalienable rights – semi-inalienable rights are contradictory in nature but many would wish it a reality.

Loaf, just because your hospital bills are high does not warrant the need for universal health care, if you want the real reason why health care is so high, look at the government that regulates it forcing prices sky high. It is not my or any other persons problem that you cannot afford a service, and health care is a service. Why should others be burden by your or any other person’s expenses? This is now more general not just aimed at Loaf- I love how all these people who support universal health care say that they are selfless, yet it is they who wish that other people pay for their expenses, for their livelihood, it is all about sustaining them, you ignore people’s rights to live their own life and want them to be forced to cater to you- that is more selfish than what the detractors desire. That type of selfish, is the brute that does not care about other people and takes whatever they want, not what I call for. If someone can afford health care then they can get, I will not stop them no matter what they are. You guys hide behind selflessness but are truly the brute who does not respect people treating them as sacrificial animals.

What has the government done that makes health care, health insurance costs so high? In the U.S you cannot buy health insurance from a different state, this constricts the market. Remember the recent “scandal” in New Jersey about them selling organs “illegally”? They were supplying the demand for that product at a much cheaper cost because the regulations on them are so strict it forces the prices and the surgeries so high. Now you will probably say, “Oh Zargabaath, the organs may not be suitable, they can be dangerous for them and die.” And I reply that they knew what they were buying, they knew the risks, it is the government that has caused the price to skyrocket, if the regulations from the government were abolished then prices would go down as more organs could be used, supply would go up to meet demand dropping prices all around. One more thing, if they didn’t get that organ “illegally”, then they would have suffered and died anyways because of the regulations set by governments. If all the regulations from on health care/health by the government were to be taken away, costs would come down. Everyone still may not be able to afford health care but then I say don't force people to provide service and pay for it, instead why not become a doctor and treat those who can't? Of course you would never do that because you can't be bothered, it is much better just to enslave others.

What many of you can’t seem to realize is that everything that government does costs exponentially more than what is first predicted, government cannot accurately predict costs because the program always expands and there is no competition against government- leading to massive debt. Government has its citizens to pay for their programs; government does not operate like a business that must make money to stay afloat. A business relies on the voluntary action of the consumer to buy their product, a government can just increase taxes.
Che, nobody has the right to force someone to give them a service. If you are sick and don’t want to pay then cure yourself, if you are dumb, educate yourself, otherwise pay for the service. Now it does not mean it must only be with money; my aunt was a chiropractor who accepted other forms of payments for those who did not have the money.

There is more opportunity in America than anywhere else. Where else can so many people from poor/bad backgrounds become professional athletes making millions, or actors, doctors, lawyers, it requires hard work but it can be done without help! Anyone read “Gifted Hands” it’s about a black man becoming a very great doctor through hard work. My aunt went through college in Colorado working three jobs. I mention the state of Colorado because my aunt lived in New York and she had no car or money for a plane ticket, so my grandparents drove her out of New York and she biked the rest of the way! A young woman bicycling to Colorado from Pennsylvania or New Jersey, sleeping in graveyards at night when the weather permitted and she somehow survived the trek. Now what you people are so upset about is that the difficulty of each person’s life is different and you find that unfair, which just shows that you are either envious or jealous or both. It is not somebody’s problem that they had an easier time than somebody else. Do not criminalize them for it! Just as you criminalize people who make too much money. Isn’t the goal of a company and person to make as much as possible? But once they cross a certain gross revenue they become “evil”. This behavior is irrational and shows how you don’t want people to succeed, to live their life, but that they must never get ahead of you- and who is the selfish one? Who wishes to hold people back? Who demonizes people or companies because they make a million dollars, it is so arbitrary it is pathetic. Tell me, when do they become evil? Is it at $250,000? Is that when you curse their name and say they oppress their employees and are corrupt.

Let’s take a look at some other U.S government run programs. Medicaid and Medicare are broken and their costs have risen more than what was expected. Amtrak, which is heavily subsidized by the government is broken as well and broke, and finally the post office which is 6 billion dollars in debt. And what does the great Obama say about those worrying about a government health care takeover? Look at UPS and FedEx, they’re doing fine against the USPS, that the USPS is the one in trouble. What?! Did anybody get that? Obama is saying that the government health care system could turn out to be like the USPS, but it would be trillions of dollars in debt and we would spend trillions more trying to fix it because government is not the answer. It is the problem. All these programs that are not working properly and are going bankrupt and we want to establish a bigger program? The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

The function of a government is to protect the rights of the people, by stopping those who would or have used force against people. It is not the job of the government to provide a home, car, job, health care, food, etc to people, that is not a person’s right or the function of government. The opposite suggests that some people can be forced to provide a service for others, which is in itself breaking the rights of people making the action illegal. Socialism may not be a bad word in Europe but I would never trust a European to guide the world, or look to for advice ( there are a few exceptions, but they are in the vast minority). We do know what a communist and what a socialist is, but the actions of people like you try to hide it so it can be filtered in and we won’t realize until it is too late the dagger sticking in our back.

America was founded on individualism and selfishness for people to achieve, through hard work their goals, to live their own life. It is only the your messed up sense that in order to succeed, someone must be stepped on. That is what is going on in Europe, except instead of the poor being stepped on by the nobility or rich as it was back in the day, it is the opposite. Europeans feel entitled to service without paying for it or for others paying for it- that is more selfish than letting people live their own lives, succeeding or failing at their own hands.

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. Both violate the rights of humans by ignoring the right to property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality- to think, to work, and to keep the results- which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights”, as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of their effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human”. The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of people towards people’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out- just as you’re starving today, you who believed that crime could be “practical” if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal. – Ayn Rand.

What really sucks is that even though the U.S is going downhill, there is no other country as great as the U.S. Let me add that the only reason why Europe still has some form have power is because of U.S liberals/democrats; they want to emulate and feel that Europe is “hip”. In reality, Europe has no power; ever since WWII Europe has lost all of its former glory. Now most Europeans are spoiled who feel they are entitled to everything and they must not do any hard work. This is the place where if anyone gets fired they start marching in the streets destroying property. This is the place where they hate on America because they know we are better deep down, yet if they ever got in trouble militarily they would feel entitled that America should come and save them. If someone like Hitler started a war on Europe, it would be way easier than the beginning of WWII, Europeans would give up in a matter of seconds, saying that something the West did to the country was the reason for their behavior, most blame would go to America as a new avenue to hate on the U.S. Getting back to it, so Europe would feel that the U.S. must help them because they are entitled to it, which if it was my way I would let you rot, but we would help because we are better than you who won’t lift a finger nowadays. Afterwards you may cheer us, for the third time, but eventually your hatred for us will rise and Europeans will shout that we committed war crimes and protest that our people should be held accountable, that the U.S should pay for the restoration of Europe and should pay the aggressor money as well because it was our fault for starting the war. But it is still not yet done, feeling that you guys have done something so wonderful in fighting the good fight, you would demand of your government that they pass a bill forcing all companies to give their employees 6 months of paid vacation because you work so hard, especially during the war and you feel entitled. Because, how many is it 2 months or one month is not enough. Then after twenty years you will be back in full swing hating on America, and becoming more lazier till there is nobody to pay for your socialist programs and you full into utter chaos, hopefully showing the world, yet again that communism/socialism does not work.

What we stand for is to respect each person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to a guarantee of some product or service, only the right to pursue it and if you accomplish your goal to keep your reward. We don’t support slavery, unlike you guys. We respect humanity.

[Sasquatch]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare?

How exactly is it the hospital's job to protect people financially? If I want to be irresponsible with my money and not have enough to pay for health insurance, that's MY fault, and it's MY obligation to live with it -- nobody else's.

And why do people claim to go bankrupt because of their medical bills? Could be a few reasons. They could not have researched, and thus not know about, the myriad financing plans. They could have insisted on paying their entire medical bill instead of forming any financing plan at all. Or -- and this is by far the most likely -- they could just be irresponsible with their money, and no matter how much they pay on their medical bills, they blame their medical bills for causing them to not have any money.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable?

... so you're not suggesting that doctors break their Hippocratic Oath because patients can't pay, but you believe that patients can't get care for non-life-threatening issues without paying for it? Pick one.

I say again: NO medical care can be refused on financial grounds.

Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

First, since Moore has been proven dishonest multiple times, and he has been proven to have dishonest people in his movies multiple times, I wouldn't trust anything he supports. Second, "the guy who removed his own teeth" wasn't a short anecdote, it's something that has happened more than once -- at least three times I'm aware of, and from what I've seen, at least six percent of NHS patients have resorted to self-treatment. Third, I highly doubt that any little girl died because hospitals refused to treat her because her parents couldn't afford it -- if anything like that happened, the doctors that refused to treat her and the Chiefs of every hospital wing and every hospital that refused to treat her would be out of a job by the next week. Heads would roll. Do you have any articles on this little girl, or anything?

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

It would make sense to have as many as you need -- unfortunately, Canada doesn't have as many as it needs, which is why thousands of people every year cross the border and get an MRI in one of the northern states of the U.S. Three for one province is not enough.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more.

Of course every country, even those with socialized medicine, still has R&D that develops new drugs or new procedures. But not to the extent of the United States.

Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey.

I'd like to see more about that, but searching "research assessment Europe" gave me three links, all non-related. You have any cites?

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

This proves that people give to charity and that charity helps people who need it. Why go further and force people to support others, when most willingly give to charity anyway, and the charity works?

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch.

When did I say that the American healthcare system was without problems?

For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story.

Alright, find a survey that says that more than 1/20th of Americans rely on themselves for medical treatment.

And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine?

I didn't hear anything about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, but Obama is indeed a racist. Not only does he belong to one of the most racist churches in the country (or did, at least, until he realized how poorly it reflected on him), not only does he claim one of the most racist preachers in the country as his spiritual mentor (again, at least he did, until he started separating himself from the people that got his political career well off at the state level), he also has repeatedly said things that generalize whites. Like claiming that his grandmother is a "typical white person" because she was racist.

And again ... it's Beck.

Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Glenn Beck is not a reporter. He is a commentator. Even if he reports his own stories and does his own research, Glenn Beck is not a news reporter for Fox News. So I ask again -- please provide some sort of credible evidence of any type of bias in Fox News reporting, or admit that you simply accuse it of bias because it's not to the extreme left.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology?

I got it from America giving away its technology. It's pretty easy to make that connection.

Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations.

Wait, hahahahahah ... you think America is developing all this technology and medicine, and you think it's hoarding it all or charging outrageous prices for it, and you think that a developing nation's inability to get something for free makes it bankrupt?

I suppose I'm a horrible, horrible person, then. Because I don't spend the money I make to buy food and hand it out to every homeless person I can find, not only am I not helping them, I'm making them more homeless!

Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country.

So if my country spends its money to produce something, and your country wants it, you can't just force me to give it to you for free? How unjust!

It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO ... who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So they joined because they could get something for free, or on the backs of the other nations that had joined -- and now there's a problem because they can't get everything for free?

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof.

Yes, they charge extreme prices, so nobody can afford to buy it. That's great for profit. They could discover it for themselves, they could wait, or they could go without. Nobody force them to buy the new AIDS drug, and if they choose to buy it, they have nobody to blame but themselves for being short on money.

Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world.

So you're saying that the only way a country can buy something from America is through TRIPs, and that America always charges exorbitant amount of money for them, and that there's absolutely no way for countries to form a pack to combine funding for the purchase, and that there's absolutely no way to get the same product at a lesser price from another vendor?

American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it.

There are people who get rich off of anything. If it's worth paying for, somebody will provide it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care.

You need to learn something about American politics, kid Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care. This is why it's always funny to see a politician who supports Obama's healthcare plan stumble whenever they're confronted with a perfectly logical question -- if you support it for the public, would you support having your Congressional health care plan changed to fall under the same standards? (I'll give you a hint: The answer is always, in one way, shape, or form, a resounding "hell no".)

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

(Besides, wouldn't it be damn stupid to not charge the rich people, but charge the poor more? Try to figure out how that would make any sense at all, and get back to me.)

Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

America was built on pure capitalism. I understand that. But it makes it so that it's a pretty selfish world over there. To say the least.

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naive and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich.

Nobody said that everyone can become a millionaire. What was said was that everybody has the chance to get health care. Capitalist economies will never have to worry about everyone trying to get rich, because there will always be people who, instead of working hard for their money, will rely on others and demand that those who do work hard for their money are forced to give it to them instead of keeping it.

You see the people who don't have health care and can't pay for it as 'just a minority'. I can do exactly the same with people who's costs would be a little higher.

The difference is that the people who don't have healthcare are a minority, whereas the people whose costs would be higher aren't. So he would be correct, and you wouldn't.

Why would the quality go down? It would still be the same doctors. It would just be paid for in another way.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I guess the quality of health care in non-American countries is all crap, right?

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I don't see where this statement comes from.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves. Under this type of program, I could eat right, exercise daily, get plenty of sleep, and work a low-stress job; or I could smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, drink like a fish, and eat enough fast food to make me 300 pounds. Either way, I wouldn't pay any more for medical care, but of course my medical care would cost much more if I did the latter.

The issue is not what the definition of 'fair' is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians.

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

And I really don't get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. There is absolutely no reason to suspect such a thing.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

Bill O'Reilly may not be news reporter, but it's still on Fox News Channel, isn't it? I thought you were better than someone not seeing through the quality of Fox News.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

I take a look at some broadcasts, and they're a joke.

So you don't like them. Good for you. Prove that they are biased in their news reporting, or admit that you made false accusations against them and drop it.

The other day, they were critisising Obama for visiting children in schools. They said he was recruiting democrats, and just might have been brainwashing them about the new healthcare reform.

Who? Not reporters -- commentators. And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

Another example would be the following: Rapper Jay-Z was celebrating about something Obama had done. At a particular party, he was rapping away, shouting words like 'nigga', 'motherfucker', the whole thing. The reporters at Fox were discussing and asking so-called experts why Obama didn't say anything about it. They just couldn't believe it... Why the hell would he?

Again -- WHO? Commentators. People who get paid to give their opinions.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

Also, there was this woman last week who was debating in favour of the conservatives. She said to her opponent 'yeah but you probably have medicare'. The guy was like 'No, cause I'm not over 65...'. I mean, she doesn't even know what medicare is, and she's going to explain how socialised healthcare is from the devil? Sad.

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare. Maybe she assumed that he received them without being 65, or maybe she assumed that he was 65 or older. Those were ignorant assumptions that she made -- followed by the two you made. First you assumed that she doesn't know what Medicare is (for which you have absolutely no evidence), then you assumed that she must not know much about Obama's healthcare plan (for which you have no evidence).

That's just 3 small examples from the last two weeks alone.

And not one of those three would reflect bias in the news reporting of Fox News Channel. Try again.

Then there's Glenn Beck. Granted, he's not a News reporter, but he makes me laugh every time nontheless. When I watch him talk, I'm not sure whether I should be sad about the fact that some Americans actually eat that shit he sells, or just laugh away.

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

For example, he connects some communist activist that Obama met when he was 8 years old. That MUST mean Obama is Stalin.

Did he keep up with this communist activist? Did the communist activist help launch his political career, like the domestic terrorist David Ayers did? (Yes, that was yet another political ally and personal friend that Obama abandoned once he realized it'd be bad for his reputation.) Did the communist activist get Obama into socialist/communist groups like Democratic Socialists of America?

Don't say THIS doesn't make you laugh:
YouTube - Glenn Beck Does Not Know How To Spell "Oligarchy"
(Don't pay attention to the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about that.)

The bullshit about the spelling mistake -- his missing one letter, then acknowledging it and continuing it but not correcting it -- and the dumbasses who posted comments on it did indeed make me laugh. As far as the video itself, no, it was prettymuch accurate -- a little too extreme for me, but not that much.

But the worst (/best?) things I've seen him say, were comparisons between Obama and Hitler. (Yeah, the German guy.) He showed some advertisements from Nazi-Germany, constantly saying 'Does this sound familiar to you?', playing the crowd at home.

Because Nazi Germany bought into focusing on the man and the symbol instead of the policies. I don't care for anybody pulling out the Nazi card, but that doesn't mean he wasn't accurate.

I can't believe a guy like that still has a show on tv. Even if it is on Fox... There's a reason why most major sponsors during Beck's show have asked Fox for another time to show their commercials.

Any credible evidence for that claim? I'd like to see it.

