Congress passes the Health Care Bill

[No Limit]

I wish they would have. Obama proposed it but the damn Republicans used the tried and true polarizing issue of least importance, abortion, to crush any hopes of it and take shots at the bill that's passed. The reality of it is that conservative politics does not allow for any potential spending into a public health care option because it's not very conservative. It's a tautology I know, but that's being a conservative for you. They make excuses like tax increase and the inability for private insurance to compete and so on and what not... all of which had wonderful counterpoints that were ignored by stubborn Republicans who only listen to their party constituents and talking heads. Sad way things work here, but that's the way they work.

Obama made a deal last year to kill the public option. So when he was telling the american people that he supported one he was lying:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

The republicans can be blamed for a lot of things. But not for this, anyone that blames them for this is using them as a crutch. They only needed 50 votes to get a public option in there, votes that they could have gotten. 45 senators signed a letter of support of the public option in reconciliation. Out of a pool of 59 democrats they could have whipped up 5 more votes if they truly believed in it, problem was they didn't even if they were saying otherwise in public.

 

[CptStern]

I lost you Stern. The figures I gave you, $100 a month for someone making $10 /hr, are after subsidies. What other emergency coverage thingys are available and how much will they cost?



The companies don't really have to provide the covereage, they will simply be fined if they don't. So it will be a business decision like any other and in many of those decisions they will figure it's cheaper to pay the fine than to provide coverage. And no, it can't be more than 8% of your income. But understand what 8% of income is, it's not chump change especially when that 8% applies before taxes. 8% of a $10/hr income is $138 a month.

you dont have to be insured at that income level. you wont get fined either:

Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income

so you're no better or worse than before the healthcare bill

 

[No Limit]

But again, it's under 8%. For someone making $10 /hr they will have to buy a policy that is around $200 /month. The government will give them a subsidy of $100 a month leaving them with $100 to pay. 8% of a 10 /hr income is $130, so the $100 is still below the 8% (just barely).

So what affordability is a weasle word, $100 is not usually affordable for single americans living on that income level.

 

[CptStern]

But again, it's under 8%. For someone making $10 /hr they will have to buy a policy that is around $200 /month. The government will give them a subsidy of $100 a month leaving them with $100 to pay. 8% of a 10 /hr income is $130, so the $100 is still below the 8% (just barely).

So what affordability is a weasle word, $100 is not usually affordable for single americans living on that income level.

they still have the option of not being insured, which I'm assuming is already the case with people who make $10/hr (already cant afford coverage AND dont qualify for any subsidies under the current system ..which is why it needed an overhaul). I'm assuming these are the people that fall between the cracks when they said 27 million more americans will be covered with this plan (45 million are currently uninsured)]

still it's better than nothing. which is what 27 million americans had before this bill

if anything this is a not enough measure. but it's something. americans havent had something in a long time

 

[No Limit]

They have the option, sure. But they will get a fee for it.

 

[CptStern]

no they'd be exempt from a fine


also I'm kind of confused as to where you found the $200/month for a policy. is that the norm for a single person? because the bill says something about if you cant find a policy for less than 8% of your income ($133/month for someone making $10/hr) then you can buy the emergency coverage thing. it doesnt say anything about the governemnt subsidising your $200 a month insurance payments. so there is an option for these people. not the best option but it's better than nothing

 

[No Limit]

Why would they be exempt? Agian, to be exempt you need to pay more than 8%. Their policy is not more than 8% as the government steps in and provides a subsidy. So no, they would not be exempt. Pay either $100 or a fine.

The calculator uses average rates across the country, for a 25 year old male that's $200 a month. In some areas its less, in other areas its more. You can see what I face in my area here:

http://www.bcbsnm.com/coverage/individual/quote_bluedirect.html

This is the largest insurer in the state. Put in the following info:

Zip: 87111 - Effective Date - 4/1/10 - Male - DOB: 10/1/85 (not my actual bday) - Height: 5ft 11" - Weight: 215lbs

$155 a month + $1,000 annual deductable for 80% coverage. With the deductable it comes out to more than $200 a month and I live in a low cost area of the country. Look at the summary of benefits to see the other ways they will screw you, such as 15% copay. You lowest option here is to pay the $105 a month and never see the doctor or anything else, something you will now be required by law to do. And I believe the way the legislation is crafted these minimum options will be gone as the insurance comapnies will be required to offer more coverage in their basic packages. And if you are making $10 /hr the government would give you no subsidy for this coverage as I understand it.

