US Healthcare Passed

Surprised nobody has posted this yet.

Illegal immigrants and abortions are now covered by the US government. If you do not purchase healthcare, you will be fined and jailed. Expensive insurance plans are now more expensive (they are taxed). The wealthy is now taxed even more. Merry Christmas.


EDIT: By the way, not a single Republican senator voted for it. In fact, there were still a few Democrat senators who didn't vote for it. Unfortunately, it still made it through after a ton of specific favors to moderates in order to gain votes.

Holy shit, since when are you a mod?

Oh, and on-topic... I don't like the idea of illegal immigrants having healthcare and more expensive healthcare.

care to link to the source?

There is no source.

You can read the bill if it makes you feel better. Do yourself a favor, though, and get a cup of coffee first. You'll be reading for a while.

CivBase wrote:
Illegal immigrants and abortions are now covered by the US government.

Sounds fantastic!

CivBase wrote:If you do not purchase healthcare, you will be fined and jailed.

I'm sure there's more to it than that....

CivBase wrote:Expensive insurance plans are now more expensive (they are taxed). The wealthy is now taxed even more. Merry Christmas.

Sounds good to me. Government should operate in the best interest of the common man. It's already done enough to make the rich richer.

Civ wrote:EDIT: By the way, not a single Republican senator voted for it. In fact, there were still a few Democrat senators who didn't vote for it. Unfortunately, it still made it through after a ton of specific favors to moderates in order to gain votes.

Partisan politics at its finest!

republicans have the right idea...

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Illegal immigrants and abortions are now covered by the US government.

Sounds fantastic!

Partisan politics at its finest![/quote]

wait youre serious?

what about that is fair

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:Illegal immigrants and abortions are now covered by the US government.

Sounds fantastic!

Well, so does robbing a bank or enslaving a troop of local girl scouts to bake me cookies 24/7, but that doesn't make it right.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:If you do not purchase healthcare, you will be fined and jailed.

I'm sure there's more to it than that...

If you do not have healthcare, be it private or public, you will be fined and jailed. Are there a few exceptions? Probably. But that doesn't make it okay. They are forcing citizens to purchase a product that quite a few DO NOT WANT.

ReconToaster wrote:Sounds good to me. Government should operate in the best interest of the common man. It's already done enough to make the rich richer.

Perhaps you're not familiar with a capitalistic economy? Most of the rich are where they are because they worked to get there. Most of the poor are where they are because they didn't do hardly any work at all. Yah, there are some exceptions, but that's what welfare and medicare are for.

The government's job is not to operate in the best interest of the public; the government's job is to protect our rights as citizens (this includes not taking our money to give to criminals and not forcing us to buy something we don't want). You cannot go with majority rules on everything, because sometimes the same people are always in the majority. Such is the case with the two-party system.

As I said, this bill passed without any republican support (and even without some democratic support as well). You can't have it so that the same people win every time because there are a few more of them. That means that the rest get kicked to the curb.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:EDIT: By the way, not a single Republican senator voted for it. In fact, there were still a few Democrat senators who didn't vote for it. Unfortunately, it still made it through after a ton of specific favors to moderates in order to gain votes.

Partisan politics at its finest!

Just because a sleazy tactic worked in your favor doesn't mean that it's "at its finest."

Wait the public option pass...

I saw it but didn't feel like posting it after I posted the one which passed congress. Who was that guy who said it wouldn't pass.

Oh yah.

KrAzY wrote:still has to go through sentate.... who aren't going to pass it after they see half the congressmen not get re-elected

CivBase wrote:Yah. Doesn't look like it's making it through the Senate.

Krazy and Civbase you ARE WRONG!!!!

civ wrote:Well, so does robbing a bank, but that doesn't make it right.

Robbing a bank is a major hassle, and you're likely to get caught.

Civ wrote:If you do not have healthcare, be it private or public, you will be fined and jailed. Are there a few exceptions? Probably. But that doesn't make it okay. They are forcing citizens to purchase a product that quite a few DO NOT WANT.

Well that's dumb. I'd still like a perspective from someone who isn't clearly biased.

Civ wrote:Perhaps you're not familiar with a capitalistic economy? Most of the rich are where they are because they worked to get there. Most of the poor are where they are because they didn't do hardly any work at all. Yah, there are some exceptions, but that's what welfare and medicare are for.

