November 7th House of Reps. Health Care Thread

[Devilman88]

lol

Cite?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Read head about it here

Well, what do you democrats have to say about this?

I think it's great. Why the FUKC should I pay for you getting health care for free? (yes ER care is a part of health care, the most expensive I may add)

So making people have to have health care, they don't want to get is great? Where is the freedom in that?

For starters you realize that those who do not want health care are a very small % of those who do not have it, right?  Secondly, those who do not have health care are a tremendous strain on the system, regardless if they want health care or not.  Unless, you believe you should be left to die if something were to happen to you....

I understand that, I was just making a point. You don't need health care. I would love for everyone to have health care, but one of two things are going to have to happen for that to happen. One, we are going to have to pay very high taxes for it, or two, the quality of the health care will have to go down because we don't have the money to pay for the same quality of health care system we have now.

Based off what exactly?  The only ones who will see a tax increase with this are those making over $250,000.  Nothing indicates that the quality of health care is going to suffer as a result.  One key impact is many more people will be able to get preventative care which will help reduce the amount of people from getting various diseases or illnesses but also catch them earlier, both will have a tremendous impact on lowering costs.  Also a key reason why health care is so expensive is not the quality of care, but quite simply greed and lack of accountability within the industry.

First, that is the line right now, but as our population grows and more people get on the public health care, the cost will go up, even if the overall cost of health care goes down. So they will have to lower the line of who has to pay higher taxes. Also, why should the rich have to pay for the everyone to have health care? What does that teach Americans? To depend on other and not yourself. I don't want to live in a big brother system.

Why should the rich pay for everyone to have education? Why should the rich pay for everyone to live in a free nation? Why should the rich pay for anything but themselves? My God, you are dumb.

They rich shouldn't have to pay for it all. Why tax people because they have more? You are taking form them because they work hard and got ahead, or their family did. That stupid. You can call me dumb all you want, but they still don't change the fact that everyone should pay for their own stuff. Thats what's wrong with America. We have because a big brother state, where the the rich have to pay for everyone else, cause people to because depending on others and not working for what they have.

[Smash255]

lol

Cite?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Read head about it here

Well, what do you democrats have to say about this?

I think it's great. Why the FUKC should I pay for you getting health care for free? (yes ER care is a part of health care, the most expensive I may add)

So making people have to have health care, they don't want to get is great? Where is the freedom in that?

For starters you realize that those who do not want health care are a very small % of those who do not have it, right?  Secondly, those who do not have health care are a tremendous strain on the system, regardless if they want health care or not.  Unless, you believe you should be left to die if something were to happen to you....

I understand that, I was just making a point. You don't need health care. I would love for everyone to have health care, but one of two things are going to have to happen for that to happen. One, we are going to have to pay very high taxes for it, or two, the quality of the health care will have to go down because we don't have the money to pay for the same quality of health care system we have now.

Based off what exactly?  The only ones who will see a tax increase with this are those making over $250,000.  Nothing indicates that the quality of health care is going to suffer as a result.  One key impact is many more people will be able to get preventative care which will help reduce the amount of people from getting various diseases or illnesses but also catch them earlier, both will have a tremendous impact on lowering costs.  Also a key reason why health care is so expensive is not the quality of care, but quite simply greed and lack of accountability within the industry.

First, that is the line right now, but as our population grows and more people get on the public health care, the cost will go up, even if the overall cost of health care goes down. So they will have to lower the line of who has to pay higher taxes. Also, why should the rich have to pay for the everyone to have health care? What does that teach Americans? To depend on other and not yourself. I don't want to live in a big brother system.

In the long run its going to wind up being cheaper, because without it you will have even more people without health insurance, even more people whose diseases are worse than what they could have been, even more people who have diseases that could have been avoided, and all of that would be extremely costly.  No evidence that the income amounts for taxes will be lowered.  As far as why the rich should pay for it, well for starters they should have never had the cuts they had and secondly, well they can afford it.  The costs of not doing anything hits the working class, and middle class much harder than this hits the rich.

[Lunar]

Oh wow, it passed.

finally a sane response.

[Devilman88]

People like Devilman are stupid. Who cares if Cao voted in favor? He saw it was going to pass and knew his vote wouldn't affect the results. He's trying to stay in his seat. You guys prefer the Democrat winning back that seat (99.99% chance already) than having a vote that won't affect the result. That's just pathetic.

I'm stupid? Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Cite examples of stupidity from me, you hack.

I'm a hack? Wow, that's new.. How am I stupid? Also, how am I a hack?

How are you stupid? You just said that car insurance is more necessary than health insurance.

