10 states line up to sue over health bill

[chewey]

So essentially these people are complaining about a lack of choice in their healthcare?

Which essentially means these people want greater (or cheaper) care than others because they lead a different lifestyle.

Go America

[Irock]

^\/

[chewey]

OH GOD NO DON'T TAX THE RICH

THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN'T AFFORD IT

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Grafikal]

i feel like the issue would probably be taxing the poor in this case, considering you only get hit with it if you don't buy it, and generally you don't buy it because you can't afford it.

[chewey]

Talking about this, mostly

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

[tSwitch]

I just have one question.
How much more or less will it cost for the government mandated blanket-plan that invades on my personal liberties cost me?  Because that's the one point that nobody seems to be bringing up.  I don't give a fuck if my insurance plan covers shit I don't need if the price doesn't change, or even goes down.  If it's an affordable blanket plan for people who aren't rolling in money like the Health Industry seems to expect us to be, I don't give a shit if I have to have pediatrics listed on my plan or something just because I won't have a kid, if it costs less it fucking costs less and covers what I need, so why should I care?

Also, it's not hard to say that the person who wrote the article Irock linked to is obviously biased against the bill.  Can I get a neutral report on it instead of some leftist or rightist propaganda in here, or is that too much to ask?

[chewey]

I just have one question.
or is that too much to ask?

Probably.

[Irock]

Also, it's not hard to say that the person who wrote the article Irock linked to is obviously biased against the bill.  Can I get a neutral report on it instead of some leftist or rightist propaganda in here, or is that too much to ask?

That cites exactly where in the bill everything it is referring to is.

If you want to ensure you're getting true statements, find HR 3590 and read it or fact check.

[chewey]

It's still biased, even if it cites lines. The writer has used extreme examples and projected their feelings on the matter as if they are right.

[Irock]

But all 20 cases are completely valid and true.

[chewey]

But all 20 cases are completely valid and true.

The writer has used extreme examples and projected their feelings on the matter as if they are right.

For example:

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

Great, an extreme example to make it look like they have a point. It is a good thing that insurance companies cannot charge people more for being old/having prior illnesses/having illnesses in the family/leading a different lifestyle. Everybody should be given equal care. Now consider the fact that this all-encompassing healthcare will cost

1. ... $750 annually (Section 1501)

a grand total of $62.50 per month (which is apparently too much for some [shitty] business owners), I'm not sure what there is to complain about.

You missed my point entirely. This person is projecting their views as if they're 100% correct, and people like you eat it up.

[Grafikal]

OM NOM NOM NOM

[haloOfTheSun]

OM NOM NOM NOM

This post is more intelligent than every one of Irock's posts in this thread.

[Irock]

HaloOfTheSun has been going after me ever since I told him iPod Touches have good solid build quality.

[Jules]

The point is, the representatives are supposed to represent the United States people and uphold the constitution. This bill never should have passed, and I think it's great that so many states are lining up to fight the bill.

Best case scenario, this bill is shot down and we get a better health reform bill.

But the fact is, they usually represent whoever lines there pockets most.  And here's a news flash for you, it ain't me.   And it ain't you.

[modern algebra]

@chewey - From what I understood, the $750 isn't the cost of health insurance, it's the cost of foregoing health insurance. I assume the cost of actually having medical insurance is probably much higher if they're charging nearly $1000 not to have it

Anyway, I think universal health care is probably a good thing for the US. I think it would be better to provide healthcare for everyone and distribute cost through taxation rather than require people to buy insurance, which sort of sounds like what they're doing.

I hope that the absence of a market doesn't stagnate medical technologies development though, considering most medical advances I know of come out of the US.

Ultimately, I have no idea what I'm talking about though because I have done absolutely no research on the subject whatsoever, I don't live there, and this bill has no possibility of ever affecting me in any meaningful way. I do know I like having government subsidized healthcare though.

[Grafikal]

Anyway, I think universal health care is probably a good thing for the US. I think it would be better to provide healthcare for everyone and distribute cost through taxation rather than require people to buy insurance, which sort of sounds like what they're doing.

