Healthcare proposals pass Senate vote 60 / 39
marymary100 - 24-12-2009 at 17:06
Happy Christmas Mr President
John_Little - 24-12-2009 at 17:24
Just heard this on the PM programme. Excellent news! Congratulations to all our friends in the USA!
marymary100 - 24-12-2009 at 17:43
They must be ecstatic.
giron - 24-12-2009 at 18:19
Apart from scholar, of course, he's bound to have a jolly good moan about it!
John_Little - 24-12-2009 at 18:28
Until he breaks a leg.
giron - 24-12-2009 at 19:14
You don't think someone's going to hit him with a large spanner, do you?
victor - 24-12-2009 at 21:06
It will cost them a fortune treating all those overweight Americans.
scholar - 25-12-2009 at 11:40
The details of the two contradictory bills--one passed by the House of Representatives, and the other passed by the Senate--are truly remarkable. One
legislative leader has said there are twenty major problem areas where the two legislative bodies did not agree. Hundreds of millions of dollars of
bribes were incorporated into the bills to buy the votes of legislators who were otherwise inclined to vote against the bills because of the various
ill-conceived features, and the barely passed, even with all the bribes.
Some of the areas of disagreement are antithetical. For example, the House version includes health insurance administered directly by the government.
A significant number of Representatives say this is the one major redeeming feature of the bill, and they would not vote for any bill without it.
The Senate version does not include any health insurance from the government, and a number of the Senators have said that they would not vote for any
bill that included it. They are well aware that previous government-run health programs, like Medicare, have lost huge amounts of money.
The House version fines people who do not get health insurance. But, the fine costs less than the insurance would cost. Any person who is short on
money has a financial incentive to go without insurance until he gets ill or is injured. On that day, he can sign up for health insurance (the law
says he cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions). What do you think this will do to the cost of health insurance? When people sign up for it on the day they learn they
need a heart transplant, or a liver transplant, or that they have AIDS, it will go through the roof.
One sure way you can tell the legislation is bad--the legislators exempted themselves from it. They have GOOD health coverage, and they will keep
what they have. Government Tyranny Health Coverage is for those who are not so fortunate as to have a choice.
The high additional taxes will crush small businesses. The Senate version imposes a 10% tax on tanning salons, and counts on the revenue that would
bring in as part of the financing for GTHC. Of course, if the tanning salons were only making, say, a profit of 11%, that would mean the government
would take ten times as much profit as the businessman running the salon, who would then get one penny out of every dollar. Do you think he will stay
in business for his penny? Or, do you think the business will close, and the government will lose the income tax it had been getting before it
imposed the additional tax? So, the government won't get more money, it will lose what it had already been getting.
This is not health care reform, it is carnage and bedlam to a system that could be improved with a few sensible reforms. What about tort reform?
What about allowing people to buy health insurance from any state, instead of being restricted to what is sold from in their own state? Each of these
would reform and improve the system of payment for health care--but neither of them are in either bill.
marymary100 - 25-12-2009 at 11:58
John_Little - 25-12-2009 at 13:00
Amazing, Giron! Can you predict the lottery numbers as easily?
scholar - 25-12-2009 at 17:11
Obama campaigned on the idea that he wanted to unite the country (even though he calls his
opponents liars whenever they quote from the health care legislation, which does not agree with his promises). He has finally managed to unite
Democrats and Republicans, both of whom agree this has turned out badly. Liberal Democrats are angry that there is no health insurance from the
government. Since most people, by law, are supposed to be insured, this means that many more people will sign up for insurance (unless they pay the
fine, instead, which the smarter ones may do), which would result in greater profits for the private insurance companies. Many of the liberals are
unhappy with this, because they blamed the private insurance companies for running up the costs in the first place--and now, they will make more
All the Republicans see the bill as a disaster--it swells the bloated federal bureaucracy even more, while avoiding tort reform and interstate
competition (the two measures which would have really saved money). It takes away personal freedom and burdons a weak economy with crusihing
Obama's approval ratings have fallen lower in his first year than any other American President since such polls have been taken.
giron - 25-12-2009 at 22:08
I can certainly predict the lottery numbers, unfortunately, they never seem to be the right ones.
Don't you just hate it when that happens?
LSemmens - 26-12-2009 at 03:18
Do you really think that a businessman whose costs are going to increase by 10% are not going to
pass that cost on to the customers? Are you that naive?
scholar - 26-12-2009 at 03:29
The tanning salon business is very
price-sensitive. If tanning parlors only competed with each other, and if the demand were inelastic, they could pass on the costs. However, their
customers have the option of using a spray-on tan, or spending time in natural sun, or going without a tan, or buying their own tanning beds.