Car insurance is more necessary, because it protects the other drivers as well as yourself. Health insurance only protects yourself. Why should I care if someone doesn't want to protect themself, that is their life.

edit: How am i a hack?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Car insurance protects you and your vehicle. Health insurance protects you and the public (by working to prevent contagious diseases). No wonder you got chased off the forum and had to become Devilman.

If you cause a accident, your insurance pays for the other person bill, if they get hurt. Trust me I know. Health insurance protects you.

You have to pay for the accident regardless if it is your fault. Insurance only pays it for you when you have it. It's not like without insurance the other person has to pay for what you did. Are you like 12?

What, do you not know how to read? I said, the insurance pays for the other person's bills if you caused the accident. That is why you have to have it.. God you are dumb.

[Alexander Hamilton]

lol

Cite?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Read head about it here

Well, what do you democrats have to say about this?

I think it's great. Why the FUKC should I pay for you getting health care for free? (yes ER care is a part of health care, the most expensive I may add)

So making people have to have health care, they don't want to get is great? Where is the freedom in that?

For starters you realize that those who do not want health care are a very small % of those who do not have it, right?  Secondly, those who do not have health care are a tremendous strain on the system, regardless if they want health care or not.  Unless, you believe you should be left to die if something were to happen to you....

I understand that, I was just making a point. You don't need health care. I would love for everyone to have health care, but one of two things are going to have to happen for that to happen. One, we are going to have to pay very high taxes for it, or two, the quality of the health care will have to go down because we don't have the money to pay for the same quality of health care system we have now.

Based off what exactly?  The only ones who will see a tax increase with this are those making over $250,000.  Nothing indicates that the quality of health care is going to suffer as a result.  One key impact is many more people will be able to get preventative care which will help reduce the amount of people from getting various diseases or illnesses but also catch them earlier, both will have a tremendous impact on lowering costs.  Also a key reason why health care is so expensive is not the quality of care, but quite simply greed and lack of accountability within the industry.

First, that is the line right now, but as our population grows and more people get on the public health care, the cost will go up, even if the overall cost of health care goes down. So they will have to lower the line of who has to pay higher taxes. Also, why should the rich have to pay for the everyone to have health care? What does that teach Americans? To depend on other and not yourself. I don't want to live in a big brother system.

Why should the rich pay for everyone to have education? Why should the rich pay for everyone to live in a free nation? Why should the rich pay for anything but themselves? My God, you are dumb.

They rich shouldn't have to pay for it all. Why tax people because they have more? You are taking form them because they work hard and got ahead, or their family did. That stupid. You can call me dumb all you want, but they still don't change the fact that everyone should pay for their own stuff. Thats what's wrong with America. We have because a big brother state, where the the rich have to pay for everyone else, cause people to because depending on others and not working for what they have.

Why tax people because they have less? "That stupid." Lol. "You stoopid!" Do you support privatized education? Do you understand the concept of insurance? Insurance is based around "pay for everyone else" concepts. You pay no matter what, even if you don't get sick or in an accident or whatever the insurance may be. You pay no matter what, so that other people are covered when they have problems. Plus, you sound like you have no idea what this bill actually contains.

[Alexander Hamilton]

People like Devilman are stupid. Who cares if Cao voted in favor? He saw it was going to pass and knew his vote wouldn't affect the results. He's trying to stay in his seat. You guys prefer the Democrat winning back that seat (99.99% chance already) than having a vote that won't affect the result. That's just pathetic.

I'm stupid? Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Cite examples of stupidity from me, you hack.

I'm a hack? Wow, that's new.. How am I stupid? Also, how am I a hack?

How are you stupid? You just said that car insurance is more necessary than health insurance.

Car insurance is more necessary, because it protects the other drivers as well as yourself. Health insurance only protects yourself. Why should I care if someone doesn't want to protect themself, that is their life.

edit: How am i a hack?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Car insurance protects you and your vehicle. Health insurance protects you and the public (by working to prevent contagious diseases). No wonder you got chased off the forum and had to become Devilman.

If you cause a accident, your insurance pays for the other person bill, if they get hurt. Trust me I know. Health insurance protects you.

You have to pay for the accident regardless if it is your fault. Insurance only pays it for you when you have it. It's not like without insurance the other person has to pay for what you did. Are you like 12?

What, do you not know how to read? I said, the insurance pays for the other person's bills if you caused the accident. That is why you have to have it.. God you are dumb.

LMAO. You're relentless. Did you read my post at all? I said that even without insurance, the individual has to pay. So it isn't "protecting other people" like you claim.

[Devilman88]

lol

Cite?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Read head about it here

Well, what do you democrats have to say about this?

I think it's great. Why the FUKC should I pay for you getting health care for free? (yes ER care is a part of health care, the most expensive I may add)

So making people have to have health care, they don't want to get is great? Where is the freedom in that?

