comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

why not at least give it its due course, god dammit. Two weeks ago I would have said the same thing about the House. Cynicism is warranted but if you want to be a defeatist without nuance please just stop.

comment #2

David says ...

I just hope after they solve this health insurance problem that they finally get around to giving us the same reform in the car insurance market. Last night I crashed my car into some family's house and demolished their living room and ran over their dog, and when I called afterward to sign up for insurance to pay for the mess, both State Farm and Geico told me my car had a pre-existing condition. Excuse me, what?! Fuck them Republicans! This is America and I have a human right to car insurance and whatnot.

comment #3

Eloi Manning says ...

What the fresh hell are you talking about, David?

comment #4

Marty Melville says ...

"What the fresh hell are you talking about, David?"

David is saying, like any good Republican, that getting sick and dying is exactly the same as getting drunk and driving into a house... it's a choice!

comment #5

Phreaker says ...

David thinks he's being funny. I think. It isn't funny. The pharms can't have it both ways. They can't tell Americans 24/7 that they're sick - medicate men, women and children, for profit -- but then have insurance companies refuse to cover/pay for such maladies. Perhaps if the pharms are curtailed it might help the madness of pushing fake wellness on Americans for profit. Restless leg syndrome! I have it! But I can't get insurance because I have it! Do I really have it?

Health care is nothing short of life and death - if we have a bloated government anyway why would it not be invested in our health as well as our security?

comment #6

Uncle Milty says ...

Epic fail, David. Epic fail.

comment #7

Eloi Manning says ...

It's possibly the stupidest comment I've seen so far in any discussion of healthcare. And that's quite a boast.

comment #8

Manitoba says ...

I happened to be watching CNN when they broke in with a House Passes Health Care Bill breaking news bulletin. Today I was watching a Canadian news channel operated by CBC television and they had Dennis Kucinich , the liberal Ohio Democratic congressman on as a special guest. Kucinich called the bill a giveaway to the insurance industry and noted the Obama administration helped gut it by promoting the removal of a provision that would have cleared states to set up their own single-payer plans free of insurance company lawsuits.But I guess it is better than nothing. I watched many of the U.S. Sunday political shows this morning and the general theme was that the bill may be too radical for the senate and further trimming or major changes may be in the cards.Kucinich complained on the CBC news channel that Obama and his administration have been too worried about protecting the insurance industry.

comment #9

David says ...

"like any good Republican"

Hilarious. It makes the argument easier if you assign me a party, doesn't it? Even if I've never voted for the party? "Epic fail", internet trolls.

Since I guess this means you're all Democrats and you voted for Obama, why do you guys hate gay people so much? What did they ever do to you guys?

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

okay fair enough you're a dumb fuck free of party affiliation making a completely specious connection.

comment #11

David says ...

"specious connection"

You buy insurance before bad things happen. If you can buy it after, it's not insurance.

"you're a dumb fuck"

Is this how you speak to people? Do you live in a cave? Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself. Go volunteer at a nursing home or a homeless shelter and get some dignity in your life.

comment #12

Rothchild says ...

You don't care about innocent people dying or going bankrupt because of our current health care system. Shove your concept of dignity up your ass.

comment #13

TheGK says ...

I agree there. Comparing health insurance with car insurance is pretty poor. To more or less say that someone with a deadly illness, deservedly afflicted or not, is like a damaged car is poor, poor reasoning.
Indeed, it's this kind of reasoning which has led to this legislation as people realise it total BS.
I think it's fair to say say that you're a dumb fuck David. Learn about the rest of the world jackass.

comment #14

David says ...

The only way to care about people is to hand over moral authority to government? The same government that has so heavily regulated the insurance industry that it's impossible to create competition? The same government that will be run by at least 50% evil Republicans after the next election?

I've heard this argument before. It had no substance when we were invading Iraq, and it has no substance now. You never take responsibility for building up power in federal government. You don't care about people enough to be responsible for what government does with the moral authority you hand over. Will you be protesting the first person sent to jail for not having health insurance, or will there be something better to watch on TV that night?

"Shove your concept of dignity up your ass."

