YES THEY DID! Health Care Passed.

jank

Well in the small hours of today the House passed health care by 219-210.

More here

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1973989,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1


Obama is expected to sign it in the next day or two, then it goes to the Senate where it only needs 50 Dems + the VP to enact it into law. There are some usual speed bumps I think the the GOP will try but it look as if this is the end game.

What ever you say about Obama he has some stamina on him. He doesnt give up easy when he wants something done. Is the bill perfect, no way but its the best that could be got right here right now. I think people expected Obama to be an idealistic president, if anything he is one of the most pragmatic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34783.html

Id expect his poll ratings to jump after this and the focus to go back on the economy. This is a MAJOR victory for him. A huge notch on his belt for his re-election. Mid-terms are important but at the end of the day the president is the executive branch. If the dems lose the house but keep the senate after the mid terms small price to pay if Obama wins re-election.

theg81der

Woohoo! This is great news as far as I`m concern as long as they don`t come here looking for ideas!

Manic Moran

Is the bill perfect, no way but its the best that could be got right here right now

Disagree. Their insistance on a mega-bill that tried to do everything and get enough votes to still pass (resulting in a near inability to do anything really well) screwed up an opportunity. They could have done much better, even if it meant they didn't get their grand media event at a signing ceremony. I know you can't please everybody, but is there anyone who is truly happy with the final outcome, that it was worth all the year of haggling and ignoring slightly more pressing issues like jobs and the economy?

And that's before you get to the philosophical question of if the Federal Government should even be involved in the subject. Some States have shown that you don't need Federal interference to have a reasonable healthcare system.

NTM

jank

Well this is a bill that covers a lot of things alright and there are many things that are left out like, torte reform and the issue of a single payer. The other way you can look at it MM is that small changes would take too long and there would be no guarantee that these would not be bogged down into the same issues as this bill. Like the GOP alternative wasn't even costed and they then reject some of the measures in this bill that they proposed to be included in earlier versions.

At the end of the day this is what was passed and to continue going on about the "how" rather than the "what" is a waste of time. There are many good things in this.

Zascar

This may be a silly question, but can anyone tell me why exactly so many people are opposed to this? We all know how bad the system over there is, and is is largely due to the stranglehold the insurance companies have on the US. So if you are not on the bankroll of the Pharmaceutical or insurance companies, why would you not want more people being allowed basic medical insurance?

jank

It comes down to argument that is health care is a right or a privilege.
A lot of people in America think that it is a privilege and that one has to work for it. I.E poor "lazy" people who don't want to work should not get health care.
Of course in most of the civilized work we equate health care to things like education. It should be a right in a modern society.

Zascar

OK fair enough but why not just tackle the companies who make it incredible expensive if not impossible to get health insurance. It seems to be 5 times the price of what it costs over here - can they not just bring in laws to make the medicine and insurance realistically priced? (I'm only going from what i saw in the movie "Sicko" by Michael Moore and how meds are many times the price of what the people in Canada etc pay for the same thing.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Vested interest. The health insurance companies have invested 200 million into stopping this bill alone, never mind what they shell out each year in contributions to candidates the majority of the from the GOP. Buts thats american politics for you. Anyway even if they did you would have had the crazies coming out saying you were a communist fascist pig that wanted to kill babies.

Manic Moran

jank wrote: »

It comes down to argument that is health care is a right or a privilege.
A lot of people in America think that it is a privilege and that one has to work for it. I.E poor "lazy" people who don't want to work should not get health care.
Of course in most of the civilized work we equate health care to things like education. It should be a right in a modern society.

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

BluePlanet

They should just carve up Defense Spending to pay of it.

American's have paid a sh*teload of money on war toys.

Jonny7

I used to wonder why any Americans I met/dated/whatever always seemed to take a rather large amount of pills and mentioned their therapy sessions a little tooo casually..

Forget war-profiteering, theres been too much health-profiteering going on.

Another thing I've learnt from all this, the rightwing pundits and fox news are bats**t crazy, I have no doubt they could rile up a civil war if they wanted.

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Good point but how many of those stupid people you describe above are there and how many genuine hard working people out there that cant afford health care regardless of how unstupid they are. The ways things are a safety net catches everyone but I would be with you if we could design a system where there is a stupid clause somewhere.

Anyway, the banks were kinda stupid for a number of years and they got bailed out by of all people Bush so..??

The main point is that there is a work ethos in America where you work for what you get. I totally agree with that. You work hard you get more! But there is a strong undercurrent of opinion especially among the right where poor people are generally lazy and should just get off their assess and find a job. If only it were that simple.The environment you are born into is the main factor where you end up in terms of class and wealth.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

The independent CBO says that this bill will reduce the deficit. I know Karl Rove says other wise but I would rather pick hairs from my balls than take his opinion seriously on this.

Some alternative opinion.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/21/news/economy/health_care_reconciliation/index.htm?hpt=T1

Amerika

And now the Democrats own this clusterfruk completely, and will pay the price come the 2010 elections. This November will be fun!

jank

Yea, I think the depressing thing is the polarization of American Politics. This isn't Bush's fault or Obama's fault or anyone else. I think that we are seeing a dividing line clearly emerge over the two parties that will be there for generations. I think they are going to tear themselves apart before Iran or China or anyone else has a say in the decline of America.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

That's certainly a strange argument.

What kind of ratio do you imagine exists between cancer suffers and people sticking fireworks between their butt cheeks? A million to one?

Is this butt cheek thing on par with epilepsy or diabetes?