For starters you realize that those who do not want health care are a very small % of those who do not have it, right?  Secondly, those who do not have health care are a tremendous strain on the system, regardless if they want health care or not.  Unless, you believe you should be left to die if something were to happen to you....

I understand that, I was just making a point. You don't need health care. I would love for everyone to have health care, but one of two things are going to have to happen for that to happen. One, we are going to have to pay very high taxes for it, or two, the quality of the health care will have to go down because we don't have the money to pay for the same quality of health care system we have now.

Based off what exactly?  The only ones who will see a tax increase with this are those making over $250,000.  Nothing indicates that the quality of health care is going to suffer as a result.  One key impact is many more people will be able to get preventative care which will help reduce the amount of people from getting various diseases or illnesses but also catch them earlier, both will have a tremendous impact on lowering costs.  Also a key reason why health care is so expensive is not the quality of care, but quite simply greed and lack of accountability within the industry.

First, that is the line right now, but as our population grows and more people get on the public health care, the cost will go up, even if the overall cost of health care goes down. So they will have to lower the line of who has to pay higher taxes. Also, why should the rich have to pay for the everyone to have health care? What does that teach Americans? To depend on other and not yourself. I don't want to live in a big brother system.

In the long run its going to wind up being cheaper, because without it you will have even more people without health insurance, even more people whose diseases are worse than what they could have been, even more people who have diseases that could have been avoided, and all of that would be extremely costly.  No evidence that the income amounts for taxes will be lowered.  As far as why the rich should pay for it, well for starters they should have never had the cuts they had and secondly, well they can afford it.  The costs of not doing anything hits the working class, and middle class much harder than this hits the rich.

I'm not saying our current system doesn't need to be changed, I don't like the current bill. If I had it my way, I would have free health care for people under 18 and people older then 65. Anyone else will have to have private health care. Plus there are alot of details that needs to be changed too, that I don't have the time to go into.

[cinyc]

In the long run its going to wind up being cheaper, because without it you will have even more people without health insurance, even more people whose diseases are worse than what they could have been, even more people who have diseases that could have been avoided, and all of that would be extremely costly.  No evidence that the income amounts for taxes will be lowered.  As far as why the rich should pay for it, well for starters they should have never had the cuts they had and secondly, well they can afford it.  The costs of not doing anything hits the working class, and middle class much harder than this hits the rich.

Who says that the so-called "rich" can afford higher taxes?  Every additional dollar the government steals from the so-called "rich" is a dollar that they cannot freely spend or invest on their own.  One less dollar for the guy who sells the morning coffee.  One less dollar for the people who sell and make furniture.  Liberals seem to believe that the omipotent government is better at making economic decisions than the so-called "rich" - or any taxpayer, really.  I've seen no proof of that - ever.

BTW - try raising a family on the income of the so-called "rich" in a high-cost place like New York.  The so-called "rich" aren't as rich as you think.

Why do liberals like to penalize success?

[Devilman88]

Hammy, I'm done with you. It's like debating a wall.. Also, i do believe that education should be private.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why do liberals like to penalize success?

Because they don't have jobs/have do nothing jobs (such as high school teacher or something along those lines).

[Alexander Hamilton]

Hammy, I'm done with you. It's like debating a wall.. Also, i do believe that education should be private.

Admission of being dumber than a wall is a new phenomenon, I must say.

[Ronnie]

Why did Artur Davis vote against it?  It must be because of the governor's race.

[Frodo]

Why did Artur Davis vote against it?  It must be because of the governor's race.

I really don't see why he even bothered -he is going to lose in 2010 anyway, especially in a state like Alabama. 

[War on Want]

This is the dumbest fucking thread of debate I have ever seen on the Atlas.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This is the dumbest fucking thread of debate I have ever seen on the Atlas.

GREAT CONTRIBUTION!

[Smash255]

In the long run its going to wind up being cheaper, because without it you will have even more people without health insurance, even more people whose diseases are worse than what they could have been, even more people who have diseases that could have been avoided, and all of that would be extremely costly.  No evidence that the income amounts for taxes will be lowered.  As far as why the rich should pay for it, well for starters they should have never had the cuts they had and secondly, well they can afford it.  The costs of not doing anything hits the working class, and middle class much harder than this hits the rich.

Who says that the so-called "rich" can afford higher taxes?  Every additional dollar the government steals from the so-called "rich" is a dollar that they cannot freely spend or invest on their own.  One less dollar for the guy who sells the morning coffee.  One less dollar for the people who sell and make furniture.  Liberals seem to believe that the omipotent government is better at making economic decisions than the so-called "rich" - or any taxpayer, really.  I've seen no proof of that - ever.