False. Medicaid failed to pay my dad's hospitalization bills, and my credit was hit and plummeted as a result. A mistake to charge the wrong member of my family, but a credit rating was still hit for not paying. It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report.

My brother's credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments for the past few years and getting hospital bills tacked onto his credit rating, even though a lot were covered by different organizations, the bills he had to pay he couldn't afford, and his credit now suffers as a result.

If he paid nothing at all, yes. (Like I said, five bucks a month will do.) If he didn't pay his insurance, yes. (That's not the hospital, it's completely separate.) But the claim that hospitals will refuse treatment for people without insurance or money, or that medical bills will affect one's credit score, is completely false, even with your anecdotal evidence.

But you say that your dad was hospitalized, and that your brother went through years of cancer treatments? Did they have insurance at the time? Or did the hospitals refuse to treat them because they didn't think they'd get their money?

The United States already spends a larger fraction of its GDP on healthcare than any country in the world ...

I already explained this.

... but it's health indicators (such as child mortality and life span) are lower

than those in many other countries of comparable income.

First, child mortality: the United States takes numbers differently than some other countries, considering a live birth to be a child, whereas some others wait a couple weeks or month before they would consider it a child fatality. So if a baby is born and lives for ten minutes, it's considered a child death in America, whereas the same situation would be considered

As for life span -- America has millions upon millions of people who risk their lives to come to America and do whatever it takes to hide from the people who would send them back to their home country. America has many, many people do not get medical treatment in time to cure their situation because they've only learned the lie that people without insurance cannot get treatment. America has people that come from other countries for medical care, when it's too late to cure them. America has a thousand factors in why the life span might be lower. Trying to say that life span reflects directly and only upon the healthcare system is like trying to say that the reason so many people get into car accidents is because the roads are bad.

Before someone tells me to shut up because I'm not an American, I'm getting this from a book written by Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics, business, and international and public affairs at Columbia University, and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2001.

And because you quote from a book, you know everything about the situation?

[Govinda]

I refer to my earlier post about this being irreconcilable. Points, for Sasquatch:

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

I take it you hate CNN?

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. Know how you can tell? We don't use it as a point. We don't feel the need to say it. It's taken as granted that we are proud to be what we are. We don't need rhetoric, and it's kind of sad that you guys seem to. Repeating how much you love America isn't going to help it. Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.

[RagnaToad]

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy. If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I'm not sure what the question here is.

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I have no idea about the Canadian health care, but you may be right about the British health care system. Over here in Belgium we have one of the most efficiently working health insurance systems in the world AND the best health care possible. I'm not trying to be patriottic. It really is one of my country's main assets. We have lots of flaws (like shortage of prisons etc.), like any country.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves.

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

I didn't say they were biased. And I never said I criticised them for making points that I don't agree with. If they were to praise Obama for things he never did, I would be annoyed in the same way.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

Whether MSNBC is liberally biased or not is not the issue. And frankly, I don't know if it's true what you're saying or not.
But you can have your opinions all you want, I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories. Maybe it's a matter of taste? But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything. Whether they are conservatives or liberals doesn't really matter. Being biased is not an attractive feature to me. But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

There is no double standard here. I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be. Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

I'm going to quote you:
"I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job."

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare.

Ummm.
YES YOU DO.
(Or meet some other 'special criteria'.)

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

And I'll try to find a source about those sponsors. I even read WHAT sponsors wanted to be moved to another hour, but I can't remember, as they were (obviously) American sponsors, and I wasn't familiar with them. You can believe me, if my word is worth anything to you.

[Clint]

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care.

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that? They increase taxes on the middle class. So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you? We're paying for it. They're not.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class. When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things. Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against. That means one thing; that you have a weak case. Now I made my point and made my opinion from a political standpoint. Care to try again?

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

It's not about good quality health care. It's merely about the security of having health care. I mean, for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. If people who break the law are allowed health care, then there should be a minimalist for everybody.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care. Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.

[Clint]

Finally, some people need to realize that there's a reason American healthcare is expensive -- because it's the best.

That's a false statement, and you need to learn a little bit about politics. American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it. They know that they can purge money from the American public, because people need health care. Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care. Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class. The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough. If they haven't found one by now, then somebody needs to get laid off. The reason why there are only treatments available, and no cures, is because cancer and AIDS treatments are a business. The government loves when people are sick, and the most certainly love when people die, because as everybody who's lost somebody knows, it costs more to die than it does to live.

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.

[Alpha]

I'm no American, but the concept of having to pay to receive healthcare just seems so foreign, and, dare I say it, Third World. Where I'm from, if you're sick, then you'll be treated. One can opt for private healthcare, where you get gourmet salad instead of cold potatoes, but everyone receives treatment for any illness, and, for the most part, you do not have to pay (exceptions include very expensive treatments for very rare conditions, but we do have grants that can go towards them, and private organisations regularly fundraise for funds for such cases)

The whole concept of paying for healthcare suggests says that rich people will be treated, and the poor won't. But which group has greater health issues? Answer: the poor. But, oh wait, they can't afford it. Too bad.

New Zealand is not a rich country, but we give the right to health a big enough priority. America, as the largest economy in the world, should be able to do this very easily. Good on Obama for attempting to catch up with the rest of the Western world.

[loaf]

For someone who was just discharged from the hospital a month ago, part time badly paying job with no insurance? Yea I wish this thing would have happened long ago. I had no insurance, but I had to go to the hospital...why? Cause I would have DIED. If I had this free health care shit, my bills wouldn't be through the roof. Who are you to say getting free health care is not responsible. I'm a broke ass part time working not going to school 20 year old whos parents make him pay rent at their house.

[Locke4God]

Points taken gentlemen, and I appreciate the commentary,

I saw it come up a few times by each of you that you have an idea that the poor aren't covered in America. But of course you do have medicaid, and nobody is refused treatment at a hospital, so you do have coverage. Now is it great? That might be another debate, and I did see the comment about medicaid not covering children. Perhaps a good point that needs looking into.

However let me state that America does in fact have the best healthcare in the world. I'm not sure what country you came from, the person commenting from another country, but as foreign as our system may feel, a person diagnosed of cancer or aids, and several other terminal conditions has a longer life expectancy here, than in any other country in the world. So we do have great healthcare.

If you're against it, as I am, what you also have to consider is that it's never been America's position to "catch up" to other countries. As a couple of you pointed out, we have the largest economy in the world, and so there's nobody to catch up to. My boss from Morroco tried to say that Morroco has National Healthcare, so why shouldn't we, as though America were somehow supposed to follow Morroco's lead. I just love this country and believe it's the best in the world as many immigrants have felt and we got that way on the belief that nobody here gets anything for free, but you can keep everything you earn. The first settlers and all immigrants since have made this country the land that invented the light bulb, the car, flight, space travel and much more, and we did it because we didn't provide social safety nets. Nobody leaves this country for Healthcare. They come here, and they've come here for centuries because they know that America is the land of "opportunity" not guarantees.

Lastly I'll just point out, that only 11-13 Million people out of our population of 300 Million are without healthcare. The figure of 47 million that was floated out includes nearly 20 Million illegal immigrants, another 7 that are temporarily between jobs for 2-3 month periods, and still another 7 million teenagers who willfully choose not to purchase it. So we're talking about a major overhall to satisfy a small minority of people. Granted it is an important issue, but I think things like tort reform, which is not included in any proposed bill, will do a better job of reducing costs to make it more affordable for those people. If I were for this bill as you 3 are, I would ask myself why Obama and the others trying to sell it are not talking about Tort reform. It's highly suspicious that they aren't.

Oh and the Congretional Budget Office in an independant analysis says that costs would rise if this plan were passed, not go down as promissed.

And quite frankly I just don't trust the government to manage this and I'm not willing to take the risk. Obama was off 2 Trillion dollars the wrong direction in his 10 year deficit analysis, he claimed that it was absolutely vital to pass the stimulus act immediately and yet he's only spent 7% of it and even that has shown very little positive effects. In fact again he estimated only 8% unemployment and yet we're near 10%, and overall I think all this government intervention into private industry is very disconcerting. I don't believe what he's saying and he's given plenty of reason to doubt that he either knows what he's talking about and/or is being honest about it.

Why take the risk? Why trust him?

Why not reduce costs through tort reform that will lower insurance costs on doctors so your costs go down, expand medicaid to cover children, and lower taxes on businesses so they can expand coverage and hire more workers who could be covered.