 

[CptStern]

Why would they be exempt? Agian, to be exempt you need to pay more than 8%. Their policy is not more than 8% as the government steps in and provides a subsidy. So no, they would not be exempt. Pay either $100 or a fine.

The first year, consumers who did not have insurance would owe $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater..

.. Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income

The calculator uses average rates across the country, for a 25 year old male that's $200 a month. In some areas its less, in other areas its more. You can see what I face in my area here:

http://www.bcbsnm.com/coverage/individual/quote_bluedirect.html

This is the largest insurer in the state. Put in the following info:

Zip: 87111 - Effective Date - 4/1/10 - Male - DOB: 10/1/85 (not my actual bday) - Height: 5ft 11" - Weight: 215lbs

$155 a month + $1,000 annual deductable for 80% coverage. With the deductable it comes out to more than $200 a month and I live in a low cost area of the country. Look at the summary of benefits to see the other ways they will screw you, such as 15% copay. You lowest option here is to pay the $105 a month and never see the doctor or anything else, something you will now be required by law to do. And I believe the way the legislation is crafted these minimum options will be gone as the insurance comapnies will be required to offer more coverage in their basic packages. And if you are making $10 /hr the government would give you no subsidy for this coverage as I understand it.

no but you qualify for emergency coverage if you cannot find an insurer who's plan is less than 8% of your annual income. so again a person under those set of circumstances is better off than before. for someone in a higher salary bracket they qualify for subsidies:

Most other uninsured people would be required to buy insurance through one of the new state-run insurance exchanges. People with incomes of more than 133 percent of the poverty level but less than 400 percent (thatâ??s $29,327 to $88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible for premium subsidies through the exchanges.

Premiums would also be capped at a percentage of income, ranging from 3 percent of income to as much as 9.5 percent.

so they wouldnt be paying $200 a month if they make more than $10/hr. at least on the lower end of the spectrum

 

[No Limit]

Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income

I fully understand that, you aren't getting me. Again, the policy is available that costs less than 8% of their income. So they would not be exempt.

I never said they would pay $200 a month, because of subsidies they would pay $100 a month. $100 a month isn't chump change for someone making $10 /hr.

And I just looked at the calculator, looks like the reconiliation bill lowered the premiums for someone making 10/hr, the cost would be $65 a month, not $100. However, make just $2 /hr more @$12/hr and you'll be paying $146 a month. Make $11 /hr and you'll be paying $115 / a month.

Again, this is all after subsidies. Again this doesn't qualify you for the 8% exemption.

I know what its like living on $10 /hr then $13 /hr and living alone or with a roomate, I did that a number of years ago. I didn't have $100 sitting around at the end of the month. And I sure as hell wasn't going to pay $100 for something I couldn't even afford to use. If you need any lab tests or anything else you need to pay the high deductible before they will cover it. That means anything above a common cold and you are ****ed.

 

[CptStern]

I fully understand that, you aren't getting me. Again, the policy is available that costs less than 8% of their income. So they would not be exempt.

that's not what it's saying. it's saying that if you cant find a policy that you can afford (less than 8% of your income) then you wont get fined IF you dont get healthcare insurance

I never said they would pay $200 a month, because of subsidies they would pay $100 a month. $100 a month isn't chump change for someone making $10 /hr.

And I just looked at the calculator, looks like the reconiliation bill lowered the premiums for someone making 10/hr, the cost would be $65 a month, not $100. However, make just $2 /hr more @$12/hr and you'll be paying $146 a month. Make $11 /hr and you'll be paying $115 / a month.

Again, this is all after subsidies. Again this doesn't qualify you for the 8% exemption.

