Healthcare Reform Thread II

[Kidlicious]

Insurance companies wrote this bill, you clown.

I'm not interested in your many conspiracy theories.

[Kidlicious]

The Drug companies are the big winners in this bill. They will make over $700 billion off of it from government and government subsidized business.

Other big winners are those who really couldn't afford insurance before and of course President Obama.

The sickly are big winners too.

[HalfLotus]

I'm not interested in your many conspiracy theories.

You're so naive. Even Dems recognize this as a giveaway to insurance firms and big pharma.

WASHINGTON — Rebuffing personal pleas from President Obama and Vicki Kennedy, Representative Stephen F. Lynch said yesterday that he will vote against the Democrats’ health care overhaul, contending that it doesn’t put enough pressure on insurance companies to reduce costs.

“We’ve paid the ransom, but at the end of the day the insurance companies are still holding the hostages,’’ Lynch said in an interview with the Globe yesterday. “This is a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies...

“The insurers still rule,’’ he said. “We’re just pumping subsidies into the current system, but that won’t drive down costs.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...h_bill/?page=1

[Dinner]

They're right that giving insurance companies subsidies won't lower prices. Bush gave the oil companies massive subsidies and all that happened is it increased their profits. The main problem with American health insurance is that huge parts of the country have virtually no competition so they can defacto charge what ever they want because there is no competition. That's why the option of buying into Medicare at cost was so vital and it is also why the insurance industry did everything in their power to kill it.

[Elok]

Let me ask you this. Would it be ok with you if we cut health and human services to balance the budget?

Well, it depends what they cut, but honestly, HHS doesn't make up that much of federal spending, does it? Unless you count medicare and other entitlements, in which case sure, go ahead and trim those. But of course, you can't trim those, because they're too popular and the geezer voting legions of doom will crush any politician who tries. Which is why I say let's try not to add MORE damned entitlements.

[Hauldren Collider]

Let me ask you this. Would it be ok with you if we cut health and human services to balance the budget?

YES. PLEASE.

[Kidlicious]

You're so naive. Even Dems recognize this as a giveaway to insurance firms and big pharma.




http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...h_bill/?page=1

Yeah, that's why they ran ads on TV against it and went on all the talk shows against it.

[Kidlicious]

Well, it depends what they cut, but honestly, HHS doesn't make up that much of federal spending, does it? Unless you count medicare and other entitlements, in which case sure, go ahead and trim those. But of course, you can't trim those, because they're too popular and the geezer voting legions of doom will crush any politician who tries. Which is why I say let's try not to add MORE damned entitlements.

So basically people's health means very little to you. All you care about it balancing the budget no matter who suffers for it.

[DinoDoc]

So basically people's health means very little to you. All you care about it balancing the budget no matter who suffers for it.

Is the government supposed to be the mother and father of the American people seeing to all their needs?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Is the government supposed to be the mother and father of the American people seeing to all their needs?

If corporations had any humanity, then no. But the value of human life < value of $ to many large companies. There has to be something to provide balance.

Unless you think society can benefit from uninsured children.

[Drake Tungsten]

the value of human life < value of $

This is meaningless without an actual dollar amount to weigh the value of a human life against. We also need more information on what type of human life we're dealing with.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Interesting point. But it does back up my claim that of lacking humanity.

[Elok]

So basically people's health means very little to you. All you care about it balancing the budget no matter who suffers for it.

Uh, if Uncle Sam defaults on debt, we are all absolutely, completely, totally reamed. Suffering for some > suffering for all.

[DinoDoc]

Unless you think society can benefit from uninsured children.

Appeals to emotion still count as a logical fallacy rather than an actual arguement, right?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

My argument was that there needs to be a balance when corporations lack humanity, and government can provide that balance. Unbalanced - millions of children without access to health care due to preexisting conditions that are no fault of their own; balanced - the government mandates that insurance companies cannot refuse children.