The problem here is that the rich eventually come to take control of government, and shape it in a way which makes them even more wealthy, and prevents the poor from BECOMING wealthy. Your idea that wealth reflects the amount of work a person does is old fashioned and unrealistic.

Civ wrote:The government's job is not to operate in the best interest of the public; the government's job is to protect our rights as citizens

Then perhaps healthcare should be a right.

Civ wrote:Just because a sleazy tactic worked in your favor doesn't mean that it's "at its finest."

Which is why that phrase is usually used sarcastically. I think the concept of partisan politics is flawed.

taxing the people who give the jobs will only worsen the unemployment problem


and now people are FORCED to buy insurance... so people who can't afford it are going to end up even more in debt from the fines.


this isn't a socialist country... there are no cases of socalism working... I don't see why people seem to think it will.



in a few months there are going to be quite a few congressmen who don't get their jobs back... most of my friends are democrat... and only 1 is happy about this shit.

ReconToaster wrote:

civ wrote:Well, so does robbing a bank, but that doesn't make it right.

Robbing a bank is a major hassle, and you're likely to get caught.

This isn't a question of ease, it's a question of morality.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:If you do not have healthcare, be it private or public, you will be fined and jailed. Are there a few exceptions? Probably. But that doesn't make it okay. They are forcing citizens to purchase a product that quite a few DO NOT WANT.

Well that's dumb. I'd still like a perspective from someone who isn't clearly biased.

You can read the bill if it makes you feel better

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Perhaps you're not familiar with a capitalistic economy? Most of the rich are where they are because they worked to get there. Most of the poor are where they are because they didn't do hardly any work at all. Yah, there are some exceptions, but that's what welfare and medicare are for.

The problem here is that the rich eventually come to take control of government, and shape it in a way which makes them even more wealthy, and prevents the poor from BECOMING wealthy. Your idea that wealth reflects the amount of work a person does is old fashioned and unrealistic.

So you're suggesting that the rich (who run the government) are taxing themselves because they're corrupt? I didn't realize our government was so humble.[/sarcasm]

You're suggesting that we tax the rich and bring the money down to the poor. In that case, where's the motivation? I have no reason to work hard to become rich if it will just be taken away. Our population of lazy bums that clog up the welfare system is already growing. We should no be encouraging this!

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The government's job is not to operate in the best interest of the public; the government's job is to protect our rights as citizens

Then perhaps healthcare should be a right.

The rights I am referring to are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not a right, it is a service.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Just because a sleazy tactic worked in your favor doesn't mean that it's "at its finest."

Which is why that phrase is usually used sarcastically. I think the concept of partisan politics is flawed.

Well good. At least we can agree on something.

Krazy wrote:this isn't a socialist country... there are no cases of socalism working... I don't see why people seem to think it will.

One could argue that capitalism isn't working either. It all depends on how you define success.

Civ wrote:This isn't a question of ease, it's a question of morality.

And I think that funding abortion and illegal immigrants is perfectly moral.

Civ wrote:So you're suggesting that the rich (who run the government) are taxing themselves because they're corrupt? I didn't realize our government was so humble.[/sarcasm]

What I'm suggesting is that a pure capitalistic economy is unsustainable.

Civ wrote:You're suggesting that we tax the rich and bring the money down to the poor. In that case, where's the motivation? I have no reason to work hard to become rich if it will just be taken away. Our population of lazy bums that clog up the welfare system is already growing. We should no be encouraging this!

I love your elitist rationale that the poor in our society are all lazy bums. Plenty of people below the poverty level work their asses off every day, and still remain poor.

And I'm not suggesting that we start taxing the rich so much that they are no longer more wealthy than everyone else. I'm just suggesting that those with more money should be forced to contribute a little more. There would still be motivation to obtain more wealth.

Civ wrote:The rights I am referring to are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not a right, it is a service.

it's not a right as defined by our declaration of independence. I'm suggesting that we make the service of Healthcare a "right."

No, no one couldn't.

CivBase wrote:No, no one couldn't.

Really? I think the problem is that you measure success based on materialistic, capitalist values.

Recon, have you noticed that our global economy is capitalistic? 100% all capitalism. It has been since the start of economy itself.