I know what its like living on $10 /hr then $13 /hr and living alone or with a roomate, I did that a number of years ago. I didn't have $100 sitting around at the end of the month. And I sure as hell wasn't going to pay $100 for something I couldn't even afford to use. If you need any lab tests or anything else you need to pay the high deductible before they will cover it. That means anything above a common cold and you are ****ed.

how can this be reflective of what you will be paying in 2015 when the bill comes into effect?

I pay around $200 a month (taken from my pay check) for benefits not covered under canada's healthcare plan: dental, chiropractor etc for a family of 4

if I were single I'd be paying $100 a month. I dont understand. are you asking that people not pay anything because that's not realistic. keeping the status quo isnt realistic either

 

[No Limit]

that's not what it's saying. it's saying that if you cant find a policy that you can afford (less than 8% of your income) then you wont get fined IF you dont get healthcare insurance

Again, lets do the math. Lets say you make $12 /hr and work a standard 40 hour week. There are 26 pay periods. 12 x 80 x 26 = $24,960. That's $2080 a month before taxes. If you have to buy $150 in insurance that's 6% of your income, therefore you don't get an exception. So no, an exemption is not available to these people. They have to buy the insurance or pay a fine.

how can this be reflective of what you will be paying in 2015 when the bill comes into effect?

I pay around $200 a month (taken from my pay check) for benefits not covered under canada's healthcare plan: dental, chiropractor etc for a family of 4

if I were single I'd be paying $100 a month. I dont understand. are you asking that people not pay anything because that's not realistic. keeping the status quo isnt realistic either

It's not reflective of what will happen in 2015, it's less. The CBO says that average premiums will go up because of the new regulations that say they have to offer more basic services. We have the calculator to go by, I think it's a fair source and I'm sure they understand this bill better than either of us. So all the figures I gave you are accurate based on that calculator.

I am not saying we don't pay anything. I am saying that if you live on 10 or 12 bucks an hour you don't have money to spare at the end of the month. Forcing those people to buy something they can't afford won't make the money appear out of thin air. And the joke here is that once they force them to buy this insurance they will probably never get to use that insurance because of copays and deductibles.

This is the problem with mandating insurance. If we instead put these people on medicaide or even medicare the tax burden could be shifted to the richest americans. What's happening here is the tax burden is being shifted to the poorest of the middle class.

 

[CptStern]

Again, lets do the math. Lets say you make $12 /hr and work a standard 40 hour week. There are 26 pay periods. 12 x 80 x 26 = $24,960. That's $2080 a month before taxes. If you have to buy $150 in insurance that's 6% of your income, therefore you don't get an exception. So no, an exemption is not available to these people. They have to buy the insurance or pay a fine.

are subsidies included when calculating the 8% of your income in determining what you will be paying every month?

It's not reflective of what will happen in 2015, it's less. The CBO says that average premiums will go up because of the new regulations that say they have to offer more basic services.

but we're talking about th elower end of the spectrum

We have the calculator to go by, I think it's a fair source and I'm sure they understand this bill better than either of us. So all the figures I gave you are accurate based on that calculator.

yes we'll have to take their word for it

I am not saying we don't pay anything. I am saying that if you live on 10 or 12 bucks an hour you don't have money to spare at the end of the month.

which is true even in canada. so they might not have dental coverage. in the US they'd have no healthcare coverage. which is probably already the case anyways

Forcing those people to buy something they can't afford won't make the money appear out of thin air. And the joke here is that once they force them to buy this insurance they will probably never get to use that insurance because of copays and deductibles.

This is the problem with mandating insurance. If we instead put these people on medicaide or even medicare the tax burden could be shifted to the richest americans. What's happening here is the tax burden is being shifted to the poorest of the middle class.

or face a fine of $95 to upwards of $600 for repeat offenders; cheaper than $200/month for something you'll never use. somehow I dont think it will come to this. and if it does well I'm not all the sympathetic because you only have yourselves to blame for your poor healthcare system; you have far too many roadblocks to ever have a truely progressive system

there's absolutely no way conservatives would ever let the bulk of american healthcare be reliant on medicaid; they'd flip their collective anti-scoalist lids. hell you're lucky you got this bill through congress. and it's half-assed at best

 

[No Limit]

are subsidies included when calculating the 8% of your income in determining what you will be paying every month?