Wow, that convinced me, you're full of love and rainbows, you're my moral superior, just like every other profane coward hiding behind his anonymity on the internet.

Post your phone number and address. Let's have a conversation like human beings.

comment #15

David says ...

Insurance is not a discount payment for medical services. You're supposed to have insurance before something goes wrong. If something catastrophic does go wrong, we should have emergency funds in place to take care of people. Whether that should handled by government or private charities is debatable. However, requiring insurance companies to except anyone, no matter how bad their health is, doesn't make health insurance less expensive. Ignoring all of the free market health care reforms we need doesn't make health insurance less expensive. By not removing the ties to employer-based insurance, everyone still has to worry about where their insurance will be coming from if they lose or change jobs. This isn't "reform," it's covering up the problem as it continues to get worse. I haven't read the bill, but does it give employer tax benefits to individuals now, or are we all still tied to our employer insurance plans? Will we be able to buy insurance over state lines, or will we still to be forced to pay for state-mandated procedures like gastric bypass surgery and hair restoration?

comment #16

SpinDozer says ...

"The only way to care about people is to hand over moral authority to government?"..."You don't care about people enough to be responsible for what government does with the moral authority you hand over."

Not sure where you arrived at this observation. It's bogus. The Government currently makes it illegal for children to be employed as laborers. If the Government revises this at some point, you can bet there will be very few people saying that it's ok because the Government said so, same thing with the Iraq War. That's representative democracy. We have recourse at the ballot box and the streets. Sometimes it doesn't make a difference and sometimes it does.

"The same government that will be run by at least 50% evil Republicans after the next election?"

Well, lets not jump to the nightmare scenario this early. One Government program the evil Republican officeholders have hated and tried to destroy on multiple occassions only to fail and suffer at the polls is Social Security.

comment #17

SpinDozer says ...

'Insurance is not a discount payment for medical services.'

not currently, that's what we're trying to change for reasons most will recognize as obvious.

comment #18

David says ...

SpinDozer: Although I would disagree with the statement "for reasons most will recognize as obvious", at least you're being honest and not calling people names. That's refreshing.

In regard to moral authority, we have a country that uses its monopoly on marriage to prevent gay people from getting married, we lock people up for possession of marijuana, we lock up consenting adults for having sex in exchange for money or the "obscenity" of having sex on camera...I don't consider that a moral government, I consider that a government that declares war on small segments of the population in exchange for campaign funding or poll numbers from the majority.

comment #19

SpinDozer says ...

"we have a country ...I don't consider that a moral government."

You are correct. Work to change it.

comment #20

David says ...

I also don't think a moral government redistributes wealth, even if I benefit from the redistribution, just as I don't believe that if I don't have enough money for the subway that I should be able to break into my neighbor's home and steal their cash.

Everybody has differing opinions of what is moral and immoral, and in terms of government those opinions are meaningless -- if we don't limit our government to protecting our inherent rights to decide what we do with our bodies and our property, we are in danger.

How many people could we have saved not just here but around the world with the money that government flushes down the drain on earmarked projects? That's immoral. How do you propose to change that other than voting out the big government proponents who support government-run health care?

comment #21

Yuval says ...

"How many people could we have saved not just here but around the world with the money that government flushes down the drain on earmarked projects?"
Who is this hypothetical "we" you speak of? And why do you auusme that "we" is more trustworthy and moral than the government you (really you, not a made up superior intelligence) can elect to change.
"If something catastrophic does go wrong, we should have emergency funds in place to take care of people. Whether that should handled by government or private charities is debatable."
And who would decide what's catastrophic? The all knowing market? Healtch care should help you stay healthy or get healthier, so you know, you can avoid the catastrophe.
And believing that "private charity" is somehow the best we can hope for and a force powerful enough to prevent the "real" catastrophes is a fairy tale. Yes, nothing will go really really bad because the charities will save us.

comment #22

David says ...

Yuval - "We" are the taxpayers. We're not hypothetical.

We don't have to just depend on private charities to do the work. We don't have to throw our money into private funds and hope for the best. We have the technology now to connect people who need help with those who can give it. I believe that people want to help others and will if they know that people are in need and where their money is going. In a social media-connected world, why would you not know if someone (anonymously) in your community is ill and in need of medical funds? Is the obstacle our selfishness as human beings or that no one has created that system?