[Alpha]

However let me state that America does in fact have the best healthcare in the world. I'm not sure what country you came from, the person commenting from another country, but as foreign as our system may feel, a person diagnosed of cancer or aids, and several other terminal conditions has a longer life expectancy here, than in any other country in the world. So we do have great healthcare.

Where are those statistics from? Because I thoroughly dispute them. Did you know that a male Bangladeshi has a greater life expectancy than a black male from Harlem, New York? Your so-called "great" healthcare system clearly discriminates against the poor, something which does NOT happen in the vast majority of industrialised nations.

If you're against it, as I am, what you also have to consider is that it's never been America's position to "catch up" to other countries. As a couple of you pointed out, we have the largest economy in the world, and so there's nobody to catch up to.

You have plenty of countries to catch up to in terms of your national priorities to healthcare. Stop pouring money into the military and give basic healthcare to your poorest citizens. New Zealand has only one plane in it's air force. Laugh all you want, but I'd take free healthcare over global military hegemony any day.

My boss from Morroco tried to say that Morroco has National Healthcare, so why shouldn't we, as though America were somehow supposed to follow Morroco's lead. I just love this country and believe it's the best in the world as many immigrants have felt and we got that way on the belief that nobody here gets anything for free, but you can keep everything you earn.

I've always wondered if Americans are aware how much the rest of the world does not like them, and my suspicions are confirmed - they do not know. Now I have no idea if Morocco has socialised healthcare, but if they do, then, as a developing country, they have their priorities straight. Lowering infant mortality, lowering the incidence of HIV/AIDs - all pertinent issues that need to be at the top of any political agenda in any country. Yet American's stand by their Third World health system, and do all they can to prevent Obama from carrying out much needed reforms.

The first settlers and all immigrants since have made this country the land that invented the light bulb, the car, flight, space travel and much more, and we did it because we didn't provide social safety nets. Nobody leaves this country for Healthcare. They come here, and they've come here for centuries because they know that America is the land of "opportunity" not guarantees.

FLIGHT: New Zealanders were (albeit arguably) the first people to build a working plane.

SPACE TRAVEL: Sputnik; the world's first satellite. Russian.

And what the Hell do they have to do with the absence of social safety nets? Oh look, welfare! Well, there goes space travel. Get over your phobia of welfare, America.

Lastly I'll just point out, that only 11-13 Million people out of our population of 300 Million are without healthcare. ... So we're talking about a major overhall to satisfy a small minority of people. Granted it is an important issue, but I think things like tort reform, which is not included in any proposed bill, will do a better job of reducing costs to make it more affordable for those people.

As the world's largest economy, and with such a 'small' number of people without healthcare to cover, it should be no problem.

Oh and the Congretional Budget Office in an independant analysis says that costs would rise if this plan were passed, not go down as promissed.

I don't pretend to know the details of this report, but providing free healthcare has many flow-on benefits to any economy. People are more willing and completely able to get treatment for illnesses (big or small), and then get back to work - providing tax money for the government. Granted, this is a simplification, but if my logic is challenged, I can expand on this.

Why take the risk? Why trust him?

Exactly what is the risk?

Why not reduce costs through tort reform that will lower insurance costs on doctors so your costs go down, expand medicaid to cover children, and lower taxes on businesses so they can expand coverage and hire more workers who could be covered.

That all sounds nice - but so does free healthcare.

[RagnaToad]

However let me state that America does in fact have the best healthcare in the world.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! !!


You crack me up.

Anyway, America is a pretty young country and ironically, the country that is most conservative about change in Western society. They all claim to be the greatest country in the world, arrogantly refusing to see how Europe is doing better in numerous ways. I find it hilarious how 'socialist' is an insult in the US. I love Republicans. Good humour is priceless.

On the healthcare thing: It is sad to see how Americans refuse to see that nothing will change unless they vote for this health care bill. I find it tragic how all those people who are against it (or some of them) claim that it will bring more problems than anything else. I guess the healthcare system in Northern European countries has been failing for decades, right?

Not really.

Everyone is so afraid that the government will take over their medical decisions and decide who can have euthanasia and who can't (DEATH PANEEELS!!!), while they are trying to do what they are suppose to do. Take care of their people.

only 11-13 Million people out of our population of 300 Million are without healthcare.

Ahum...
'only'?
Those people don't have any health insurance whatsoever, and many more have to dig into their savings to pay for surgeries or even small accidents.

I'm sure you wouldn't think it was 'only' 11-13 million people if you know all of them.

That's more people than all Belgians together. (All Belgians who all have health insurance, by the way.)

[Jeordam]

And please here this and take it into account before responding. I do not say anything within this post to insult, belittle, or otherwise diminish someone's point of view, or even the actions of another country. I'm not here to be whatever, but to simply ask questions and speak my mind.

Many have brought up the actions/prioritites of many nations in this world...from those of Europe, Africa, N.America, and even New Zeland. The priorities of the people's from each of these nations is different, and I honestly don't think that any of us are *really* equipped to pass a determination that one or another countries priorities are out of order.

Does the US spend a large amount of money on the military? Yes, we do. Is it worth it? I believe that it is, because it allows other nations of the world to not have to. New Zeland can get away with having 1 plane in the Air Force, because it knows that if some agressive nation invades them, that they have Australia, and ultimately the US, watching their back.

Let's turn our attention to history...its a really good thing that the US had a big military (with ramp-up capability) in World War II. If that wasn't the case, Europe would be split into different german states, and the only Jews left in existance would be those living in the US.

Quality of health care, cost of health care, and tort reform aside, what I think that this debate comes down to is this. Why should I pay for you? One poster to this thread (please forgive me for not remembering your name/exact circumstances) related how his medical bills are high, because of a lack of coverage (again, please forgive me if I got it completely wrong). But my question still stands...why should I be forced to pay it for you?

Someone else related how paying for health care is good for everyone, because when they are better, they can go back to work & start paying income taxes again. How is this guarenteed? There are huge swaths of individuals with no health care because they have no jobs (for whatever reason). We're putting food on their table & keeping a roof over their heads(through welfare/other government aid) and we would be keeping them healthy (if this legislation goes through). What motivation does such an individual have to go back to work?

I have a tough enough time paying for myself as it is. The last thing I need is to be further taxed to pay for someone else.
~Jeordam

[Che]

I would just like to point out that you are not speaking to America, you are speaking to an American. So stop generalizing about it. I sure the **** don't think America is the greatest country in the world. We might have been on the right track and one point, but we've since took a dead end somewhere and our tracks got blown the **** up and we're trying to backtrack to get back on the right god damned path. Timmy is telling me it was left, but I sure the **** thought it was to the right. We'll get there.

We're young. We still have old people who won't die off and who are so sure in their old ways and are teaching their children what they know to be true (things that need to be changed). Then our education sucks and these children grow up and never learn what really needs to happen on their own, so they follow the steps and it's a never ending cycle of bullshit. It's like watching the scene in Top Gun where Maverick's plane spirals out of control and they have to eject and Goose dies over and over.

If I'm sick, I should be cured. If I'm dumb, I should be educated. I should be given these as a right. How the **** we got ourselves into this debt I do not know, and I could ramble on all day about where our government is wasting it's money, but I'd rather not. We're a young country, we went off and tried to do shit on our own. We're not doing so great right now, but that's called learning.

America stuck it's hand in a pot of boiling water thinking it couldn't get burned, and it happened. Then we passed out from the pain. And as soon as we wake the **** up, we're gonna understand that we can't just go putting our hands in hot water anymore, and our hand will heal up and we're gonna use it to throw a ****ing knock-out punch towards getting shit right.

[Locke4God]

@ Jeordam - Great comments, thanks for the post

@ Alpha & Ragna - Guys I just want to point out that I love America. It's my country, and I believe it to be the greatest in the world.

The founding principles of this country are based on protecting the population from a ruling dictatorship above all else. That's the point of our nation. You have to understand that.

Why people don't like Obama Care, is that it gives more power to the government. It's not that we're unconcerned with poor people, it's that we above all else, do not want to relinquish our freedoms.

