Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote. Republicans were unanimous in opposition, joined by 34 dissident Democrats.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation awaiting the president's approval would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.
So you want Americans to suffer because they can't afford healthcare? Sounds to me like you are the enemy, not the bill.
bout 85% are happy with their healthcare before the bill.
It's about time that I can get insurance. I've been denied by almost a dozen companies due to pre-existing conditions.
oh no, you'll have to wait till like 2012 or 2014, but the taxes begin now.
48% of doctors quitting their profession (poll)[quote] I imagine about 3 doctors quitting over this. No one is going to leave their career just because more people have insurance. It would be like me quitting teaching if they gave me more students. It's dumb, selfish, and foolish.
[/quote]
[quote]I somehow doubt they will follow through on their poll choices, really, what else could they plan to do(aside from early retirement)
[/quote]
[quote]Well that 48% less doctors USA needs.
[/quote]
make whatever assumptions you want if it makes you feel better. :P
What ever happened to giving the public the facts instead of pyschological warfare. I've looked into this and from what I've seen the only reason the Republicans opposed this bill is out of some misguided fear of Socialist programs. They believe that this is just a slippery slope to Communism and they tried to turn the people against this bill with that idea. I believe this to be an underhanded attempt of saboutage at a system that the American people truly need.
That being said the bill is not foolproof, nothing in life ever is. In the beginning there will be several incidents and problems, and people may turn against it. However, when you look at the long run this bill will change America for the better. Look at the rest of the world. Many countries who have leading healthcare systems are running a universal healthcare program.
Why do you use that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.
My only worry about the healthcare bill is money spent on R&D. With national healthcare, less money will be spent on healthcare in general (because people hate paying taxes), therefore drug companies will earn less. And when drug companies are given the choice between R&D and refilling the cocaine trough, R&D will suffer. That is, presently, my only major concern.
What ever happened to the 'don't spend if you can't pay' idea?
Because some people will get into accidents that they themselves did not get themselves into and they will not have insurance for it. A woman suffers multiple lacerations with hemorrhaging in her cardiac area because of an automobile accident. The cause of the hemorrhaging is glass pieces from the windshields and windows being implanted in her chest. She gets rushed to the hospital but they realize that she doesn't have insurance to cover the bill.
According to this quote above, we should just throw her out and leave her right? Because even treating and stabilizing her condition will still cost money, you know. "We should just deny taking care of her because she doesn't have the money or insurance to cover it, even though she will die by being neglected." Is this what you think? I hope not.
I wanna discuss some little details about the health care bill. If you support it, what areas do you like about it? If you don't, what areas do you not support? That might clear up reasons for all this backlash over each other.
Why do you use that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.
I know perfectly well what it means. It's a mutual relation of two things. Obviously, there is a relation between the USA's lack of government-sponsored healthcare and us being placed 37th out of developed nations in overall healthcare quality.
Obviously, there is a relation between the USA's lack of government-sponsored healthcare and us being placed 37th out of developed nations in overall healthcare quality.
Wow.... we uhh, need to step it up there, America. We are second in overall "ower" of all nations, and in healthcare we are 37th. That's just....wow!
Wow.... we uhh, need to step it up there, America. We are second in overall "ower" of all nations, and in healthcare we are 37th. That's just....wow!
Ah, the failure of our Capitalist system; could someone please explain to me any way that this bill is socialistic or negative?
could someone please explain to me any way that this bill is socialistic or negative?
Do you not know what socialism is? Here you go
â"noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
and here's collectivism
the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.
It's not negative in any way. I assume people call it socialist because everyone is getting something. But that's just a bad misinterpretation of what socialist really is. People are getting help and they complain about it? LOLOL
Possible should have just asked how this bill was negative. Other than the fact that this bill funds abortion I can't see any points a conservative could make as to why it's bad for the country or is going to hurt us in any way. Remember Hoover was an epic fail for not doing anything; do you want to be a Hoover?