After subsidies. That's why the exemption applies to almost no one. This bill mandates that you will never pay more than 8% for health care except in very specific circumstances.

which is true even in canada. so they might not have dental coverage. in the US they'd have no healthcare coverage. which is probably already the case anyways

Dental was not part of this legislation as far as I know. Dental plans are actually pretty damn expensive here. Does Canada force you to buy your dental plans?

yes we'll have to take their word for it

I have no reason to suspect it's false.

which is true even in canada. so they might not have dental coverage. in the US they'd have no healthcare coverage. which is probably already the case anyways

It's cheaper but it doesn't make it right. Atleast with the status quo I can make the calculation if I should pay a shit load of money for a policy I will never use so I'm insured against some horrible accident or just get by without insurance and if something really bad does happen face bankruptcy. I no longer have this choice.

And I don't know what the **** is wrong with this country. The democrats have huge majorities. They run on a platform of a public option. Huge majority of americans support the public option, as high as 70% in some cases. Yet they take the public option off the table so that they can make a deal with healthcare providers. Absolutely ****ed up system.

 

[CptStern]

After subsidies. That's why the exemption applies to almost no one. This bill mandates that you will never pay more than 8% for health care except in very specific circumstances.

but the exemptions must apply to someone or else why bother haivng it? they said 27 million more americans will be covered. so the bill benefits someone.

Dental was not part of this legislation as far as I know. Dental plans are actually pretty damn expensive here. Does Canada force you to buy your dental plans?

not the same scenario as dental isnt as important as healthcoverage. but to answer your question; no canada doesnt force you get dental coverage. but it does force you to get government coverage. you can't buy private insurance however you can pay out of pocket or have a benefit plans that adds to fcanada's healthcare plan. so in some ways. yes we're forced to accept the governments healthcare plan. but the only people who complain are right wing idiots. amybe in time this will the same for the US

I have no reason to suspect it's false.

I wasnt implying that it was

It's cheaper but it doesn't make it right. Atleast with the status quo I can make the calculation if I should pay a shit load of money for a policy I will never use so I'm insured against some horrible accident or just get by without insurance and if something really bad does happen face bankruptcy. I no longer have this choice.

And I don't know what the **** is wrong with this country. The democrats have huge majorities. They run on a platform of a public option. Huge majority of americans support the public option, as high as 70% in some cases. Yet they take the public option off the table so that they can make a deal with healthcare providers. Absolutely ****ed up system.

that makes no sense as healthcare providers would be paid regardless. just like they are in canada: we have privately run healthcare clinics that are paid by the governemnt

anyways iopposition to this bill has been more than polarised americans more so than the before the invasion of Iraq. it's safe to say that a lot of americans didnt want any sort of reform much less a public option

 

[No Limit]

but the exemptions must apply to someone or else why bother haivng it? they said 27 million more americans will be covered. so the bill benefits someone.

I dont know, its our government, they aren't smart. Maybe there is a very tiny group that can be affected by it, I cant get the numbers to ever show a cost of 8% or more.

not the same scenario as dental isnt as important as healthcoverage. but to answer your question; no canada doesnt force you get dental coverage. but it does force you to get government coverage. you can't buy private insurance however you can pay out of pocket or have a benefit plans that adds to fcanada's healthcare plan. so in some ways. yes we're forced to accept the governments healthcare plan. but the only people who complain are right wing idiots. amybe in time this will the same for the US

But its not really forcing you to get government coverage in the same way this forces you to get private coverage. You are given healthcare as a result of paying your taxes, there is no profit motive. We are forced to buy private insurance and our taxes have nothing to do with it unless we are lucky enough to get a subsidy (not gonna be the case for millions).

that makes no sense as healthcare providers would be paid regardless. just like they are in canada: we have privately run healthcare clinics that are paid by the governemnt

anyways iopposition to this bill has been more than polarised americans more so than the before the invasion of Iraq. it's safe to say that a lot of americans didnt want any sort of reform much less a public option

The issue they had was with a public option they would get medicare reimbursements which are 80% of regular non government plans.