As we often say, and as Obama has himself said, here you can make yourself anything you want to be. You can make it through school, you can further your education, you can find any job you wish and make the most of it. So, why is there this view that we have a lot of helpless people out there who are in some magical way incapable of helping themselves. Nobody in this country is incapable. We believe in the strength of the individual to better themselves and thus better the country. We're a country that believes in working hard for what you get and so why didn't more of these people graduate high school? Why didn't they work their way up in the work force? Why aren't they responsible with the money they do have? Why am I supposed to support them when they've done little for themselves? Why would I believe in the most free country on earth that there is somebody who just can't do it for themselves?

GET UP!!! Go work. Finish School. Be Responsible. I'm not talking about the guy who was crippled from birth. I'm talking about a girl I knew in high school who stone cold refused to finish school. Who wouldn't think of going to college. Who didn't dream of anything more than being a hotel housekeeper. I'm talking about the low glass guy with the $200 cell phone and a $600 Playstation 3 who is now asking for me to pay for him to go the doctor. And I so NO! You get off your couch, stop smoking pot, and get your ass to work.

And that brings me to the idea of personal responsibility. In America we believe equally in success and sadly failure. You have the freedom of any success you can earn, and you have the freedom to fail. There is no true freedom without the freedom to fail and so you're told growing up, or you should be, that nobody is going to do it for you. You learn that if you don't work hard, then you're going to find yourself living on the street, and thus you're motivated to go out there and work to better your own life. You learn not to be dependant on others.

The problem with Obama Care is that it requires the government to reappropriate money from those who have it, to those who supposedly don't, and that is a fundamental dissagreement with the principles America was founded on.

Our Government collects taxes and is charged with spending them only in service to everybody. It paves roads, for everybody. It prevents corporate monopolies, for everybody. It enforces laws, for everybody. It defends our boarders, for everybody.

But Obama Care doesn't promiss to help everybody. It promisses to help those who for whatever reason have not aquired it on their own. Tax dollars in America are not given to help any one segment of society, and that is a major problem with this plan.

We're not a socialist nation, and we don't want to be. Our nation works, and it is strong. Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and many other Socialist countries have found themselves in economic ruin and under social dicatatorships. Our country is strong and lives in freedom. For over 2 centuries America has been the beacon of freedom for the entire world, and there is no reason to change now at the whim of those who fail to see our strength.

[Aerif]

Why people don't like Obama Care, is that it gives more power to the government. It's not that we're unconcerned with poor people, it's that we above all else, do not want to relinquish our freedoms.

The thing is that basically every country in the world, and most likely a lot of Americans, see this stand-offish approach to Universal Health Care to be completely selfish.

Some people CAN'T pay for their health-care and it's not fair that such a basic human right should be taken from them. The right to live.

I know that there are special clinics that give free treatment to the poor and many other different iniatives that try to stop poor people from dieing on the street. But think about it this way, because you're rich does that give you anymore right-to-life than a poor person?

With the current situation, a rich person can afford that life-saving surgery wheras a poorer person would not be able to. In the eyes of the world, it definetly looks like America is unconcerned about it's poor.

As we often say, and as Obama has himself said, here you can make yourself anything you want to be. You can make it through school, you can further your education, you can find any job you wish and make the most of it.

That's of course assuming that you're rich enough. You can't go to college if you're poor unless you get a scholarship in America. In 'socialist' Scotland every student has the right to a free University education assuming they have acceptable grades.

We're a country that believes in working hard for what you get and so why didn't more of these people graduate high school?

Most likely because they're parents couldn't afford to keep them in high school, they needed to get a job to help support the family.

Why didn't they work their way up in the work force?

There are only so many upper-level positions in any company. Most of these positions will go to college-graduates, another missed opportunity for the poor.

Why aren't they responsible with the money they do have?

They most likely are. The problem is that some things such as food and shelter do normally eat into pay-cheques.

Why am I supposed to support them when they've done little for themselves?

That is a rather selfish statement. You don't know what these people have to go through.

As a country you support every student under the age of 18. Remember the public school system? You're helping them with that, as everybody else did with your education. Do you think America would be as 'civilised' as it is today without free basic education.

Why would I believe in the most free country on earth that there is somebody who just can't do it for themselves?

The only countries in the world that believe that are the U.S. themselves, alongside a few poverty-stricken countries that don't know any better. Clearly a country that shuns the impoverish sick and refuses to allow legal immigration to unskilled workers cannot be considered free.

I'm talking about a girl I knew in high school who stone cold refused to finish school. Who wouldn't think of going to college. Who didn't dream of anything more than being a hotel housekeeper.

Do you really think every poor-person has this mentallity?

I'm talking about the low glass guy with the $200 cell phone and a $600 Playstation 3 who is now asking for me to pay for him to go the doctor.

This guy likely came from a fairly well-off family if he could afford this. However he has as much right to free health-care as anyone else in the world.

Also remember that it isn't just you who is paying for him to go to the doctor. Everyone is. The same as everyone would be paying for you to go to the doctor.

Bypass heart-surgery apparently costs $20,000. I'm not sure how insurance works in the US, however I doubt most insurers would cover the entire cost of the operation. Especially if there is a history in the family of heart problems.

In the UK, this procedure would be entirely free to the patient. And any other patient who needed the procedure. They may need to wait a little while longer than an American. But any cost of the surgery would already have been paid for by the tax-payers.

And before anyone starts about the taxes, remember this, America does not need to have such a massive millitary. They have alliances, and their 'friends have adequete millitaries. Why should America need a bigger millitary that requires funding that could easily be spent on healthcare with little changes to tax.

And that brings me to the idea of personal responsibility. In America we believe equally in success and sadly failure. You have the freedom of any success you can earn, and you have the freedom to fail. There is no true freedom without the freedom to fail and so you're told growing up, or you should be, that nobody is going to do it for you. You learn that if you don't work hard, then you're going to find yourself living on the street, and thus you're motivated to go out there and work to better your own life. You learn not to be dependant on others.

Freedom should have nothing to do with life or death.

The problem with Obama Care is that it requires the government to reappropriate money from those who have it, to those who supposedly don't, and that is a fundamental dissagreement with the principles America was founded on.

That's what taxes already do with education.

Our Government collects taxes and is charged with spending them only in service to everybody. It paves roads, for everybody. It prevents corporate monopolies, for everybody. It enforces laws, for everybody. It defends our boarders, for everybody.

But Obama Care doesn't promiss to help everybody. It promisses to help those who for whatever reason have not aquired it on their own. Tax dollars in America are not given to help any one segment of society, and that is a major problem with this plan.

Health-care does help everybody. It means that those who are paying too much need to pay less for the same services. Taxes would pay for health-care for everybody, like in Britain, France, Cuba, Belgium and countless other countries.

We're not a socialist nation, and we don't want to be. Our nation works, and it is strong. Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and many other Socialist countries have found themselves in economic ruin and under social dicatatorships.

Socialism is not directly related to dictatorship. To my knowledge there are no dictatorships in Europe, whilst there are plenty of Scoalist countries.

Our country is strong and lives in freedom. For over 2 centuries America has been the beacon of freedom for the entire world, and there is no reason to change now at the whim of those who fail to see our strength.

Except to those who know better. Then they see that America is often as oppresed as third world countries. Especially concerning things such as health-care.

[Zardoch]

EDIT: Didn't want to double post, so I'm adding my response to Alpha as well.

The thing is that basically every country in the world, and most likely a lot of Americans, see this stand-offish approach to Universal Health Care to be completely selfish.

Selfish? SELFISH?! How is allowing people the FREEDOM to succeed (or fail depending on THEIR responsibility) selfish? Are Europeans or non-Americans in general some enlightened group of intellectual free thinkers that tolerate anything except anyone or thing that disagrees with them? Universal healthcare destroys societies (which has been historically proven) and you have the balls to call Americans selfish because they don't want to give up the one thing that makes America greater than any other country. It's not selfish to want to protect the freedoms that were bestowed upon us because we don't want to jump onto the universal healthcare bandwagon.

Some people CAN'T pay for their health-care and it's not fair that such a basic human right should be taken from them. The right to live.

But most CAN pay for it. Out of the supposed 50 million who can't pay for it (which is mathematically improbable in itself), only 3 or 4 people out of 10 in the entirety of that 50 million can't truly afford health insurance. Quite often, these people also seem to be illegal, which creates a wall between actually helping immigrants and the law. Even then, no hospital refuses treatment to anyone.