If a tanning salon passes on the crushing burden of the high government taxes, with the result that their customers stop coming there and the business
closes, the result is the same.
Business taxes and fees are already too high in the U.S.
LSemmens - 26-12-2009 at 04:49
It's not as though the price increase only affects one business.
scholar - 26-12-2009 at 04:59
That's true--many businesses will
close, many people in dozens of states will lose their iivelihoods and their investments, not just one business. It won't do a little harm, it will
do a lot of harm.
It's not as if the leaders who proposed this knew anything about the businesses they will destroy.
marymary100 - 26-12-2009 at 09:15
It would be so much easier to leave 30 million Americans without health care afterall...
What kind of Christian is so selfish?
John_Little - 26-12-2009 at 09:35
But its not the first time I have been disarmed by the irony.
scholar - 26-12-2009 at 13:59
That is a false
alternative. It confuses health care and medical financing.
Those in favor of Government Tyranny Health Care continually bemoan the fact that some Americans do not have health insurance. Many millions of
Americans CHOOSE not to buy health insurance, especially if they are young. They know that if they commit to an insurance program, it pulls money out
of their pocket every month, whether they need health care that month of not. They HAVE health care (which they pay for, out of their wallets, as
they need it); they just don't pay insurance companies. When the insurance companies don't take their profit, the cost is LOWER--what sense does it
make for Obama to say he wants to bring down health care costs, when the legislation requires that the young people who don't want health insurance
must increase their health care costs by giving their money to health insurance companies, thus RAISING the cost to them? (In most cases, the medical
facilities presently are prepared to bill a higher cost to people who have insurance. But, if you tell them you are paying cash, they offer a reduced
Everybody in America has health care. The ones who are dissatisfied with the present system are the ones who say, "It's not enough for me to have
health care--I want health care that somebody else pays for."
The problem with socialism is, you run out of other people's money to spend.
Did you know that the legislation takes hundreds of millions of dollars OUT of Medicare?
If the aim were really to bring down costs, allowing purchase of health insurance from any state, and medical lawsuit reform, would truly bring the
giron - 26-12-2009 at 17:04
[bad img]http://i26.tinypic.com/33upcnt.jpg[/bad img]
scholar - 26-12-2009 at 17:13
Giron's response is a picture of a Klingon, Worf. That's very appropriate--an imaginary character in a thread about health legislation in which the
savings are imaginary.
Sadly, the harm the bill would do is real.
I would prefer legislation which would help, instead of harm.
I would prefer legislation which would attract votes by the merit of the legislation, instead of by bribery.
giron - 26-12-2009 at 17:22
Get yourself a job, pay back all the money you owe to the IRS and do something constructive for a change.
It's no use continually moaning about the state of the economy when you do absolutely nothing pay your way.
scholar - 26-12-2009 at 18:12
How cruel! I have taken every job I've been able to get. (But, in the Obama economy, more people are losing their jobs, and
they are all competing to get those that remain.)
giron - 26-12-2009 at 18:19
When was the last time you had a job, more importantly, when was the last time you were in regular, full time employment?
What sort of job are you qualified to do?
I'm sure that the situation in America is similar to the UK, there ARE jobs available, if only you make an effort to seek them
Have long have you actively been seeking employment?
Daz - 26-12-2009 at 22:24
delanti - 27-12-2009 at 17:58
Again, the Census is hiring.
scholar - 27-12-2009 at 18:10
When you told us the training for the census work
began months ago, I thought that meant the hiring was done and the jobs were taken! In my experience of seasonal work, the hiring has been closed
before the training began.
I will certainly apply.
delanti - 30-12-2009 at 03:18
The actual 2010 census starts when?
scholar - 30-12-2009 at 04:00
I figured it would take place in 2010, so I originally thought I had until sometime late in 2009 to apply. Then, when you posted
that you had already started, I concluded I had missed my window of opportunity.
Now, I must find out whether I apply online or in person, and where to go if I must do it in person.
Daz - 30-12-2009 at 12:10
This'll be a start...
marymary100 - 30-12-2009 at 13:04
The harder you work, the luckier you get.
giron - 30-12-2009 at 14:08
That's assuming that people want to work, of course.
scholar - 30-12-2009 at 18:03
indeed, give me a start.
I clicked on one of the posted links (the one that has 2010censusjobs in it) and got "Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no
longer available on this server."
But, the message was in http://www.census.gov, so I am in the right
neighborhood, I think. (Here's hoping there are still positions open in my area.)
giron - 30-12-2009 at 18:09
Let us all rejoice that you may, or may not, have found the right page.