| Author |
Message |
    
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:41 am: | 
|
What am I missing here? How does the proposed health care bill "seize control in a way never before attempted in the US".
The aim of the bill, as expressed by its proponents as well as the President himself, is to remove all private corporations from the process of providing medicine in the United States. A "public option" is merely a ruse to begin the process to eliminate private health care. A single payor system is the ultimate goal.
Our Constitution is focused on providing limited, enumerated powers for the Federal government (Article 1, Section 8) and leaving those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government to the individual states (Tenth Amendment).
The new bill not only regulates insurance on an interstate basis, but it provides for the creation of a "public option" not provided for in Article 1, Section 8 with provisions not available to the private insurance companies.
What's the link between spending billions of taxpayer money for a broader better more accessible health service which supposedly cuts some of the need for health insurance as individuals you pay for?
There is no free lunch.
Instead of improving the private system to make insurance more affordable, the new bill simply seeks to transfer the impact of even higher health care costs up the chain to higher income, higher taxed citizens and corporations. Some of the largest costs of health care, litigation, taxation, and regulation, remain in force.
If the true aim were to make insurance more affordable, they would have addressed these issues first. NONE of these issues are even addressed in EITHER the Senate or House bills.
Is there a suggestion the increase in tax revenue will be farmed off elsewhere or something?
I am assuming you mean increases in one area decrease taxes somewhere else?
If so, NO there will be no offsetting tax decrease to provide for a net zero impact. The "savings" from medicare are not savings but are rather projected reductions in debt in a program that is already $75T in the hole.
They are now asking for another $12T to piss away in mismanagement.
Are your fiscal records not transparent like say those of the UK government? Surely you see where the money is spent?
If there were a direct dollar in, dollar out payment structure with 90-95% of the expenditures going where they say they are going, I think most would be OK with that. This isn't what happens here. This will be like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs where they government collects taxes, spends the money on "other budgetary items" and then fills the box with IOUs.
I'm not clear at all how this is a wrapper around a pile of shit and what control you speak of, to and for who? Please explain.
Ultimately they have sold for several months that this will provide for universal health care for all, but they have addressed NONE of the problems within the system to actually deliver lower cost, more accessible health care.
They have decided that the 5-9% profit margins of the insurance companies are too high but the 40-50% profit margins of the medical malpractice attorneys is just right.
They have created a bill that states that you must purchase a product as a condition of citizenship. You don't even have this in the UK. I don't believe they ship a bill into your crib at birth even in the UK do they? If you refuse to purchase their "brand", you will be fined, have your property seized, and/or be imprisoned.
Both the House and Senate bills are horribly blunt instruments bludgeoning at the general populace without actually accomplishing the goal intended.
They've handed a drunk an ax and sent him into the OR to provide brain surgery. The patient will either end up dead or severely mentally impaired at the conclusion of the "medical procedure". |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Maybe if there was a free lunch, the US would be a healthier place...
Anyway, Interpol not health care, that's another thread. |
Iamarchangel
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Here's a point about all this Interpol paranoia that's being missed.
Some screamers are drawing attention to a piece of fluff that has been on the books for ages and has been accepted in most countries as a good thing.
What are the screamers making sure you don't look at?
US hunters and US border residents will know what I'm talking about. Where you could once easily go out for a drive across the border, or a quick hunting trip, you now need documentation to get back to your own country. You now need a passport where before your drivers license handled it. The passport cost you money, but it also authorized every police agency to investigate everything about you and file it for other governments to see.
Your democratic access to politicians and officials has been blocked while security checks you out. Looks good on paper but democracy takes a hit.
The security is lead by people with full credentials but the reality is that it is carried out "in the field" by kids fresh out of school. The kid now knows more about you than any employer, teacher and, probably, spouse ever did or will.
Oh, and you can't find out what they know about you. And you can't find out about that guy that hangs around the library reading airplane manuals and books on explosives. Somebody far away, in a safe place, has that info.
The fears in this thread are being misdirected. |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Thanks Fat, I'd been wondering the same questions. |
Tom_b
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 01:09 pm: |
|
Why not have to have a passport to enter back to your own country? Have some sort of security measures at the border. People are all for tight airport security, but not the border crossings? In the post 911 climate i think not having tighter border controls is stupid. Maybe an inconvenience, but so is standing in line at the airport for an hour and being searched to board an airline. Every country i've ever been to in Europe required a passport. What is wrong with being able to know what they know about you? Why would INTERPOL need to know anymore about the average citizen of ANY country more than that citizens govt.? And be able to keep it secret?
(Message edited by tom_b on December 29, 2009) |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 09:30 pm: |
|
Most of western Europe has no border controls anymore, and hasn't for years. I'm utterly confused as to how the passport works these days.
We are supposed to be able to travel between EU member states with a valid ID card and or driving license, and no passport, but it doesn't really work to my knowledge. Recently a new type of ID card has been issued for the purpose of travel without passport, but I've not sussed this out yet as it's just been tried, failed at its first attempt just this month when ferry operators refused boarding, but then they changed their policy when informed of the new non passport permit.
Strangely you can depart and need to show passport to do so, but seldom is it ever checked on entry to other countries by foot or road travel through sea ports. I could be on a ferry in minutes from where I live in the UK. Once boarded I could drive ride run or walk all over Europe and no one would know where I'd been.
Freedom's an odd commodity these days. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 09:33 pm: |
|
Why would INTERPOL need to know anymore about the average citizen of ANY country more than that citizens govt.? And be able to keep it secret?
I believe the point is the other way around. INTERPOL doesn't want your government keeping you a secret if they (INTERPOL) need/want to know...... |
|