Here's the thing about your argument. You're talking about semantics, NOT the basic God given freedoms of America. Yes, everyone has the right to live, but no one has the right to force other people to bend over so they can reap the benefits of leeching on the system. Furthermore, as sad as it sounds, illegals have no rights because they are illegal. It doesn't mean we won't treat them when they require medical assistance since they are human beings after all, but it also doesn't mean we're going to pay for their insurance out of our own pocket when we already have so much other economic issues besides health insurance.

As for those who are legal and don't have insurance, I can tell you most of them are people who choose to not have insurance. Hell, here are some figures for you.

About 201.7 mil have public or private insurance. 80.3 mil have government insurance. That totals to 282 million people who have insurance out of--wait for it--300 million people. So that leaves 18 million who are actually uninsured, for which most are--again--people who choose not to have insurance.

GetLiberty.org >> Home

I know that there are special clinics that give free treatment to the poor and many other different iniatives that try to stop poor people from dieing on the street. But think about it this way, because you're rich does that give you anymore right-to-life than a poor person?

First, how about the fact that a lot of those poor people are poor because they made the wrong decisions? And then, despite that, some of these same people choose to use any money given to them for drugs, alcohol, or sex instead of saving up and actually having the ambition or motivation to get a job. Again, these people are humans beings and deserve the right to be treated, but again we shouldn't have to pay for other peoples' mistakes.

Second, do you know how many rich people are actually in the U.S? About 1% of the freaking population. That's about 3 million. That leaves 297 million people who aren't rich, and for the most part, try to make it through the day working off debts and other economic issues. What you're trying to do is get a knee-jerk reaction out of people with the idea that rich people are some how an evil entity. In such a case, I have two questions for you.

Where do you think this country gets its' freaking jobs? Do you think someone with a 250,000 yearly salary would make a difference by being forced to donate money he or she earned for the sake of the commonwealth? Or do you think that it's even ethical to force someone to donate ANY of their money to people who more or less are leeches upon a society? Hell, here's a third question. Don't rich people (or people who are better off in general) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just as much as any other American?

You know wanna know another fact? The more wealth people gain, the more common such people are willing to donate to groups such as the poor, illegal immigrants, minorities, or any other people who truly are suffering. And if you take that wealth away from them, they are less inclined to donate money when you take away the support that helps feed their families and their business and their communities.

With the current situation, a rich person can afford that life-saving surgery wheras a poorer person would not be able to. In the eyes of the world, it definetly looks like America is unconcerned about it's poor.

America is the most giving, donating, charitable country in the world, including all people within its borders. If you don't know that, you really are uninformed as the average obama supporter, and I don't say that to insult you. What I'm saying here is you need to gain a perspective and turn off your TV so you can actually learn about the issue; the why, the how, the what. Anyone who has watched Jon Stewart can make a statement such as yours and call it genius.

That's of course assuming that you're rich enough. You can't go to college if you're poor unless you get a scholarship in America. In 'socialist' Scotland every student has the right to a free University education assuming they have acceptable grades.

You know, some people--who also happen to be poor--actually decide to pick themselves, get a GED (which is equivalent to a HS diploma these days), and get into many colleges of their choice through hard work and the motivation to succeed. In a Socialist America, that wouldn't be possible. You would get a terrible education, especially since there would be a decrease in teachers the same way there will be a decrease in doctors and people studying to be doctors if this healthcare bill passes. You see, the compromising price for communistic socialism is the quality of everything decreases. Though, at this point, with liberals running our schools as it is, it's no surprise how bad education is now, but it's not because of capitalism, rich people, or selfish Americans.

There are only so many upper-level positions in any company. Most of these positions will go to college-graduates, another missed opportunity for the poor.

Yeah, because people who go to college, including those poor people who actually get off their ass to make something of themselves, work and learn enough to get the positions they deserve. You know the great thing about America though? More opportunities are created everyday. That won't last the way this country is going and again, it's not capitalism, rich people, selfish Americans, or college graduates fault.

They most likely are. The problem is that some things such as food and shelter do normally eat into pay-cheques.

Yeah, it's called getting a job, paying your bills, and having a life. It sucks, but at least you gain such things from your own work and responsibility.

That is a rather selfish statement. You don't know what these people have to go through.

Oh shit, my knee jerked into a 180 spin.

On a serious note, YOU have no idea what ANYONE has to go through but YOURSELF. Don't sit there in a seat a judgment and think that because some people don't want to be forced to pay for someone else when that someone else could get a job a pay for themselves that that they're any better or worse. Yeah, it sounds selfish, but it wouldn't be called freedom if it were selfish.

As a country you support every student under the age of 18. Remember the public school system? You're helping them with that, as everybody else did with your education. Do you think America would be as 'civilised' as it is today without free basic education.

What makes you think public schools are free? I'm pretty sure on the day before I went to my first day of school I remember my mom talking about paying the money required to enroll me into the public school. The money to PAY for all the crap schools use has to come from somewhere. Again, free education means less quality, which means less intelligence from kids who can't get the best education because people like you want everyone to get a cookie.

The only countries in the world that believe that are the U.S. themselves, alongside a few poverty-stricken countries that don't know any better. Clearly a country that shuns the impoverish sick and refuses to allow legal immigration to unskilled workers cannot be considered free.

Where the hell did you get such facts? America ENDORSES people such as legal immigrants because those immigrants have the balls to do the job many other people want. THAT is what started America in the first place as immigrants from all over the world worked their ass off to pay for their family and IF (a big IF) they ever were able to find some comfortable wealth, they'd pay for their communities as well.

Do you really think every poor-person has this mentallity?

I doubt he does, but he probably is explaining the very type of people who--in the millions--suck on the government programs like vampire sucking on a person who has an infinite amount of blood. Some poor people live their lives because they made it way. The poor people who actually had everything taken away, however, are in the few.

Also remember that it isn't just you who is paying for him to go to the doctor. Everyone is. The same as everyone would be paying for you to go to the doctor.

Yeah, which also means that the quality of both care and doctors will be worse. Yay for universal healthcare!

Bypass heart-surgery apparently costs $20,000. I'm not sure how insurance works in the US, however I doubt most insurers would cover the entire cost of the operation. Especially if there is a history in the family of heart problems.

Yeah, that's the point of insurance. It doesn't cover everything, but MOST of it so that you can comfortably pay off the rest with the money you earned from working your ass off. Sounds like a good deal to me.

In the UK, this procedure would be entirely free to the patient. And any other patient who needed the procedure. They may need to wait a little while longer than an American. But any cost of the surgery would already have been paid for by the tax-payers.

Yeah, and a lot of people were denied surgery and the like because they HAD to wait, which if they would have, they would've died. That's a bad thing. Furthermore, places like Canada bans private insurance or in the U.K. people are penalized for going to other countries (i.e. USA) to NOT die. There was even one issue where women who had breast cancer would either be denied coverage and it became illegal for them to seek outside help, mostly because the law-makers deemed such women worthless because of their disease.

-chants English anthem-

And before anyone starts about the taxes, remember this, America does not need to have such a massive millitary. They have alliances, and their 'friends have adequete millitaries. Why should America need a bigger millitary that requires funding that could easily be spent on healthcare with little changes to tax.

You know, this is one thing I almost agree with you on, but one other fact you have to remember is most people in the military volunteered. We have a massive military because there are people who want to serve their country AND the fact that our economy has done so well that we could afford it.

Freedom should have nothing to do with life or death.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It most certainly has nothing to do with death, but everything to do with life; Socialism, communism, universal healthcare; they are the bringers of death upon a civilization.

Health-care does help everybody. It means that those who are paying too much need to pay less for the same services. Taxes would pay for health-care for everybody, like in Britain, France, Cuba, Belgium and countless other countries.

Paying too much? How is that a bad thing? If someone is paying premiums on healthcare and getting what they pay for, where's the problem?

Socialism is not directly related to dictatorship. To my knowledge there are no dictatorships in Europe, whilst there are plenty of Scoalist countries.

No, but if socialism continues to gain ground, there WILL be dictators. I can predict that very thing happening within the future. You see, creating a commonwealth among everyone has a huge flaw. Not EVERYONE is exempted from the laws created under a socialistic country. Read up on the Soviet Union and you'll understand what I mean.

Except to those who know better. Then they see that America is often as oppresed as third world countries. Especially concerning things such as health-care.