You're not addressing the real problem, which is that health care and health insurance is so expensive and none of the "reforms" have addressed the root causes. We seem to be working under the premise that all private companies are "evil" and that in a free market no competitors would naturally pop up to take a chunk of their profits away. It's magical thinking. If we had a free market health care system where insurance companies were simply hoarding profits, any number of the very wealthy advocates of the "public option" would have jumped into the ring and started their own health insurance companies rather than seeking a government-run system.

comment #23

SpinDozer says ...

'I also don't think a moral government redistributes wealth...'

You'd make a great serf.

comment #24

SpinDozer says ...

'How many people could we have saved not just here but around the world with the money that government flushes down the drain on earmarked projects?'

Not many. Earmarks aren't universally evil, but they're not particularly significant in budgetary terms comp'd to the military or health care.

comment #25

SpinDozer says ...

'If we had a free market health care system where insurance companies were simply hoarding profits, any number of the very wealthy advocates of the "public option" would have jumped into the ring and started their own health insurance companies...'

Why would that necessarilly be the outcome? When Carnegie ran the Steel Mills or Rockafeller ran what would become Exxon, did the competition seize part of their market share? Or did Guh'mint have to interveen?

comment #26

Phreaker says ...

"The same government that has so heavily regulated the insurance industry that it's impossible to create competition? "

Yeah, what's this competition I keep hearing about? There isn't any competition - this is a case of the rich getting better healthcare, period, end of story. There is no "cheaper" health care people can get. It's either prohibitively expensive or it's clinics and emergency rooms. I guess you'd have to have lived in that reality to understand it. It's probably easy when you're already covered by your job but try having to pay out of pocket for it some time. And god help you if you had something mild on your application - ever smoked cigarettes in your life, had any sort of operation. Is this really the country you want to live in?

comment #27

David says ...

Phreaker: If you read what I wrote, I said that there isn't competition because of regulation. I'm not sure what you meant by "I guess you'd have to have lived in that reality to understand it." Please explain.

comment #28

Yuval says ...

""We" are the taxpayers. We're not hypothetical."
"We have the technology now to connect people who need help with those who can give it. I believe that people want to help others and will if they know that people are in need and where their money is going."
I sincerely commend your sense of brotherhood among man. May I ask which society in recorded history has ever led you to such conclusions?
I believe you're living in a dream where the only thing that's standing between us and social utopia are taxes and regulations. In your dream wherever there's a need someone with the funds will pick up the check. I recommend you read up on the "Roaring Twenties" and the wonderful charity among man it bred. Is it your opinion that if the internet existed in the 1920's the economical collapse would have been avoided?

comment #29

David says ...

This society is the one that has led me to those conclusions. The generations coming up after us have led me to those conclusions. I find your cynicism to be sad. There is no utopia, there is no perfect system, but if you're going to argue that our government has demonstrated moral superiority over any random person you would pick off the street, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

comment #30

Phreaker says ...

There isn't competition, David, because the insurance companies and health care industry has a great thing going. The drugs are flowing into our society mostly unchecked.

What did I mean by "you have to have lived it," means - you'd have to know what it's like to have to lie in order to get even the cheapest health care available. The system is set up for people without insurance to simply not get sick. But if you get sick, die quickly - so said Alan Grayson. I happen to have some lame-ass version of health insurance that I had to lie to get, by the way, and I know it doesn't cover anything serious.

Under your plan, someone like me would continue to depend on the more expensive charges at emergency rooms, wracking up bills I couldn't pay. I guess I could die quickly. I know at least five people who have no coverage at all. To what end?

comment #31

Yuval says ...

This society? Have you been in living in a literal bubble? A random person can also be Bernie Madoff. Or even worse, a member of the communist party. Where were all those random persons when other random persons voted for proposition 8? Did the heavy burden of taxes and regulations kept them from finding their true random self? Your "random person" is a very specific individual.
It is the same as your "we are the taxpayer", a hypothetical benevolent being that exists in your mind. You believe this radical system that has never been tested successfully would work best just because you have a good feeling about the "generations coming up after us". Do you have anything other than your faith?
My cynicism will have to sadden you. I find it rather suitable in this arguement. But hey, I guess you've known some wonderful people in your life, so that's very good.

comment #32

David says ...