BTW - try raising a family on the income of the so-called "rich" in a high-cost place like New York.  The so-called "rich" aren't as rich as you think.

Why do liberals like to penalize success?

Ehh I live on Long Island, a family with an income of over $250,000 is still rich....  BTW someone making $275,000 will see an entire increase of gasp $750 a year in federal taxes......

[War on Want]

This is the dumbest fucking thread of debate I have ever seen on the Atlas.

GREAT CONTRIBUTION!

Why thank you sir.

[Lief 🗽]

Josh, if you could kindly stop posting in this thread and just post directly into the Goldmine, that would save us a lot of time and trouble, thanks.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hammy, I'm done with you. It's like debating a wall.. Also, i do believe that education should be private.

lol

Explain.

[Swing Voter]

Also, i do believe that education should be private.

Privatized education? Do you understand the consequences of such policy? That would create an increasing income disparity, especially along racial lines, and would deny many children the opportunity to be successful later in life. Do you honestly believe that, given the power to implement any policy desired, a principled American would choose to put our children's future in the hands of possibly neglecting parents and/or the state of the national economy at the time of the child's upbringing? This sort of thinking is disastrous, and it's a large part of the decline in support of the Republican party over the last few years. It seems the Glenn Beck wingnuts really have taken over.

[War on Want]

Why do liberals like to penalize success?

Because they don't have jobs/have do nothing jobs (such as high school teacher or something along those lines).

People are conservative because they have small penises and/or Aspergers syndrome. The sad part is that my analysis is about as intelligent as yours.

[Swing Voter]

Also, I don't understand the big fuss. The bill has practically zero chance of passing the Senate.

[Sbane]

We pay about $7,000 per capita while most countries in Europe pay about $4,000 per capita and cover their whole population. 16% of our population doesn't have insurance. They also have better health outcomes than we do. So we pay more and we get less. That is better?

If I wanted to live in a cradle-to-grave welfare state like Europe, I'd move there - or to Canada.  I don't care for government-run, government-rationed health care, with no incentive to innovate.   I don't want the government to tell me what I have to buy - or get fined or go to jail. 

There's no such thing as a free lunch.  What's not rationed by price is ultimately rationed in a different way, like time.   Is waiting months in pain for an MRI really a better "health outcome"?  Is waiting twenty hours to get treatment a better "health outcome"?   Is having to wait months to see a specialist or YEARS to get a general practitioner gatekeeper to even get to see that specialist a better "health outcome"?

Oh there's no free lunch. Our health care system sure isn't, that's for sure. Actually our health care system is a $20 lunch you get at a fancy restaurant that you could get for $5 at a hole in the wall place.

Additionally do you think there is no rationing in America? What exactly is 45 million Americans without health care other than rationing? And we still pay $7,000 PER CAPITA, a figure that includes those 45 million individuals. Other countries get it done for about $4,000 or less and still cover everyone. And then there is rationing at every step of the way in our health care system so I am guessing you are not so familiar with it. It's not necessarily all bad, but your argument that America has no rationing is not backed up by facts. Additionally the "facts" you try to present are more or less horror stories and don't happen in the best universal health care system (I am guessing a lot of these are from the British system which is something we shouldn't and won't be emulating). Yes you might have to wait a while for a non-essential procedure, but it's not like you can get them the next day here in America.

Considering the amount of money we pay, we are not getting the biggest bang out of our buck. A lot of this of course has to do with the uninsured using our emergency services which is the most inefficient and expensive way to receive care. Spending more on preventative care would save us much more and also lead to a more productive society (more money, more growth).

I also consider someone who is capable of paying, but won't pay for insurance to be a scumbag of the lowest order. You will agree with me here, correct? Why should I have to pay for someone else's care. Unless we are willing to let these people die on the streets and not provide them with emergency care, we must mandate that these numb skulls pay into the system (and the insurance industry agrees with me here).

[The Duke]

Also, I don't understand the big fuss. The bill has practically zero chance of passing the Senate.

I ased a couple of pages ago and I didn't get an answer: What happens when the Senate passes  a completely different bill?  How does a Conference actually work?

[Lunar]

Also, I don't understand the big fuss. The bill has practically zero chance of passing the Senate.

I ased a couple of pages ago and I didn't get an answer: What happens when the Senate passes  a completely different bill?  How does a Conference actually work?

Pelosi and Reid will choose the members of the conference committee, probably based somewhat on the key members who may flip their votes, they hash out the differences between the two bills, and then they send the merged bill back to to the Senate and House for final approval.

The final bill is certain to be less ambitious and will have a smaller price tag than the House bill.  I think Nancy intentionally made her bill as ambitious as possible within the framework of the minimum amount of votes, so that the compromise wouldn't be completely watered down