Now, name one socialistic economy that has survived over 250 years (much less 2,000).

healthcare will be provided if you need it and go to a hospital... they HAVE TO treat you as it is...


you just have to pay for it later


now I have to pay for other people getting healthcare... that they now legally have to purchase anyways... I work my ass off for all the money I make... when I get a job in my chosen field... I will be working my ass off so I can move up the ladder and get a better paying job.


some people do work very hard and have trouble making it by... but the majority who occupy that lowest bracket of society that I will now be forced to pay for don't.

I already give to charity... and I can choose who that shit goes to... but now MY money that I worked hard for is going to be taken from me and given to people that I don't feel deserve it.


it is entitlement... I am entitled to my money, other people are not.

Civ wrote:Recon, have you noticed that our global economy is capitalistic? 100% all capitalism. It has been since the start of economy itself.

I'm not suggesting that we all be communist. I'm suggesting that certain socialist ideals would be good for us. By the way, taxing the rich more than we tax the poor does not make us a "socialist economy."

ReconToaster wrote:

civ wrote:Well, so does robbing a bank, but that doesn't make it right.

Robbing a bank is a major hassle, and you're likely to get caught.

Not quite. I could do it, given the time and materials.

The point is, I've yet to hear a good point as to why we should cover illegal immigrants (non-citizens) when we still have legals and actual citizens to take care of.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:If you do not have healthcare, be it private or public, you will be fined and jailed. Are there a few exceptions? Probably. But that doesn't make it okay. They are forcing citizens to purchase a product that quite a few DO NOT WANT.

Well that's dumb. I'd still like a perspective from someone who isn't clearly biased.

You know, if the government required people to buy AMERICAN products, and fined people who weren't buying American, there would be a lot of people complaining. Perhaps even you, Recon.

The point is, I don't think the current bill has enough to protect the consumers from getting screwed by the companies (consumers HAVE to buy insurance, and insurance providers are not allowed to compete across the country) and when the government requires you to buy something...

Do you honestly think that's what the founding fathers talked about when they said "common good"? Do you honestly believe it's in the best interest of the 'common good'?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Perhaps you're not familiar with a capitalistic economy? Most of the rich are where they are because they worked to get there. Most of the poor are where they are because they didn't do hardly any work at all. Yah, there are some exceptions, but that's what welfare and medicare are for.

The problem here is that the rich eventually come to take control of government, and shape it in a way which makes them even more wealthy, and prevents the poor from BECOMING wealthy. Your idea that wealth reflects the amount of work a person does is old fashioned and unrealistic.

And your idea that the wealthy control government is simplistic at best.
I agree that

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The government's job is not to operate in the best interest of the public; the government's job is to protect our rights as citizens

Then perhaps healthcare should be a right.

Why?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Just because a sleazy tactic worked in your favor doesn't mean that it's "at its finest."

Which is why that phrase is usually used sarcastically. I think the concept of partisan politics is flawed.

True.
Autocratic governments have accomplished more in a shorter time span than democracy has in comparative time periods.

ReconToaster wrote:

Krazy wrote:this isn't a socialist country... there are no cases of socalism working... I don't see why people seem to think it will.

One could argue that capitalism isn't working either. It all depends on how you define success.

One could argue it, but not very well.
Define success.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:This isn't a question of ease, it's a question of morality.

And I think that funding abortion and illegal immigrants is perfectly moral.

Before we get into this (Again) can we at LEAST conquer the bigger issues?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:So you're suggesting that the rich (who run the government) are taxing themselves because they're corrupt? I didn't realize our government was so humble.[/sarcasm]

What I'm suggesting is that a pure capitalistic economy is unsustainable.

And we're suggesting that any economy with more than a little socialism can't work.
The way it should work is, there should be laws in place to punish infractions, and agencies in place to prevent infractions, and...

Aw, hell, ask me when it's not midnight.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:You're suggesting that we tax the rich and bring the money down to the poor. In that case, where's the motivation? I have no reason to work hard to become rich if it will just be taken away. Our population of lazy bums that clog up the welfare system is already growing. We should no be encouraging this!

I love your elitist rationale that the poor in our society are all lazy bums. Plenty of people below the poverty level work their asses off every day, and still remain poor.

And plenty of people stay poor because they don't give an aerial fornication, and can't give one.
And yet... there's ways you CAN influence government without having deep pockets (Political Action Committees). So the idea that the rich control government is flawed.

