Bigga
Well-Known Member
... so what's the big problem??
Why are there so many people opposing this bill???
Why are there so many people opposing this bill???
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pres O gets Healthcare Through...
- Thread starter Bigga
- Start date
scenecreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 3,503
I think most people don't understand the bill and what it contains.
Much about the legislation has been misrepresented, much like the title and first post on this thread.
Much about the legislation has been misrepresented, much like the title and first post on this thread.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
prairiemoon said:I think most people don't understand the bill and what it contains.
Much about the legislation has been misrepresented, much like the title and first post on this thread.
Really...?
So explain like I asked in the first place.
*shakes head*
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
Bigga said:prairiemoon said:I think most people don't understand the bill and what it contains.
Much about the legislation has been misrepresented, much like the title and first post on this thread.
Really...?
So explain like I asked in the first place.
*shakes head*
I think he means that if you want people to have a debate about this thread,then maybe you should/could give a slightly better slant on it than just a minimum of words,that probably aren`t understood by some of us mere mortals.
By the way I do understand what you are talking about.
scenecreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 3,503
Just saying, the Supreme Court decided on the constitutiality of the legislation. Obama had nothing to do with that. So...I'm not sure what you mean by O gets Healthcare through... Giving credit where it isn't deserved.... And not what was done to begin with.
Anyway, now that it's constitutionality cannot be questioned, the problem becomes " why can the Federal government tax citizens into buying private corporate consumer products."
If you don't buy health insurance you will be punished through taxation. This tax will really only affect the poor, unless there is a means test I am unaware of.
This is a subject I'm on the fence about. On one hand the uninsured routinely use emergency room visits and often simply will not pay their health bills. Many cannot and most hospitals I am aware of will means test you if you claim you cannot afford to pay. This is passed down to the rest of us through increased costs, allegedly, I don't know the figures.
This increased costs drives up costs which affects Medicare/Medicaid costs, and that money comes from taxes. So basically, they are saying if you use these services, or cannot pay your bil thus passing the cost on to the tax payer you should be charged a bit more when tax time rolls around.
There are other issues, but I think they are the usual Republican mumbo jumbo. A quick google search would probably give the oppositions viewpoint. They claim the Patients Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act would actually raise costs for instance.
<a class="postlink" href="http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcar ... a-Care.htm</a>
You seem to think its a good idea. What do you like about it?
Countdown to US bashing and claims of racism, 3-2-1...GO!
Anyway, now that it's constitutionality cannot be questioned, the problem becomes " why can the Federal government tax citizens into buying private corporate consumer products."
If you don't buy health insurance you will be punished through taxation. This tax will really only affect the poor, unless there is a means test I am unaware of.
This is a subject I'm on the fence about. On one hand the uninsured routinely use emergency room visits and often simply will not pay their health bills. Many cannot and most hospitals I am aware of will means test you if you claim you cannot afford to pay. This is passed down to the rest of us through increased costs, allegedly, I don't know the figures.
This increased costs drives up costs which affects Medicare/Medicaid costs, and that money comes from taxes. So basically, they are saying if you use these services, or cannot pay your bil thus passing the cost on to the tax payer you should be charged a bit more when tax time rolls around.
There are other issues, but I think they are the usual Republican mumbo jumbo. A quick google search would probably give the oppositions viewpoint. They claim the Patients Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act would actually raise costs for instance.
<a class="postlink" href="http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcarereform/f/What-Is-Obama-Care.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcar ... a-Care.htm</a>
You seem to think its a good idea. What do you like about it?
Countdown to US bashing and claims of racism, 3-2-1...GO!
ultimateharold
Well-Known Member
I think us Brits will find it hard to appreciate the opposition to this.
Unfortunately the US struggles to (on the whole) comprehend that taxes should pay for healthcare. It's deemed 'Communist'. Especially amongst some on the more 'patriotic' types.
Whereas, having had family members cared for by the NHS, and myself also (although minorly) I think it's the best use of or NI money.
The 'There's no jobs' brigade however, are welcome to go and suck a fat one. I'm not willing to pay for your houses and kids you should have known better than to spawn.
Unfortunately the US struggles to (on the whole) comprehend that taxes should pay for healthcare. It's deemed 'Communist'. Especially amongst some on the more 'patriotic' types.
Whereas, having had family members cared for by the NHS, and myself also (although minorly) I think it's the best use of or NI money.
The 'There's no jobs' brigade however, are welcome to go and suck a fat one. I'm not willing to pay for your houses and kids you should have known better than to spawn.
scenecreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 3,503
Unfortunately, that isn't what the bill does. Taxes here DO IN FACT PAY FOR HEALTHCARE.ultimateharold said:I think us Brits will find it hard to appreciate the opposition to this.
Unfortunately the US struggles to (on the whole) comprehend that taxes should pay for healthcare. It's deemed 'Communist'. Especially amongst some on the more 'patriotic' types.
Whereas, having had family members cared for by the NHS, and myself also (although minorly) I think it's the best use of or NI money.
The 'There's no jobs' brigade however, are welcome to go and suck a fat one. I'm not willing to pay for your houses and kids you should have known better than to spawn.
