Oolite Bulletins

I'm very proud to announce my own country, the USA, has just passed massive Health Care Reform!.

The House passed the Senate's Bill tonight!, it goes straight to the President's desk who is going to sign it.
There is a matter of a bill of some changes to that passed bill needing to pass the Senate, but while they would be very nice, even their unlikely defeat would not change the major portion of the reform.

When The President signs the bill, Americans, won't have to fear losing their coverage due to losing their jobs or being denied health insurance due to health conditions past or present. Poor and Middle class will be given help to afford insurance.
I will be popping the best wine that Zaonce has to offer !

I had a longer response prepared, but will shorten it to this-

For the sake of keeping this "The Friendliest Place this side of Reidquat" - Let's keep the Politics to more appropriate forums. Some of us are LESS THAN PLEASED about the passage of an Unconstitutional and unsustainable entitlement program.

Actually, since this is the friendliest board on this side of Riedquat and local patrons are used to it, if there is any place where this discussion can be held without crumbling into rain of insults, it is here.

I'd say proceed...

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

Some of us are LESS THAN PLEASED about the passage of an Unconstitutional and unsustainable entitlement program.

To be honest, I'm surprised about your attitude and the backlash from many in the US.

Surely free access to healthcare should be a human right? It's barbaric that simply not having enough money would prevent you from getting hospital care.

Since 1947 we in the UK have had free healthcare, via the National Health Service. Yes, it's not perfect, and has caused political wrangling between the parties ever since, but I couldn't imagine life without it.

If it was more about free or even affordable healthcare for the masses, and less about being a disguised bailout package for the medical insurance industry (who wrote the bill), I daresay there would have been less backlash...

I can understand how politics can intrude on The Friendliest Site This Side of Riedquat and if the mods deem it so, I will not take it personally in the slightest if they choose to remove this thread.
There are certainly other websites upon which I can discuss this. It is something I have been following and working towards as a volunteer for many months and I wanted to express my feelings pretty much everywhere.

I won't start a potentially rancorous back and forth. Though if people have questions, they can send them privately and I'll be happy to respond.

It'd be nice to have at least one forum where US domestic politics doesn't intrude. It gets a bit tedious. I mean, do Aussies, French, Canadians, South Africans, Italians and so on bother unrelated forums with their boring domestic politics? No, we don't.

Chrisfs wrote:

When The President signs the bill, Americans, won't have to fear losing their coverage due to losing their jobs or being denied health insurance due to health conditions past or present. Poor and Middle class will be given help to afford insurance.

A friend of mine, today an ex-US-american, had the bad luck to have a wife with diabetes. Soon, they lost healthcare coverage for the illness as he was only a very small business owner and she had a preexisting condition. They wanted astronomical sums and later wouldn't take her at all. After he had sold two houses and spent everything he had owned in his whole life, the story took a bad end.

So, congratulations from me to the people in the US who now get existentially nescessary help when they need it.

JazHaz wrote:

Surely free access to healthcare should be a human right? It's barbaric that simply not having enough money would prevent you from getting hospital care.

This.

The alternative is to say that having a bit more money is more important to you than the health, dire suffering and/or survival of potentially yourself, people you might care about, and anyone else including their kids.

Perhaps one day an opponent of "socialist" healthcare can explain to me an alternate route to understanding their opposition than the one I wrote above, until then ... it's barbaric.

Diziet Sma wrote:

If it was more about free or even affordable healthcare for the masses, and less about being a disguised bailout package for the medical insurance industry (who wrote the bill), I daresay there would have been less backlash...

If it is "a disguised bailout package for the medical insurance industry (who wrote the bill)" ... why are the Republicans so braced against it, and why did the big insurance companies try to bribe, pay off or blackmail any democrat they could reach to vote no for that bill?

Sarin wrote:

Actually, since this is the friendliest board on this side of Riedquat and local patrons are used to it, if there is any place where this discussion can be held without crumbling into rain of insults, it is here.

If this board wants to call itself "friendly" or even "friendliest", then that should show itself by a discussion staying a discussion, also when contentious topics are concerned.

Deleting contentious topics or debates or flaming around would just constitute the Great Firewall of Oolite, instead of a friendly forum.

Just my, in case of this, 2Cr. Having no problem with discussing this, me. Staying friendly everyone, presumed.

Welcome to the 20th century.

And yes, seeing how these systems get abused - maximising profit for some, wasting a lot of money on administration, ineffectiveness, corruption, etc. - is annoying, but it is always so with any large organisation, I think.

Anything that means citizens of any country get access to free medical care has to be a good thing, surely, no matter what the background reasons?

I say congratulations to the US people who can now break a leg and not have to worry about signing cheques (or checks) as soon as they come out of the anaesthetic...

Free speech. Free will. Free medicine! Yay!

Capitalism is like nature. It does not actively help or hinder mankind it is just a system (some times predictable sometimes not) that exists along side us.

We cannot change the darker aspects of nature, we can however knock the corners off the more inhumane aspects of capitalism if we so desire. Of course it may mean your investment profit margin takes a bit of a hit.

When it comes to insurance based health care, "there but for the grace of god go any of us". Would it not be an idea to trim the claws and pull some teeth out of a system that rates your right to continue living, purely on your bank balance?

<cynism mode>

Well, living without healthcare is the normal reality for most people in Tanzania. It's no big deal, really. If you've got a minor illness or injury (like scratching yourself with a rusty nail, for instance; or getting a malaria like everybody does half a dozen times a year, but being weak from a HIV-infection), you don't go to a hospital, because they only treat you after you've payed in cash, which you don't have, so you simply die after a couple of days.