From what the *source said and literally was said from the video in the *source, is a tax for living. lol. Basically, if you don't buy health insurance, you're going to get fees or taxed. ...that was just what was said in the *source.

*(The actual source, not irock's random sites)


Just noting that I'm pretty sure they're requiring you to buy health insurance not by saying you have to, but by either taxing you much harder or hitting you with fees. Logically, you don't want to get hit with fees, so you'd buy healthcare. (Which people should do anyways.)


Not that I'm arguing this. I'm just saying that I got a different impression.
I don't really care if the bill gets sued or not.

[Moss.]

HaloOfTheSun has been going after me ever since I told him iPod Touches have good solid build quality.

They do!

[Roph]

You guys should just copy England. Or maybe France. Or even Germany. There is literally no industrialised country in the world that has worse healthcare than America does, and no country pays anywhere even remotely near as much either. I don't have any "plan" or any paperwork, anything like that. I don't have to worry about any money in regards to healthcare, no matter how much or how little I make. If I require care, I get it. It's really that simple.

Private healthcare exists in the UK, companies like Bupa or this other one whose name I forget exist, but nobody uses them. Why pay, when the NHS is free and is brilliant?

I'm sure now Irock would like to step in and link a news story about a random English citizen who died or had late treatment or something, to which I say - welcome to the laws of averages. When you're dealing with millions, of course perfection is impossible. The current American death toll though is unacceptable and indeed possible to remedy, and those who literally go and protest healthcare should be ashamed of themselves.

[firerain]

or even Canada

[tSwitch]

I don't get the tax for not having healthcare for the individual, but I -do- understand the tax for businesses who want to cut costs by not providing healthcare.

Also what's the price already?

[Grafikal]

LOOOOOOOOOL

straight from my friend's facebook. Mostly my roomates and a brother are commenting, but then there's that one guy, who just keeps going and going.

[Irock]

You guys should just copy England. Or maybe France. Or even Germany. There is literally no industrialised country in the world that has worth healthcare than America does, and no country pays anywhere even remotely near as much either. I don't have any "plan" or any paperwork, anything like that. I don't have to worry about any money in regards to healthcare, no matter how much or how little I make. If I require care, I get it. It's really that simple.

Private healthcare exists in the UK, companies like Bupa or this other one whose name I forget exist, but nobody uses them. Why pay, when the NHS is free and is brilliant?

I'm sure now Irock would like to step in and link a news story about a random English citizen who died or had late treatment or something, to which I say - welcome to the laws of averages. When you're dealing with millions, of course perfection is impossible. The current American death toll though is unacceptable and indeed possible to remedy, and those who literally go and protest healthcare should be ashamed of themselves.

One of the big issues with your healthcare are price controls that are set. You say you're only going to spend x% of money on health care. There's a cap on it. Most pharmaceutical drugs and medical technology that save lives are produced in the United States because it costs an immense amount of money for research and development. The reason companies produce these drugs is for profit. In European countries, they set price controls. There's no profit and there's not enough money to spend on it. The very reason drugs are developed here is because we don't have your system.

Life expectancy, which you've brought up several times before, is not determined by the health care. There are many factors, such as auto accident rates, murder rates and personal health decisions such as obesity. You're essentially saying that because we have a lower life expectancy, the cause is our healthcare.

A better thing to look at is from the time you're diagnosed with an illness to the time you're likely to be cured. In most cases, the time is simply lower in the United States.

I'm sure Roph would now bring up infant mortality rates. The reason infant mortality rates are higher in the United States is because babies with birth defects are born in the US that wouldn't be born in other countries. That's because our care is better, we have better resources, and we have better doctors. The irony of having better care and birthing more infants who are less likely to be born alive is that they're counted in infant deaths whenever they do die. The babies in your country who are never born due to serious birth defects aren't counted as infant mortality.

I don't see how healthcare is a right. I don't understand how you can have a right to somebody else's services. If a doctor refuses to treat you, that's their choice. You're essentially wanting to force them to treat you, which is the equivalent of enslavement. Nobody has the right to somebody else's services.

[haloOfTheSun]

Until you're actually old enough to have to pay for health insurance your opinion doesn't matter.

[Irock]

Great argument, Bobby!