Know better? That's why the U.K. is bankrupt, right? Because they somehow 'know better'.

BigGovHealth | Learn the Facts

Gain a new perspective.

I look at America, and think "God, I do not want to live there." I respect your nationalism, but be objective about it. Your country has some fundamental flaws.

That's your right to believe that and I won't deny there are flaws with our system. Most, however, are not created by the people who believe on the Constitution.

Obamacare will give the freedom of healthcare to anyone who requires it. He's not going to take your children.

And Obamacare is also going to happen to force everything into a single-payer option, which includes such things as forcing employers to force their employees to accept Obama's option or else pay overly expensive fees.

"Most free" country?

You betcha. When I look at Europe, South America, Africa, China, Australia, and Japan, I think to myself, "Good lord, I wish no one lived over there or at least had a chance to have the kind of freedom and prosperity we have." We are the most free, the most strong, the best of the best. Here's a video to help prove that.

Pajamas TV - Afterburner with Bill Whittle - Bill Maher, Barack Obama and the Truth About American Exceptionalism

There's your objectivity.

And people can't "do it for themselves" because not everyone can be rich. There are only so many top jobs, and if there were anymore, then people would be holding them already. Any capitalist nation is going to have inequality. It's what they are based on. But when inequality gets to the point where people cannot afford to be healthy (and thus to have a decent standard of living), then someone needs to step in and take responsibility. This someone is the government. I mean, are you going to do it?

Either you have some twisted understanding of what capitalism is or you simply are as uninformed as the average anti-war protestor. Capitalism creates the oppurtunity to get out from under the rock by having the determination to support yourself, your family, and in some cases, your community (as I said). If you think it's unfair, well, I suppose it is in the sense that it's about competition. If you're smarter than the other person who was interviewed for the same job, chances are you'll get the job. That's what drives a free economy; the ability to either do better than the next man or give the best deal to the person who requires your service. If you destroy that competition, then quality goes down (as I said) and it no longer increases economically.

So people have the freedom to fail. So what happens when they do (inevitably) fail? We can't all succeed. Should we just leave them be, and say, "well, should've tried harder when you were twelve." That is not a free society. That is not a fair society. That is why people look at America and realise how lucky they are to not live there.

Alright, well here's something I'm not sure you're familiar with. People have the freedom to succeed OR fail due to their responsibility. If someone makes responsible decisions and takes care of whatever wealth they have, gaining knowledge and investing in somethings, they might do well. In the case of failure, in the end, they still have what's most important; life. Which means they have another chance to succeed. In a socialistic or communistic society, you wouldn't have any chance, period. You're just another robot to get in line and do your job.

Furthermore, such things like socialism and communism take away individuality. When you have a country dedicated to helping every single person, it destroys the chance to have your own wealth to do the things you want to do and how you want to do it.

So yes, life not be may not be fair, but capitalism at least gives people a greater chance to succeed. That's the point.

So it does not accord with the Protestant work ethic. Does that mean that it can't be done? Look to the future, not the past. We don't live in the 1700s anymore.

Yeah, we're not in Soviet Union either, thank God.

It does not provide (free) healthcare, for everybody.

As well it shouldn't. In fact, it's against the Constitution and the bill of rights for the congress to even try to provide healthcare. Yes, it's actually illegal.

A beacon of freedom which has invaded multiple countries, notably Iraq, when the international community largely denounced an invasion? A nation which has propped up corrupt governments, given weapons to the Taleban to fight the Soviets, and then gone and fought the Taleban? Strength, or abuse of power? [Yes, this is off-topic.]

Invade? How about set free, minus Vietnam? I guess someone such as yourself wouldn't mind defending a man who killed thousands upon thousands of his own people to keep himself in power (i.e. Saddam). Or you might defend Hitler because he was such a misunderstood individual, especially since a lot of what he propagated was liberal and socialistic too.

Again, I won't deny such things as certain people in our government selling shit to our enemies (something that angers me quite a bit), but compared to any other country in history, the U.S. of A. has done such things the world never even knew existed. Great things, free things, wondrous things. And it's not because we're simply better than everyone. Hell, like the video I linked you to mentioned that after WW2, we had such military power that NO ONE could have challenged at that time. Yet what did we do? We went home. We even sent aid to those who would spit in our face.

If you were to judge us upon our actions and not our words, you'd stop and think for a moment what America truly represents. It may not be perfect. It may not be socialistic. But by God in heaven, it's the only thing that keeps this world sane even in the screams of people who hate us. You don't want to live here? That's a pity because as an America, even I would give you my bed if it meant giving you the feet to walk on your own.

[Alpha]

Universal healthcare destroys societies (which has been historically proven) and you have the balls to call Americans selfish because they don't want to give up the one thing that makes America greater than any other country. It's not selfish to want to protect the freedoms that were bestowed upon us because we don't want to jump onto the universal healthcare bandwagon.

Aside from the fact that I disagree with you on every conceivable level, how does universal healthcare destroy societies? Is that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed? Besides, they were communist, not socialist; there's a distinction. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, many non-Western states (such as Morocco, apparently), have socialised healthcare. When exactly did they crumble?

...do you know how many rich people are actually in the U.S? About 1% of the freaking population.

Do you know that the richest 20% of the American population earns 80% of the wealth? And that the top 5 richest people in the united states have a combined wealth equal to that of multitudes of poor nations? That 1% sure are rich, and that bottom rung of society sure is poor. Fancy sharing some of that around?

[Zardoch]

Aside from the fact that I disagree with you on every conceivable level, how does universal healthcare destroy societies? Is that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed? Besides, they were communist, not socialist; there's a distinction. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, many non-Western states (such as Morocco, apparently), have socialised healthcare. When exactly did they crumble?

If you would have read more of my response, you would have realized the how. Socialism leads a country where the quality of things degenerates. You can't suspect anything to get better when even the government can't pay for the services people like you want so bad. No civilization can live on such a system unless there is one global currency controlled by the largest central bank and that, my friend, is exactly what is described in revelations as the system of the beast. Not only that, but such a system would be the scariest thing when it comes to controlling peoples' lives on a maximum level. One of Obama's czars said they wouldn't mind a global currency too. Nothing can go wrong there, huh?

Do you know that the richest 20% of the American population earns 80% of the wealth? And that the top 5 richest people in the united states have a combined wealth equal to that of multitudes of poor nations? That 1% sure are rich, and that bottom rung of society sure is poor. Fancy sharing some of that around?

Did you know that 20% (probably less, actually) are the ones who pay for jobs, which in turn allows people to use the money they earned giving services to other people?

As for the 1%, why don't you ask them? I'm pretty certain they donating TONS of money to charities in the billions if not trillions, though half of the reason is based on taxes. I'd call that a win-win.

Did you also know that by "Rich" they don't just mean THEE rich? They also mean people in middle class. People who are well off and not using wellfare.. and are citizens. People like me.

Lol, if there's more people of the middle-high class in America, that's a good thing. It means more people are getting enough money to live comfortably, take care of their family, and in a lot of cases donate their money.

[Alpha]

@ Alpha & Ragna - Guys I just want to point out that I love America. It's my country, and I believe it to be the greatest in the world.

I look at America, and think "God, I do not want to live there." I respect your nationalism, but be objective about it. Your country has some fundamental flaws.

Why people don't like Obama Care, is that it gives more power to the government. It's not that we're unconcerned with poor people, it's that we above all else, do not want to relinquish our freedoms.

Obamacare will give the freedom of healthcare to anyone who requires it. He's not going to take your children.

Why would I believe in the most free country on earth that there is somebody who just can't do it for themselves?

"Most free" country?

And people can't "do it for themselves" because not everyone can be rich. There are only so many top jobs, and if there were anymore, then people would be holding them already. Any capitalist nation is going to have inequality. It's what they are based on. But when inequality gets to the point where people cannot afford to be healthy (and thus to have a decent standard of living), then someone needs to step in and take responsibility. This someone is the government. I mean, are you going to do it?

And that brings me to the idea of personal responsibility. In America we believe equally in success and sadly failure. You have the freedom of any success you can earn, and you have the freedom to fail. There is no true freedom without the freedom to fail and so you're told growing up, or you should be, that nobody is going to do it for you. You learn that if you don't work hard, then you're going to find yourself living on the street, and thus you're motivated to go out there and work to better your own life. You learn not to be dependant on others.