And actually if you look at the polls most people supported the public options. So Americans were not polarized on this issue. They could have dropped this bill and done something as simple as allowing everyone to buy in to medicare (a bill that is 4 pages long). Polling shows that most americans support this. And the democrats have always said they supported this and now they have the majorities to make it happen. Yet it's not happening.

 

[No Limit]

but the exemptions must apply to someone or else why bother haivng it? they said 27 million more americans will be covered. so the bill benefits someone.

I was talking to my little brother this weekend about him getting a part time job and I think I now understand who this exemption would apply to. There are a lot of people that make $10 /hr that don't work 40 hours, they might work 32 hours or part time of 20 hours. So that exemption would seem to apply to them. Just wanted to post back on that.

 

[CptStern]

are part time workers tradtionally the ones that were neglected by healthcare coverage? isnt there some sort of student coverage or something? man how the hell can you people function without proper healthcare for everybody? I certainly dont want to be in the US during a pandemic.

 

[lord_raken]

man how the hell can you people function without proper healthcare for everybody? I certainly dont want to be in the US during a pandemic.

The truth is we do function without it. What is more, we thrive as a country and economy. Even while fighting two expensive wars and suffering a large economic crisis we are still one of the most powerful economies on the planet.

Maybe you should ask yourself how we did that, because we did it WITHOUT national healthcare. Perhaps it is not a vital as you think.

Oh, another thing. There have been outbreaks of several viruses and diseases in the past few years and yet none of them have done significant amounts of damage. So what we have now seems to keep outbreaks under pretty good control.

 

[Krynn72]

Oh my god Raken shut up. Jesus, that was probably the worst post you've made in this thread. There are so many problems with that line of thought that I don't even know where to begin. I'm just going to put you on ignore and pretend you never posted that.

 

[CptStern]

The truth is we do function without it. What is more, we thrive as a country and economy. Even while fighting two expensive wars and suffering a large economic crisis we are still one of the most powerful economies on the planet.

Maybe you should ask yourself how we did that, because we did it WITHOUT national healthcare. Perhaps it is not a vital as you think.

hmmm sailing the waves of economic crisis and fighting 2 wars was all due to not caring about healthcare? is this what you're saying because I dont see how those things have to do with the state of healthcare in america

"we sent a man to the moon!!! obviously healthcare isnt important"

"we split the atom with absolutely no help from healthcare"

Oh, another thing. There have been outbreaks of several viruses and diseases in the past few years and yet none of them have done significant amounts of damage. So what we have now seems to keep outbreaks under pretty good control.

that went completely over your head. I meant I wouldnt want to be in the US during a pandemic because with so many people being without healthcare they could potentially be carriers simply because they cant afford a check up

 

[No Limit]

The truth is we do function without it. What is more, we thrive as a country and economy. Even while fighting two expensive wars and suffering a large economic crisis we are still one of the most powerful economies on the planet.

Maybe you should ask yourself how we did that, because we did it WITHOUT national healthcare. Perhaps it is not a vital as you think.

Oh, another thing. There have been outbreaks of several viruses and diseases in the past few years and yet none of them have done significant amounts of damage. So what we have now seems to keep outbreaks under pretty good control.

Do you understand that just because you are well off doesn't mean others are too? In this case we are talking about 30 + million people (the size of Canda) that have absolutely no health coverage. I caught something a week and a half ago, 2 of those days I couldn't even get out of bed and had to call in sick to work. Did I get to see a doctor? **** no. I just dealt with it. Luckily I am starting to feel fine but if it was an infection or something else that had to be treated I would have been ****ed.

You are a ****ing idiot if you think a system where 30 million of your fellow americans have no access to health care is a good system.

 

[No Limit]

are part time workers tradtionally the ones that were neglected by healthcare coverage? isnt there some sort of student coverage or something? man how the hell can you people function without proper healthcare for everybody? I certainly dont want to be in the US during a pandemic.