It seems you've left your dislike for people who stick fire works up their arse blind your view on this issue.

rovert

The communist fascists have won :mad:

sink

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the 'lazy' people that they object to, most everyone accepts that people will occasionally fall on hard times and be out of work, for example. It's the 'stupid' people that they object to, at least if the taxpayer is funding it. Face it, if someone does something utterly stupid and idiotic like try to launch a firework placed beteeen the butt cheeks (Yes, it's on Youtube) what good argument is there that my hard-earned tax dollars should fund his hospital bills? As the phrase goes, 'stupid should be painful.' It should certainly not be taxpayer-supported. Of course, that only goes as far as the concept of using tax dollars to fund the system goes.

Other arguments are financial (An avoidable Trillion of debt) or philosophical (Feds shouldn't be involved in what should be a State issue, freedom of choice should include the choice to not have insurance, or the methods used).

NTM

Not treating someone often has a higher societal cost than treating them. Poverty and crime will cost the taxpayer more in the long run and will lower everyone's quality of life to a greater extent than treating them.

Exile 1798

Manic Moran wrote: »

Disagree. Their insistance on a mega-bill that tried to do everything and get enough votes to still pass (resulting in a near inability to do anything really well) screwed up an opportunity. They could have done much better, even if it meant they didn't get their grand media event at a signing ceremony. I know you can't please everybody, but is there anyone who is truly happy with the final outcome, that it was worth all the year of haggling and ignoring slightly more pressing issues like jobs and the economy?

And that's before you get to the philosophical question of if the Federal Government should even be involved in the subject. Some States have shown that you don't need Federal interference to have a reasonable healthcare system.

NTM

Seems the philosophical question has already been answered long ago with Medicare and Medicaide.

You're right, some State's have universal care. Blue states like Massachusetts and Hawaii for example. Indeed this Federal plan is said to be quite similar to their models.

I don't see it as fair to tell people from States with poor health care coverage that they can just rot. Many times in the past the Federal government has been required to interfere in these States to uphold Human Rights. The Civil Rights act was opposed on a States rights platform. Indeed Federal troops needed to to be sent in to these states to uphold the law and ensure blacks could attend university.

When someone starts shouting about States rights, you can generally assume that they're trying to defend some form of inequality or injustice.

jank

rovert wrote: »

The communist fascists have won :mad:

Look up Oxymoron.

rovert

jank wrote: »

Look up Oxymoron.

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

jank

rovert wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

Jesus H Christ!
Cause we all know he is the gospel of truth. Go troll somewhere else like a fox forum if you have nothing to add.

jank

rovert wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

Actually this should be an oxymoron as well!:D

Amerika

Curiouser & curiouser! In this tread, political polarization is neither party’s fault, but in the other health care thread it’s the republican’s fault?

(posted in response to jank, before the post was deleted.)

jank

No, I mentioned how political society in general is much more divided in either right or left, the other thread I mentioned engagement in this specific issue of Health Care reform. None was really forth coming from the GOP

Deleted post?

Wompa1

I have to admit I haven't been too tuned into this particular issue. I don't know why really because I'm a news hound. My concern with Universal healthcare is the fact that every immigrant in the country will be entitled to healthcare now if I understand correctly?...or is it just for citizens? and if it is just for citizens than how great of an effect will it have really?

If immigrants now get it than I'd imagine that will see a huge influx of people seeking health care.

People say their health care system over there is joke but I don't mind it really. You get what you pay for. If you don't have insurance over there you can go to a free clinic but the standard of care will not be as good.

Also will this now make the American health care system be like Canada?..Which apparently is good in theory but talking to friends in Vancouver it doesn't work too well in practice as hospitals are being over run and waiting times are 20+ hours (sounds like here!!).

Mark200

Wompa1 wrote: »

Also will this now make the American health care system be like Canada?..Which apparently is good in theory but talking to friends in Vancouver it doesn't work too well in practice as hospitals are being over run and waiting times are 20+ hours (sounds like here!!).

No, Canada has a Single Payer system which basically means that there's just one health insurer - the Government. America's system will still very much be based on a private healthcare insurance system.

Amerika

The Senate Bill bars illegal immigrants from the insurance pools entirely (WINK-WINK).

Wompa1

Mark200 wrote: »

No, Canada has a Single Payer system which basically means that there's just one health insurer - the Government. America's system will still very much be based on a private healthcare insurance system.

That's probably a good thing! If you've ever gone to a post office or DMV over there you'd know why!

Overheal

rovert wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Look up Glenn Beck first

I assume by that asinine retort that the Lord Glenn Beck XIV Esquire has said a lot of things: "Theyre shoving this down the throat of america; those fascist liberal democrat communists."

Except that Communism is the Politically Polar Opposite to Fascism. And if you would actually use an oxymoron like Fascist-Communists, it really displays a lack of basic comprehension of Political Theory.

Now im sure as well paid a pundit as Beck is, he's not misinformed enough to make such a contradiction. So if you're going to wear your Glenn Beck foam Hand and wave it around at least make sure you're listening properly. I understand its difficult when he so often displays images of political dictatorship on his programme in order to scare his audience into believing the same will come true from the health care bill.

Trust me: if the Patriot Act didnt turn DC into Mussolini's playground, I think we'll be alright.

Manach

Whatever else about the bill's passage at least it stirred up a degree of debate about the type of health-care system a society deserves or wants to pay for. Whether this would transfer into an Irish environment would be interesting.