ReconToaster wrote:And I'm not suggesting that we start taxing the rich so much that they are no longer more wealthy than everyone else. I'm just suggesting that those with more money should be forced to contribute a little more. There would still be motivation to obtain more wealth.

True, but with

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The rights I am referring to are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not a right, it is a service.

it's not a right as defined by our declaration of independence. I'm suggesting that we make the service of Healthcare a "right."

KrAzY already pointed out that it's a 'right'. If you go to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, they HAVE to treat you.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:No, no one couldn't.

Really? I think the problem is that you measure success based on materialistic, capitalist values.

Define success.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Recon, have you noticed that our global economy is capitalistic? 100% all capitalism. It has been since the start of economy itself.

I'm not suggesting that we all be communist. I'm suggesting that certain socialist ideals would be good for us. By the way, taxing the rich more than we tax the poor does not make us a "socialist economy."

No, but subsidizing the poor with other people's money isn't just socialism, it's false generosity.

The only problems I really have with this is that it forces people to buy something (which I'm fairly certain is unconstitutional, and I don't want to do it anyway if it isn't) and it covers abortions. Hardly life-threatening or anything of the sort if you ask me. more like just using this bill as an excuse to throw that in there.

Rasq wrote:True.
Autocratic governments have accomplished more in a shorter time span than democracy has in comparative time periods.

That's not even close to what I was saying. Partisan politics = Party politics.

I don't like the concept of political parties.

I'll get back to the rest later. Right now is time for sleep.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:This isn't a question of ease, it's a question of morality.

And I think that funding abortion and illegal immigrants is perfectly moral.

That's great, but there's a significant amount of Americans who think otherwise. The fact that the government would go out of its way to fund such a controversial issue is outright disgusting.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:You're suggesting that we tax the rich and bring the money down to the poor. In that case, where's the motivation? I have no reason to work hard to become rich if it will just be taken away. Our population of lazy bums that clog up the welfare system is already growing. We should no be encouraging this!

I love your elitist rationale that the poor in our society are all lazy bums. Plenty of people below the poverty level work their asses off every day, and still remain poor.

I love your rationale that all the poor are there by unfortunate circumstance that's not under their control. I'm not a moron, so don't twist my words to make me one. I realize perfectly well that there are those who are there via unfortunate circumstance beyond their control, which is why I don't want welfare taken away.

However, welfare is a perfect example of an abused government care system and is undeniably clogged up with lazy people. They take up a majority of the welfare patients, and it's appalling. Why would it be any different with this helthcare system?

ReconToaster wrote:And I'm not suggesting that we start taxing the rich so much that they are no longer more wealthy than everyone else. I'm just suggesting that those with more money should be forced to contribute a little more. There would still be motivation to obtain more wealth.

We already do that with income tax. Now you want to do that with sales tax as well, which is a problem. The economy was specifically set up with an equal tax and wealth-based tax for a reason.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The rights I am referring to are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not a right, it is a service.

it's not a right as defined by our declaration of independence. I'm suggesting that we make the service of Healthcare a "right."

Why would we want to make a service a right? I think an Xbox 360 should be a right too, in that case. In fact, let's tag XBL on their as well.

As krazy and rasq have pointed out already, you cannot be denied medical attention.

Rasq wrote:If you go to the hospital with a gunshot wound to the head, they HAVE to treat you.

If you go to the ER with a cold, they have to treat you.

Why would we want to make a service a right? I think an Xbox 360 should be a right too, in that case. In fact, let's tag XBL on their as well.

I believe it was Finland that just recently made Broadband internet access a right. Rights are not exclusive to natural rights.

Civ wrote:We already do that with income tax. Now you want to do that with sales tax as well, which is a problem. The economy was specifically set up with an equal tax and wealth-based tax for a reason.

When did I say anything about sales tax? I'm just suggesting that we ramp up the income tax.

Civ wrote:I love your rationale that all the poor are there by unfortunate circumstance that's not under their control. I'm not a moron, so don't twist my words to make me one. I realize perfectly well that there are those who are there via unfortunate circumstance beyond their control, which is why I don't want welfare taken away.

I realize that many are at fault for their circumstances too, and that's unfortunate, but it's better to help those who DESERVE help, and in the process, help those who do not deserve it, than it is to help no one at all.