Which is really no big deal, because death is omnipresent. Everybody visits at least two or three funerals each month in his/her extended family, or village, or among the families of friends and colleagues, etc., and that is a conservative guess.

</cynism mode>

How anybody can be opposed to giving people affordable healthcare is beyond me. Being completely on your own in a time of dire need is a horrible prospect. And assuming that you won't ever get into such a situation yourself is arrogant IMO, and a dangerous gamble.

For me it's as simple as that: If you can't afford a treatment for your illness, you're going to die from it. Which is especially true for those illnesses whose treatment is too expensive for any normal person to afford (we're not talking about the common cold here, which basically doesn't need any medical treatment at all). So, if you—politically—don't want significant parts of your population to die prematurely and unnecessarily, you invent some form of healthcare which has to basically cover everybody, or it won't make sense in the first place. Conclusion: If you—politically—don't want this kind of healthcare, you want significant parts of your population to die prematurely and unnecessarily, or at least you don't care about that happening. Personally I don't think that is a responsible political position.

(sigh) Okay, where to begin...

First off, it is not "Free Access to Health care". What was passed was not a single-payer system, however it is a giant step in that direction. One many of us do not wish to see. Everyone here has access to health care as it already existed - They just needed to step into an emergency room. They are billed later, and there are already numerous programs to mitigate the cost as well as free clinics run by private charity. Private charity is something I highly favor (and support) as opposed to government-mandated charity enforced at the end of a gun.

I do believe that access to health care is a right. But let's compare that to the other explicit rights laid out in the US Constitution. The First Amendment - Freedom of Speech, aside from chatting at the water cooler, I have to pay for this - Be it radio time, television commercials, print, or what have you. Also in the First Amendment - Freedom of Assembly - And yet I have to pay for rental of a venue, or if in a "public place" I have to pay for a permit from the city. Second Amendment - The Right to bear arms - and yet I must pay for a firearm. The government does not provide one to me freely. The conference of a Right is not the same as an Entitlement.

There is also the issue of the Federal Government mandating my purchase of any item or service. This is unconstitutional. If I choose not to carry insurance, I should have that right. The same as I can choose NOT to own a gun, NOT to vote (stupid, but legal), NOT to exercise a religion, or any of the other EXPLICIT rights laid out for me. I have those rights and by having them, I have the choice to exercise them or not. Not so with this Health care takeover.

Finally, this bill does not provide equal protection under the law for all citizens - Something that is required for it to be constitutional (hearing that word a lot from me, aren't you?). My job provides me with a frankly rather nice (although I have had better) health insurance plan. With the passage of this bill, both my employer and I will have to pay taxes on that benefit. Why? Because I am not a member of a Union. The labor unions (who the populous of did not support Obama, but the leadership did, and therefore the leadership spent money getting him elected) were repaid for their support by exclusively being given exemption from that "Cadillac Tax". Furthermore, my parents who live in Texas will have their Medicare expenses cut by this. Why? Two fold - Because they have to cut Medicare for 5 years prior (and continue for 5 additional years after) to the start of the benefits of this bill to pay for the 4 years of benefits it will provide after it starts. Now, if they lived in Louisiana, that wouldn't be the case. Why? The Democratic representative of Louisiana SOLD his vote for an exemption for his constituents and a cushy posting to an Ambassadorship after his leaves office. Similar for Nebraska.

I am not opposed to Health Care Reform. I opposed Health Care Socialization, unconstitutional (last time, I promise) and arbitrary laws, and flat out corruption.

Edit- Fixed a spelling mistake or 3. There are a hundred (or 940 Billion) other reasons to be upset by this bill. This is a short list.

I don't understand your use of the word "Freedom" there, old son.

"Freedom" is the right to make your own choice. Freedom of speech is the ability to say what you want to say to whoever will listen. That doesn't mean that the government HAS to provide venues for free in order for you to reach more people than you can by your own means.

Likewise, freedom to bear arms is the freedom to choose whether or not to arm yourself. It's not a right to obtain free weaponry.

Choice is the important thing, not the divestiture of financial responsibility to pursue those choices.

I have the freedom in this country to build my own website. I wouldn't expect the government to pay for it. I have the freedom to walk into a hospital with a broken arm and expect treatment but I wouldn't expect the government to pay my gas or public transport costs to get to the hospital.

Anyway, free health care is a bit of a misnomer. The NHS is publicly funded, so technically it's taxpayer's money that pays for it, and every working stooge pays national insurance for the privilege. The good thing about it is that the unemployed and homeless and other sectors of British society benefit from it and can walk into a hospital and be treated without having to pay for it. If that's the thing the USG is working towards then that has to be good.

No Selezen, you understand my use of the word "Freedom" perfectly. "Freedom" IS the right to make your own choice. Both in whether to have or not, and in from whom I do acquire it if I do. With the passage of this bill, I lose that freedom. Previously, I had the choice to carry insurance or not, and if so, the quality and quantity I chose to acquire. With the passage of this bill, I explicitly LOSE the freedom of choice to carry insurance. It is mandated, enforced by entities that have the right to seize my income, take my home, and imprison me. This bill (as of tomorrow, it'll be law) also reduces my choices in where to acquire health insurance, although less explicitly in it's manner.

Prior to this bill, with or without insurance, I could walk into any emergency room with a broken arm and expect treatment but I wouldn't expect the government to pay my gas or public transport costs to get to the hospital. Exactly as you do.