Yeah, but low wage full time workers are too. If an employer is paying someone $7 an hour they won't be paying an additional $200 a month or so per employee to give them coverage. And they don't need to as there isn't a lot of competition in that regard.

So under this bill these part time workers will still be ****ed. I don't think the mandate for employers to provide care applies to someone working under 32 hours a week (this is an assumption on my part and Im to lazy to check, but im pretty sure this is the case). But atleast they put in an exemption so that these people won't have to pay a fine.

 

[CptStern]

so pretty much every single student (unless covered by parents plan) or person working for the hospitality industry are without healthcare coverage? that's insane

 

[Llama]

The truth is we do function without it. What is more, we thrive as a country and economy. Even while fighting two expensive wars and suffering a large economic crisis we are still one of the most powerful economies on the planet.

Maybe you should ask yourself how we did that, because we did it WITHOUT national healthcare. Perhaps it is not a vital as you think.

Oh, another thing. There have been outbreaks of several viruses and diseases in the past few years and yet none of them have done significant amounts of damage. So what we have now seems to keep outbreaks under pretty good control.

- Your economy is not thriving. The US is closer to losing the $ than it ever has been before. I hear that debt is awesome btw.
- The US economy certainly isn't the fastest growing.
- Two 'disastrous' wars would probably be more appropriate.

- You did this WITHOUT health care? If you're implying that the lack of health care was a factor you're an idiot, if you aren't, the statement doesn't add anything. Take your pick.

- Keeping outbreaks under control? 20,000 Americans die from the flu each year, how the hell do you know if you can deal with a pandemic? There hasn't been a serious health risk in years. (And no - SARS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu were not serious by any definition)

 

[No Limit]

so pretty much every single student (unless covered by parents plan) or person working for the hospitality industry are without healthcare coverage? that's insane

The argument is many of them have rich enough parents to cover them. But if you aren't lucky enough to have that and make less than $10 an hour working part time you will probably be left without any coverage as you won't be able to afford $100 - $150 bucks a month for insurance that you won't be able to afford to use anyway.

 

[CptStern]

what about all the parents who arent rich? what about the kids who have to work to support their schooling?

and what do you mean by "wont be able to afford to use"? do premiums go up depending how often you make claims like in auto insurance?

 

[No Limit]

what about all the parents who arent rich? what about the kids who have to work to support their schooling?

and what do you mean by "wont be able to afford to use"? do premiums go up depending how often you make claims like in auto insurance?

Well to most people the kids that don't have rich parents don't matter. It's such a foreign concept to them it simply doesn't register. But yeah, the people that actually have to work for themselves will be ****ed unless they have $150 at the end of the month to spare on healthcare.

What I mean by "wont be able to afford to use" means that insurance companies don't pay all your bills simply because you have insurance, that would be way too logical. I gave you a link to blue cross blue shield here in New Mexico which happens to be the largest insurer. If you want to see a doctor there is a $30 copay. Which is fair enough, most people could afford that. The problem is there is also a $1,000 deductible. That means anything that doesn't have a fixed copay (pretty much anything outside your standard doctor visit) you have to pay for out of pocket until you reach the deductible. So if I go to see a doctor because I have strep throat (as has happened) I pay a $30 copay but if I haven't reached my $1,000 deductable I will have to pay for any additional work such as lab tests (which they would have to do in those cases). A simple lab test will run you around $300. So if Im a student working part time paying $330 because I got a sore throat isn't an option, and that's with insurance. That doesn't include any prescriptions which will depend on your health plan but they will range anywhere from $30 - $80 if they are even covered at all.

So I know how hard it is for you to comprehand how all this works because you are under the simple assumption that healthcare isn't a for-profit scheme, but here it is. And if you are one of the millions of americans that lives pay check to pay check healthcare simply isn't an option, even if the government ends up mandating that you buy it.

 

[Solaris]

Sounds like the insurance system is a whole crock of shit.

 

[lord_raken]

Good job with jumping the gun there guys.

I was only commenting that the U.S.A functions fine without Governmental healthcare.

Stern asked how we function without universal healthcare. The obvious truth is that we do function so I merely suggested that universal healthcare is not vital for a society to function.