Civ wrote:That's great, but there's a significant amount of Americans who think otherwise. The fact that the government would go out of its way to fund such a controversial issue is outright disgusting.

So, the government shouldn't tax people for something that they don't agree with? Is it wrong for the government to tax someone for a war they don't agree with? In that case, the government owes a lot of people a lot of money...

And I really don't think they're "going out of their way" here. Sometimes abortion is necessary for the safety of the mother. I think those who wrote the bill probably decided that it was better to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that a woman in that situation could receive an abortion.

Rasq wrote:No, but subsidizing the poor with other people's money isn't just socialism, it's false generosity.

Does it matter?

Rasq wrote:the idea that the rich control government is flawed.

Lobbyists

Rasq wrote:You know, if the government required people to buy AMERICAN products, and fined people who weren't buying American, there would be a lot of people complaining. Perhaps even you, Recon.

I agree. I'm not saying I want someone to justify that part of the bill for me. I'd just someone with more credibility and objectivity to DEFINE it for me.

Rasq wrote:The point is, I've yet to hear a good point as to why we should cover illegal immigrants (non-citizens) when we still have legals and actual citizens to take care of.

I'd like to have my cake and eat it too!

Rasq wrote:Define success.

Just so we can be clear, I'm not arguing for a world-wide socialist economy. I'm just arguing for some socialist ideals within our own society. I'm not talking about raising sales tax, or anything like that.

I define success based on the well being of the common people. Survivability of government is another aspect.

ReconToaster wrote:

Why would we want to make a service a right? I think an Xbox 360 should be a right too, in that case. In fact, let's tag XBL on their as well.

I believe it was Finland that just recently made Broadband internet access a right. Rights are not exclusive to natural rights.

Unlike Finland, we have bigger things to worry about.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:We already do that with income tax. Now you want to do that with sales tax as well, which is a problem. The economy was specifically set up with an equal tax and wealth-based tax for a reason.

When did I say anything about sales tax? I'm just suggesting that we ramp up the income tax.

I figured you were referring to the bill, how rich had to pay more for private healthcare. That would be sales tax.

Well, as I said before, if you ramp up income tax too much, it kills what's left of the motivation that we need so much right now.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:I love your rationale that all the poor are there by unfortunate circumstance that's not under their control. I'm not a moron, so don't twist my words to make me one. I realize perfectly well that there are those who are there via unfortunate circumstance beyond their control, which is why I don't want welfare taken away.

I realize that many are at fault for their circumstances too, and that's unfortunate, but it's better to help those who DESERVE help, and in the process, help those who do not deserve it, than it is to help no one at all.

Is it fair to help a few who need it if you're hurting more at the same time?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:That's great, but there's a significant amount of Americans who think otherwise. The fact that the government would go out of its way to fund such a controversial issue is outright disgusting.

So, the government shouldn't tax people for something that they don't agree with? Is it wrong for the government to tax someone for a war they don't agree with? In that case, the government owes a lot of people a lot of money...

Yes, it is fair.

ReconToaster wrote:And I really don't think they're "going out of their way" here. Sometimes abortion is necessary for the safety of the mother. I think those who wrote the bill probably decided that it was better to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that a woman in that situation could receive an abortion.

But what of other situations?

ReconToaster wrote:Just so we can be clear, I'm not arguing for a world-wide socialist economy. I'm just arguing for some socialist ideals within our own society. I'm not talking about raising sales tax, or anything like that.

And that couldn't have been done without a full-blown (irreversible) government takeover of a market?

CivBase wrote:
Perhaps you're not familiar with a capitalistic economy? Most of the rich are where they are because they worked to get there. Most of the poor are where they are because they didn't do hardly any work at all. Yah, there are some exceptions, but that's what welfare and medicare are for.

lol? I'm in the upper class, and will stay there because i have a good education, can go to college, and can focus soley on learning for my future. If i was in the lower middle clase, i couldn't do these things, i would constantly be worrying about money, have to work a lot, couldn't go to a good college, my education would be shit, and a whole bunch of other things that would restrict me from getting into the upper class.

Would i be smart enough to move up if i worked hard? Probably. Could i get anywhere near how well off i'm going to become, which will require a fraction of the effort? Hell no.

The amount of class change has been getting smaller and smaller each year. Capitalism isn't very good at decreasing the gap between rich and poor (albeit it's better than most systems).