Decisions, decisions…
Boy, I sure am glad I don’t have to pay very slightly more in taxes. Sure does beat either having a relatively sizable portion taken out of my paychecks to cover my share of the insurance coverage my employer has selected for me, or having to pay an even larger sum out of pocket if I have no insurance at all! Now THAT’S what I call CHOICE!
Jabberwock
November 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I’m still a little confused on the health care bill. It both sounds like crap (more taxes, forcing people to be insured or pay a penalty) and good at the same time. I think they should’ve changed a few things before they passed it. What do you say, jabberwock?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I say we desperately need to mimic the models of basically every other industrialized country on the planet instead of this bullshit “Uniquely American Solution” garbage that’s basically just “we’re going to totally half-ass it because most members of our government are paid off by insurance companies, and also there’s a sizable portion of them who are total fucking morons with ridiculous principles regarding the ‘free’ market and other such nonsense”.
Sadly, I don’t see people not being total fucking retards any time in the near future, so I guess I’ll take what I can get for now.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
See, Rocky, here’s the thing: the health care bill isn’t a perfect solution. EVERYONE knows this. Both sides. HOWEVER, it’s better than the current system, which clearly ISN’T WORKING. It will increase taxes, but not by very much, and it means you employer doesn’t have to buy you a plan, so he can stop taking that out of your pay if he wants, allowing him to pay you more so you can afford to pay said taxes AND take home more money than you were before. As for forcing people to be insured: the whole point of this is to GET everyone insured. Can you think of anyone remotely sane who DOESN’T want to be insured?
November 19th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Hi everybody. Not posted in a long while.
I saw the final result in the Senate and was rather happy over it. However, I then actually read the damn Bill (a copy of it, obviously) and it was, like J said, not that great.
Obama gets on on the weaknesses of the opposing party rather than his own strengths, and does a few good things, but only half-heartedly. Yep, I can see the pattern of history repeating itself. He’s going the same way as a certain Prime Minister…
There’s a reason people on the other side of the pond call him the black Blair, you know. And that’s it.
December 6th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Storot: Obviously all mentally competent people would rather have health insurance, that isn’t really the point.
What concerns people who are opposed to this health bill is that it sets a dangerous precedent for government control. Up until this bill, there has never been any legal precedent for compelling people to purchase a product. Even worse, it compels people to buy a government product, since the bill is structured in such a way as to cripple private healthcare companies.
Law doesn’t move in leaps and bounds. It’s a sliver here, a scratch there, inch by inch. Concepts are established one word at a time, so people adjust to them. And before you know it, the government has another foothold in your life.
Creepy scenario: Healthcare reform is passed by the mainly Christian people of America. Obama loses the 2012 election to a Republican candidate. Republican candidate points out that homosexuals have a statistically shorter lifespan and higher risk of drug abuse than heterosexuals. The law exists compelling all people to be insured, so it’s a small step to amend it. Homosexuals now are required to pay a higher premium on their compulsory health care. Not out of any moral point; they’re simply statistically more expensive to insure.
Health care for all is a noble goal. But government cannot be trusted. They will use this bill to hurt us. Just wait and see.
Or better yet, don’t let it happen.
December 24th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Well, I may be biased because I am French, but here, we’ve had social healthcare since 1945… And never once has there been any question about making gays pay more, or any group of people for that matter. You pay for healthcare depending solely on your income, and for everyone in this country, it’s called solidarity.
Besides, I don’t see it as a “product” you sell, it is after all to ensure that everyone gets the same chances to get proper medication. It’s what we call a “public service” that should never have been left to private companies in the first place, for the very reason that the State has to remain neutral and ensure equal treatment for all of its citizens.
Also, abortion, AIDS or cancer therapy… All of this is free in France, you don’t pay for anything, whether you were born rich or poor. The system may have its share of problems (the debt being the main one), but at least, it ensures that everyone has the same chances to survive.
Anyway, what I mean is that it’s just not possible for the State to make a group of people pay more (I’m sure that would be against the Constitution in the States too), which is why it is so much better than private companies.