So for those of you who extrapolated my comment to the extreme in a very Glen Beck fashion... think before you try to light a fire.

 

[No Limit]

So your definition of a functioning democracy is a system where 40,000 people die each year because they didn't have access to the most basic healthcare?

 

[lord_raken]

So your definition of a functioning democracy is a system where 40,000 people die each year because they didn't have access to the most basic healthcare?

The term "functioning" and even "successful" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, imply "perfect."

Keep in mind that 2,426,264 people die every year in the U.S., 631,636 people die of heart disease, and 559,888 die of cancer. Many people die and many don't deserve to go the way they do.

The united states functions as a whole and 40,000 deaths do not significantly impact the ability of the nation to function. Should something be done about those death? Yes because they are avoidable (mostly). Some say we need government provided healthcare, others say revamp the private industry with regulations. But as a nation, weather or not something is done, the country will continue to function.

That is all I meant. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Stigmata]

Good job with jumping the gun there guys.

I was only commenting that the U.S.A functions fine without Governmental healthcare.

Stern asked how we function without universal healthcare. The obvious truth is that we do function so I merely suggested that universal healthcare is not vital for a society to function.

So for those of you who extrapolated my comment to the extreme in a very Glen Beck fashion... think before you try to light a fire.

You misunderstood the question. "How well do you function without universal healthcare?" is not the same as "Do you function without universal healthcare?", which is the imaginary question you answered. How well you function gives a less sunny answer.

 

[No Limit]

The term "functioning" and even "successful" does not, by any stretch of the imagination, imply "perfect."

Keep in mind that 2,426,264 people die every year in the U.S., 631,636 people die of heart disease, and 559,888 die of cancer. Many people die and many don't deserve to go the way they do.

The united states functions as a whole and 40,000 deaths do not significantly impact the ability of the nation to function. Should something be done about those death? Yes because they are avoidable (mostly). Some say we need government provided healthcare, others say revamp the private industry with regulations. But as a nation, weather or not something is done, the country will continue to function.

That is all I meant. Don't put words in my mouth.

You said universal healthcare is not vital, that's a pretty stupid point to be making.

 

[lord_raken]

You said universal healthcare is not vital, that's a pretty stupid point to be making.

Well it obviously isn't. If it was vital for a society and government to have universal healthcare in order to function and prosper, then then U.S.A. wouldn't be a world or economic power.

One of the side effects of a limited government is that some people fall through the cracks. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it IS a reality.

I keep saying this over and over again, but what we need is an appropriate balance between government authority and personal sovereignty.

@Stigmata: Stern said "how the HELL do you function?" Not "how well." I answered his question with "we obviously do."

 

[CptStern]

Well it obviously isn't. If it was vital for a society and government to have universal healthcare in order to function and prosper, then then U.S.A. wouldn't be a world or economic power.

One of the side effects of a limited government is that some people fall through the cracks. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it IS a reality.

I keep saying this over and over again, but what we need is an appropriate balance between government authority and personal sovereignty.

@Stigmata: Stern said "how the HELL do you function?" Not "how well." I answered his question with "we obviously do."

no you dont. 45 million americans are without healthcare coverage. that's more people than in all of canada. obviously for 45 million americans you dont function as you should


and you cant transpose the success of a limited amount of people to express the success of everyone as a whole

 

[No Limit]

Well it obviously isn't. If it was vital for a society and government to have universal healthcare in order to function and prosper, then then U.S.A. wouldn't be a world or economic power.

One of the side effects of a limited government is that some people fall through the cracks. I'm not saying this is a good thing but it IS a reality.

I keep saying this over and over again, but what we need is an appropriate balance between government authority and personal sovereignty.

@Stigmata: Stern said "how the HELL do you function?" Not "how well." I answered his question with "we obviously do."

Do you not understand how that is an absurd argument? If we locked up half of our people for expressing the wrong opinion our government would still function. That doesn't mean it would function well. You are trying to suggest, wether you want to admit it or not, that health care for everyone is not an important factor in having a society that works. Sure, it might work for some, but for a very large chunk it doesn't work at all.