AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → U.S. House of Representatives Passes Bill to Repeal the New Healthcare Law

157 20544
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

On Wednesday, January 19th, the house voted 245-189 (all Republicans, and 3 Democrats) to repeal the Healthcare Law. I was curious as to what AG's response would be to this.

Some sources:

The Hill

The Huffington Post

FOX News

CNN

  • 157 Replies
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Instead of arguments like these, NoName, you should go to Here and talk about economics (I'm desperately trying to advertise it, you can tell...but if someone doesn't bump it, it will be the first thread since "Boron Based Life" that has died with only 3 responses, and even though this thread is full of liberals, for some reason, no one's put up resistance there - I don't get it).


Yeah, my bad. I sort of shooped.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

I don't want to sound like the rude/ignorant foreigner, but why doesn't America look at the countries where the healthcare systems are free and not full of greedy rich people? They could simply try to copy the country where healthcare works the best?


First, it's not free - nothing is free.

Americans will claim that their healthcare system is, in fact, the best, and give backup such as that other people will go to America to receive treatment when they're put on a waiting list on other countries, etc.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

I don't want to sound like the rude/ignorant foreigner, but why doesn't America look at the countries where the healthcare systems are free and not full of greedy rich people? They could simply try to copy the country where healthcare works the best?


First of all, "greedy" is a word used to fallaciously discredit businesses. "He's greedy, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to control a business."

There's nothing wrong with being rich. There's nothing wrong with making money.

Second, someone always makes a profit. If it isn't the rich insurance company, it's the person in charge of national health care. The only difference is you can choose whether or not you want to do business with the greedy company, you are forced to do business with the greedy national health care.

National health care can easily push the nation into debt, even while this happens, someone is making a personal profit.

They could simply try to copy the country where healthcare works the best?


Lastly, you can't simply copy a health care system. Everything needs to work together. You can't take a socialized health care system that depends on high taxes and incorporate it into an economic system where everyone pays low taxes.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Second, someone always makes a profit. If it isn't the rich insurance company, it's the person in charge of national health care. The only difference is you can choose whether or not you want to do business with the greedy company, you are forced to do business with the greedy national health care.


Better way to say this - the insurance company requires voluntary actions - if you don't like it, don't do it. However, governments use coercion, and that's what makes it bad.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Communism would like to have a word with you.


2 different communisms, and also, I'll contest that anarchism-communism does not work in theory, either. There are inherent flaws.

For it to work in theory and not in practice is a violation of the Principle of contradiction
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Because the GOP, pro big business, got lobbied by insurance companies, etc to fight it, and they had the better PR machine.


Please don't say GOP. It's stupid. Grand Old Party? So old ideas must automatically be assumed to be wrong? Republicans may have their roots with past ideas but their ideology has changed.

It must be easy turning a blind eye to the democratic party. Businesses fund both republican AND democratic campaigns. Don't even start with the "Republicans take bribes". That's no reason to be democrat when they do the same.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

anarchism-communism


Anarchism-communism makes as much sense as a lead balloon.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

Anarchism-communism makes as much sense as a lead balloon.


If I'm right it makes more sense than a lead balloon, because a lead balloon actually was created (by Mythbusters).
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

If I'm right it makes more sense than a lead balloon, because a lead balloon actually was created (by Mythbusters).


I meant to say, A lead balloon makes more sense, but I actually said the opposite oops...
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

My response to this would be one of relative apathy. Anyone who has studied the US constitution in detail will know that it was designed to be very hard to get anything done. And that includes repealing bills. Even with the mid term elections to take into account, I would be fairly surprised to see this bill go through, so long as the Obama dems play a cool hand.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

This is why I can't stand morons who are busy calling conservatives the GOP.

GOP is the grand old party. Same old rich white buisness men with strong protanstant faith want to role back time to the 1900s


This does not describe most conservatives. Most conservatives are not rich or old. Yes, the majority of conservatives are white but that doesn't mean they are wrong. And yes, most conservatives are Christian as are democrats.