This bill however has little to do with providing healthcare.
As I said, most don't understand the bill or what it contains.
The goal is to lower costs overall, not to provide healthcare. I wish the US did have single payer healthcare system, for the record.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Well, wasn't it taken to the Supreme Court in order to get a ruling that it was 'unconstitutional', when it turns out that it was the opposite? As far as I can make out Obama has made this Bill work within the laws of the Constitution.
Also, as far as I can make out, the term being used is 'affordable' healthcare rather than 'free' as you seem to suggest (or Republican buzz wording). The raising of taxes allows everybody, rich or poor, the right to be seen by a doctor. In fact, 'raising taxes' is something people fear because that word is unlimited in digestion. The odds are that the raise is so minuscule you won't even notice it. Some people simply can't 'afford' the healthcare, presently or in the future. Some, because of pre-existing conditions that stops them getting work. So, what's the answer? Do they rot and die because they fall below the poverty line?
Rather than 'fear the reaper', why don't you see the full extent of the Bill, that he says 'might not be perfect, but will continue to implement better measures as they go on'.
Also, as far as I can make out, the term being used is 'affordable' healthcare rather than 'free' as you seem to suggest (or Republican buzz wording). The raising of taxes allows everybody, rich or poor, the right to be seen by a doctor. In fact, 'raising taxes' is something people fear because that word is unlimited in digestion. The odds are that the raise is so minuscule you won't even notice it. Some people simply can't 'afford' the healthcare, presently or in the future. Some, because of pre-existing conditions that stops them getting work. So, what's the answer? Do they rot and die because they fall below the poverty line?
Rather than 'fear the reaper', why don't you see the full extent of the Bill, that he says 'might not be perfect, but will continue to implement better measures as they go on'.
ultimateharold
Well-Known Member
prairiemoon said:Unfortunately, that isn't what the bill does. Taxes here DO IN FACT PAY FOR HEALTHCARE.ultimateharold said:I think us Brits will find it hard to appreciate the opposition to this.
Unfortunately the US struggles to (on the whole) comprehend that taxes should pay for healthcare. It's deemed 'Communist'. Especially amongst some on the more 'patriotic' types.
Whereas, having had family members cared for by the NHS, and myself also (although minorly) I think it's the best use of or NI money.
The 'There's no jobs' brigade however, are welcome to go and suck a fat one. I'm not willing to pay for your houses and kids you should have known better than to spawn.
This bill however has little to do with providing healthcare.
As I said, most don't understand the bill or what it contains.
The goal is to lower costs overall, not to provide healthcare. I wish the US did have single payer healthcare system, for the record.
Fair enough, I obviously need to read more into it.
I imagine Big Pharma's stocks will be hit by this, annoyingly this week of all weeks, I don't need to be dealing with that.
scenecreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 3,503
....what the fuck are you talking about? Do we speak the same language?Bigga said:Well, wasn't it taken to the Supreme Court in order to get a ruling that it was 'unconstitutional', when it turns out that it was the opposite? As far as I can make out Obama has made this Bill work within the laws of the Constitution.
Also, as far as I can make out, the term being used is 'affordable' healthcare rather than 'free' as you seem to suggest (or Republican buzz wording). The raising of taxes allows everybody, rich or poor, the right to be seen by a doctor. In fact, 'raising taxes' is something people fear because that word is unlimited in digestion. The odds are that the raise is so minuscule you won't even notice it. Some people simply can't 'afford' the healthcare, presently or in the future. Some, because of pre-existing conditions that stops them getting work. So, what's the answer? Do they rot and die because they fall below the poverty line?
Rather than 'fear the reaper', why don't you see the full extent of the Bill, that he says 'might not be perfect, but will continue to implement better measures as they go on'.
We already have the right to be seen by a doctor,..... What tax are you talking about? FFS, like I said, most people have absolutely no understanding of this bit of legislation.
Maybe read my post again, I don't know.....
..ok I'll try again. People without health insurance cannot be turned away from a hospital if they need treatment, there may be certain circumstances I'm unaware of. It is also possible to be means tested for low income and have your bill "forgiven". This is not a part of the Act, it is the reality for some time now. This loss is passed on through the system. This cost is allegedly responsible for a general rise in health care costs. These higher costs affect the state services like Medicare and Medicaid. One goal of the bill is to lower the costs TO Medicare and Medicaid by forcing all citizens(as I understand it) to purchase health insurance. If YOU do not purchase an insurance plan YOU will be fined through extra taxation to YOU.
This is actually referred to as a penalty fine (called the "Shared Responsiblity Payment), however the Supreme Court decision says it is essentially a tax, and the federal government has the ability to tax.
More on that-
"The Government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that §5000A is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act...but is a tax for constitutional purposes....Congress could have defined "tax" for purposes of that statute in such fashion as to exclude some exactions that in fact are "taxes." It might have prescribed, for example, that a particular exercise of the taxing power “shall not be regarded as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act." But there is no such prescription here. What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."
<a class="postlink" href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/is-obamacares-shared-responsibility-paym" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/is-ob ... ility-paym</a>