Yuval - I am disturbed by Proposition 8 as much as you. People getting together and legislating morality is a scary thing. I am more disturbed by a president in 2009 who does not support gay marriage. Honestly, I have no patience for anyone who wants to use government to suppress the equal rights of minorities and I can't believe the "hope and change" candidate of last year still believes in legislating bigotry. Yes, I suppose the random person you could grab off the street could be Bernie Madoff, but it also be John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Mark Foley, Dick Cheney, et cetera.

Our society could be much better than it is, and I believe it will be, but not if we continue to demonize one another. I would argue that when people know about other people in need, they do step up to help. Our goal should be facilitating that. I don't even understand why you would argue against that -- isn't the goal to help people, not control them through government if that didn't need to be done?

Phreaker - No, under "my plan", if you wish to call it that, we would remove the government-provided monopolies that the health insurance companies now enjoy and profit from. We would remove the state mandates that require you to purchase coverage for nonsense items like gastric bypass surgery if you didn't want them. We would allow you to purchase coverage over state lines so you would have more options. You would stop using insurance for routine doctor visits and see and negotiate the actual cost of your care and the forces of the free market would naturally lower those costs. There are many more areas that need reform, including how malpractice cases are handled and how the AMA has a monopoly on medical licensing. I'm not aware of any of these subjects being addressed by this bill. Even if you are in support of government-run health care, wouldn't you want to explore all of the ways we could make it cheaper for everyone? I don't get the opposition.

comment #33

Yuval says ...

I definitely don't want to demonize anyone. I think that if you look at the world around you and the history of man you will see that when people know about other people in need, very few step up to help, and more importantly - the best strategy to help catastrophes is trying to avoid them. So for example, if you see that the majority in some states doesn't want to give up slavery and support equal rights to homosexuals or companies are creating a housing bubble the best thing to do is to have an effective force (like the government could be) to tell them to stop.
I'm all for facilitating people to step up to help, but that's not enough.

comment #34

David says ...

Except that government is the force taking away equal rights from homosexuals. Proposition 8 legislates immorality through government. And we don't have (except in the rarest of fringe wackos, I suppose) anyone supporting slavery these days. And the gay marriage issue will not exist in 10 or 20 years as evidenced by the polls that clearly show that the under-30's now are comfortable with gay marriage. We progress as a society, we become more moral, and that change will be happening faster and faster now that the exchange of information is so much more widely accessible to everyone through modern technology.

If you argue that charities and communities could not raise the funds for us to take care of one another in a society where government butted out of health care, you also have to consider how much less it would cost to pay for health care if government regulations were lifted and government-imposed monopolies were busted.

comment #35

DeeZee says ...

I think David was trying to imply that people would abuse government health care the way they might auto insurance, which is obviously total bs, since no one wants to wait in line at a hospital for free.

Anyway, there are a lot of Obama supporters who are also pro-gay rights. It's just that the majority of Americans in general are still conservative on that particular issue. That's can't be helped right now. But hey, at least we've gotten to the point where we can include those guys and gals in anti-hate crimes legislation. But saving lives isn't the same as discriminating or prohibition, in that it's not (intentionally) arbitrary, and it's not a boogie-man.

David: "The only way to care about people is to hand over moral authority to government?"

Did the banks lending money to home-owners care whether they could afford the interest? No, in fact they wanted the buyers to fail.

"The same government that has so heavily regulated the insurance industry that it's impossible to create competition?"

Um, that wasn't "regulation". The companies don't want competition, which is why they managed to buy their way out of the antitrust regulation which has made other industries in our country more competitive.

"The same government that will be run by at least 50% evil Republicans after the next election?"

You're fairly cocky about '010, considering your side has nothing to show for the last two years in Congress.

"It had no substance when we were invading Iraq, and it has no substance now."

The Iraq war was based on a fabricated lie about a threat to our country. Millions of people dying from lack of insurance is a real threat.