The problem with conservatives is that they believe in having a free market where the state controls morality, or rather our personal actions.

To call conservatives rich white businessmen who wish to force Christianity is BS.

You are on the right track that conservatives do wish to cater to big business, but they do so in the SAME way as democrats, by creating more government involvement that restricts all businesses but harms the small ones. So you were right that they do tend to cater to big business, but don't let it get to your head. Democrats are doing the exact same thing!

when the pesky EPA didn't exist and gays could be jailed and the like.


First of all, the EPA is bull****. Yes, the EPA is supposed to protect consumers, but they often set ridiculous standards that tend to be costly and overkill. "You can't be too safe" is a good saying the state uses to allow the people to give them money without fighting back.

It is unfortunate that conservatives do not support gay marriage, but they don't believe they should be jailed.

If you wish to keep religion out of politics and the public sector, you are a evil bigoted anti-christian.


It is sad that SOME conservatives have strong ties to God, but because they are out there I can't criticize you too much. However, your general conservative is not that close minded.

Any form of gun control means you are an evil libel who wants to get rid of the second amendment and seize all guns.


Watch Penn and Teller's BS on gun control.

They wish to repeal the 14th amendment (which freed the slaves), want to go back to the articles of confederation to keep the federal goverement out.


Sorry, but that's just completely wrong.

Same old boys network working to keep the inspectors out of their buisnesses and to try to leverage god back into america.


I believe in keeping the government out of businesses and I'm NOT a conservative.

So why don't we argue ideas rather than create names shall we?
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

GOP is the grand old party. Same old rich white buisness men with strong protanstant faith want to role back time to the 1900s, when the pesky EPA didn't exist and gays could be jailed and the like. Their idea has not changed, if you are not a heterosexual christian, you aren't an american. If you want fair labor practices and other proctections for worker's rights, you are a socialist/communist. If you wish to keep religion out of politics and the public sector, you are a evil bigoted anti-christian. Any form of gun control means you are an evil libel who wants to get rid of the second amendment and seize all guns.


Your arguments are completely fallicious - I could just as easily defend the time by saying something like, "Well, in these 'terrible' times, there were no nuclear weapons."

Same old boys network working to keep the inspectors out of their buisnesses and to try to leverage god back into america.


Nice ad hominem - now actually make an argument; you still have not addressed my argument a WHILE back about how a universal healthcare system is inherently invalid.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Woops, I got the FDA and EPA mixed up didn't I? How embarrassing!

I'll come back later to defend my points, but before then I'll allow this thread to slowly move back on topic.

CommanderDude7
offline
CommanderDude7
4,689 posts
Nomad

'm fairly sure it's because they simply don't care that much

Ah so simply because america "cares more" for the individual they will be able to succeed where china failed?

With an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.8% for the past two decades, India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.[148]

They been having this kind of growth for 2 decades. So dont tell me they will still be in poverty.

So so far no nations approaching Americas size have universal healthcare.
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

History has shown, when companies are deregulated, everyone gets screwed. Bush massively deregulated Wall Street, in a decade, we had the recession because companies played fast and loose. The reason government is in business is simple, if business operates without government oversight, the consumer gets boned.


Government overseeing business, to some degree, is good. Like you said, it prevenst us from getting 'boned'. Of course, you can have too much of a good thing, like when you can't sneeze without breaking a regulation. But overall, the government regulating businesses ensures that the quality of the businesses products remains up to par with what people want or need, and still allowing the business to make a profit.

However, the problem occurs not when government oversees business, but when government becomes the business.

Case and point: Amtrak.

The US Government has yet to run a profit with Amtrak. And on top of that, there constantly taking what little money it makes and spending it on pork projects. The trains are outdated, and there simply isn't enough demand for the product.

And now we see the US Government beginning to partake of the business that is Health Insurance. And if the past shows us anything, whats about to happen can't be good.
Showing 46-60 of 157