So people have the freedom to fail. So what happens when they do (inevitably) fail? We can't all succeed. Should we just leave them be, and say, "well, should've tried harder when you were twelve." That is not a free society. That is not a fair society. That is why people look at America and realise how lucky they are to not live there.

The problem with Obama Care is that it requires the government to reappropriate money from those who have it, to those who supposedly don't, and that is a fundamental dissagreement with the principles America was founded on.

So it does not accord with the Protestant work ethic. Does that mean that it can't be done? Look to the future, not the past. We don't live in the 1700s anymore.

Our Government collects taxes and is charged with spending them only in service to everybody. It paves roads, for everybody. It prevents corporate monopolies, for everybody. It enforces laws, for everybody. It defends our boarders, for everybody.

It does not provide (free) healthcare, for everybody.

For over 2 centuries America has been the beacon of freedom for the entire world, and there is no reason to change now at the whim of those who fail to see our strength.

A beacon of freedom which has invaded multiple countries, notably Iraq, when the international community largely denounced an invasion? A nation which has propped up corrupt governments, given weapons to the Taleban to fight the Soviets, and then gone and fought the Taleban? Strength, or abuse of power? [Yes, this is off-topic.]

[Locke4God]

I'm curious why those of you who are pro socialized healthcare assume poorer people are incapable. Do they not have access to free education? I paid my own way through college by working full time to go to a reasonably pricey school at the University of Florida. Paid the whole thing myself working an entry level job. And there are much cheaper options. Is a person from a poorer background than I not capable of doing this? I'm just curious why there's this vision that poor people somehow have no chance or opportunity to better themselves in this country as though they're stupid and useless. When you see a person of meager standing do you simply assume they can't do better? Do you pass them off as lost causes? Do you think their children have no chance? To me, if you're going to offer somebody free healthcare, you're taking away their dignity. You're robbing them of the human condition. My view is simply tough love. Your kids don't grow strong because you spoil them. They don't learn indepedance if you do things for them. You have to instill people with the will to succeed and make themselves better, not take it away by babying them as though they're helpless children. I believe in everybody, and I believe everybody is strong and capable.

[Violet]

Did you also know that by "Rich" they don't just mean THEE rich? They also mean people in middle class. People who are well off and not using wellfare.. and are citizens. People like me.

[Andromeda]

Did you also know that by "Rich" they don't just mean THEE rich? They also mean people in middle class. People who are well off and not using wellfare.. and are citizens. People like me.

Just a further note to that amusing thing. Politicians play with numbers for their needs. Did you know that when I was working I was considered in the poor category for the wealth by government standards? I made $12 an hour I was considered poor. That's better than McDonalds and minimum wage and they still said I was "poor". Because I made under a certain amount each year. Poor is no longer an very accurate term to be using and nor is rich, in the definitions that government and public institutions use them. And what's better? The government wanted to increase the bar that would be called poor, so suddenly there are more poor people who are actually living sustained lives on their own feet and they're poor. I had full benefits too. I certainly wasn't middle-class, but I never saw myself as poor either.

I found that pretty entertaining when I heard that I was considered poor by the government standards.

As for the main subject at hand. I completely agree with Griffith. I had a lot more to say, but there's been others that have said what I said.

A fun article about European Health Care when I googled searched.

Europe's free health care has a hefty price tag - USATODAY.com

From USA Today and the AP. France's health care is in debt and continues to be for years. Other European's countries facing similar issue and now forced to make cut backs on insurance.

Medicine for breast cancer that the US had been using and been approved didn't even make over for patients in the UK for another 4 years when they could have been getting help from it.

It doesn't sound like Europe has all the answers for health care either. They're still trying to make it work and not run into debt. The US is already in a huge debt and going to be even bigger soon. We don't need to be going further into debt and then cutting back on coverage because we can't afford to support the massive structure.

[Jin]

Socialism leads a country where the quality of things degenerates. You can't suspect anything to get better when even the government can't pay for the services people like you want so bad. No civilization can live on such a system unless there is one global currency controlled by the largest central bank and that, my friend, is exactly what is described in revelations as the system of the beast. [Was this put in for dramatic effect or is that actually an argument?] Not only that, but such a system would be the scariest thing when it comes to controlling peoples' lives on a maximum level. One of Obama's czars said they wouldn't mind a global currency too. Nothing can go wrong there, huh?

Just a clarification in case I've misinterpreted. Are you actually comparing a country with socialized medicine to a fully socialist country or are you claiming that civilizations decay simply as a result of socialized medicine? Or is it something completely different that I've missed? The former two don't make much sense, so I'm guessing it's the latter.

[Locke4God]

@ Alpha - Listen I don't care if you don't want to live here, but America is great and always has been. We won WWII for the whole world.

And I don't understand how you can belief that socialism is somehow supperior. We're the richest country on earth as you keep pointing out. I love capitalism. I know I can be as successful as I can be.

And it seems, since you appear to be in jubilation not to be living here, that you think the country is some crap hole with beggers running around all over the place. You do realize that this whole healthcare thing is being fought over for the benefit of just 5 million people. Maybe 7. We have 300 Million living here. Almost all of us are doing pretty darn good thank you very much.

Perhaps you'd like Cuba. Socialism seems to be working great there. Or maybe in Russia the entirety of the entire 20th Century. Oh yeah those were some good times. Are there any places in the world where Capitalism seems to be a bust. If there are it'd be a first. Socialism has already failed numerous times. Not everywhere of course, but it's pretty clear that it's not the stongest system.

America's interest has been always first and formost to prevent dictatorship & tyranny. And we do that by giving strength to the individual. If you start taking that away, the entire point it mute. We do not socialize industry here in America. It's just not what we do. The day that fails, I'll listen to what you have to say, but it hasn't failed, we're strong, and proud of our military might, and I'm not standing around while some freshman poser president like Obama tries to tear down what we've built.

[Sean]

I'm for this bill, and I knew it would be coming and this was a major reason I supported Obama. This country is ~ half and half Republican vs Democrat, and for some reason the Republicans are so ****ing scared of anything resembling communism or socialism it's sickening. But then you look at the fact that most republicans are racist, uneducated, backwoods ****tards and you realize why it's the case.

I'm all for a strong centralized government. I'd rather see the local governments begin losing power, because all they're doing is wasting money here and there, and certain states are in massive deficits and eating the profits from the states that are not.

This bill will help lower the overall cost of health care in America. The United States government will become a Health Care Provider, the same as any other Health Insurer in the nation that currently overcharges and gouges people, lowering the overall income a family is able to have and hurting companies. I don't see why it's such an issue that, basically, the US government is trying to enter the private market sector of business.

Hell they own a huge portion of GM now. Why is that? Because no one would invest money into the would-be dead company besides the US Government.

Obama's Health Care will not impact the private sector, it will, however, force private companies to lower their rates to be actually affordable. I'm sure this also has something to do with the corporations that own and control hospitals, as well, since if you end up getting a hospital bill that insurance doesn't cover (or you don't have any) then you're more than likely being billed more than they would've billed your insurance company.

And while you cannot be refused medical treatment under any circumstances, you can be completely financially ruined for the rest of your life as a result of a severe and life-threatening illness.

Personally? I worked a full time job for 40-50 hours a week and made 26,000 a year doing it. That wasn't enough for me to even get my own place on, much less buy health insurance (which, when I got a quote, was $300/mo). That's the median income for a LOT of workers who don't have a college education. I'm also white and "middle class", which means I don't qualify for a free college education, yet I cannot afford to pay for it myself.

Instead just to get ahead I'm now working for $500-600 a month and digging massive holes of debt to get my education so I CAN make it into a job field that will pay me more than $26 grand/year. Even though I was in a job field that was one of the hardest and most demanding, and that 9 out of 10 people or more would completely sink if they were attempting to do.

Where's that leave me if I get sick with a severe illness? I can't afford the $250/mo it costs me to own a car, the $60 a month it costs me in gas for travel, the law-required car insurance I have to have for $200/mo, the insane prices food costs, which ranges upwards of $200/mo. (That's ~ 6 dollars a day. I'd really like to see someone live on less than $150/mo on food) Where am I supposed to shit $300/mo for health insurance on top of that?

[Locke4God]

@ Sean - Did you just say you support Communism? Is that not what we spent the entire 20th Century trying to defeat? Need I say more?