"Will you be protesting the first person sent to jail for not having health insurance, or will there be something better to watch on TV that night?"

That wasn't the government at work. That was the free market lobbying the government to insert that provision into the final legislation.

"However, requiring insurance companies to except anyone, no matter how bad their health is, doesn't make health insurance less expensive."

Well, actually, it might bring costs down, because it would force companies to be more efficient with their revenue, rather than just sitting back and draining us of cash. After all, if more people are allowed to subscribe to a particular plan, then it means more people have to be hired and paid to tend to their needs, just in areas of record keeping alone. So companies would be forced to provide better deals to more people, in order to comply, and not lose money.

"By not removing the ties to employer-based insurance, everyone still has to worry about where their insurance will be coming from if they lose or change jobs."

But they won't have to worry about being denied, if they lose or change jobs, which is the important part.

"I also don't think a moral government redistributes wealth, even if I benefit from the redistribution, just as I don't believe that if I don't have enough money for the subway that I should be able to break into my neighbor's home and steal their cash."

For government to work, it needs money. Whether or not you consider taxation immoral, I think we can agree that it's necessary to prevent your subway car from crashing on you, because your city wasn't able to fix the brakes in time.

comment #36

TheGK says ...

'People getting together and legislating morality is a scary thing.'

No it's not or, at least, it's not for those who aren't afraid of what will happen. Some of the United States' finer moments were from legislation which had an impact upon morality. The US Constitution is a good start. The Emancipation Proclaimation. The Civil Rights movement. Reform of voting rights. Desegregation of schools (something to thank Nixon for - it's also worth pointing out the Nixon thought the greastest moral failing of the US was racism).
These were all efforts in social engineering. Now we have an opportunity to go further with healthcare.

comment #37

Mighty Kornholio says ...

lol Obama.

Fall of the Republic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

please watch this.

comment #38

David says ...

TheGK -- The pieces of legislation you're listing were all passed to undo the evils of government making moral decisions in the first place.

Deezee - You again say "your side" as if I am a Republican. Can you read? I don't take your post seriously because you act as if the "free market" is a conscience entity that can lobby government, and that if corporations lobby government for special benefits, then the special favors are not "government regulation".

People don't die from lack of health insurance, they die from lack of health care. Check back with me when government is done preventing nurse practitioners from providing low-cost care or preventing doctors from crossing state lines and providing free medical clinic care just because they're not licensed in that particular state. Let me know when government is done keeping us all safe from health care. Until that point, have fun with your religion.

comment #39

DeeZee says ...

"I don't take your post seriously because you act as if the "free market" is a conscience entity that can lobby government,"

If it's not a conscious entity, then there's no "hand" of the market, either.

"and that if corporations lobby government for special benefits, then the special favors are not "government regulation"."

Thats because they're not regulation. They're de-regulation.

"People don't die from lack of health insurance, they die from lack of health care."

Um, they die from both, actually.

"Check back with me when government is done preventing nurse practitioners from providing low-cost care or preventing doctors from crossing state lines and providing free medical clinic care just because they're not licensed in that particular state."

If nurse practicioners could afford to provide low-cost care, I'm sure they would. But the "free market" forces them to work, just to pay off their education. Now, we could regulate higher education to make it free, but according to you, that would be immoral. And I imagine states limit where doctors can practice, to insure that they can do a background check on 'em, and guarantee they're not quacks. But that's still a local thing, and not a federal thing.

comment #40

Colin says ...

David's right. Being a cunt doesn't make you a Republican it just makes you a cunt.

comment #41

Colin says ...

If a public-option isn't involved at the very least this bill should:

A) Do away with pre-existing conditions
B) Regulate health insurance companies with the same anti-trust laws as other companies.

comment #42

David says ...

Wow. How many names do you think you can call people before they know what you internet health care trolls are really about?

comment #43

Colin says ...

You assumed I was calling you a cunt? Sorry you must be confused. You probably assumed that after your childish and non-sensical comparsion of driving drunk and killing people and dying without health care.

comment #44

David says ...

Actually, I never used the word "drunk" in my comparison. People have accidents due to medical reasons -- heart attacks, diabetic episodes, etc.

Learn to read. Be smarter.