House passed the Health Bill

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252507
I love how based off of political views, someone is telling me what is and is not "christian." Not based on scripture. I find it ironic, because it seems to me, that government is trying to tell me what my interpretation of scripture is. Which is precidcely what the "no establishment of religion " was trying to prevent. Not this garbage separation of church and state as it is being interpreted today...
we can quote scripture until the cows come home and use it for any arguement both for and against. for example, lets say some monster killed your child and your looking for advise. i could say "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" which you could use to inact revenge. or i could say " turn the other cheek" or numerous other examples for forgiving the murderer. scripture has been used both positively and negatively to explain ones motives or beliefs.
my question was how can Christians not back a bill that clearly will help those in need, especially children? i wasn't saying anything about this being a Christian bill, or the seperation of church and state. i just wanted to know how Christians can look at this legislation honestly and say no i'm not backing that....

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252557
Since when is Socialism considered a Christian value? Screwing up our health care system might be right to those who want a government ran system in this country but the rest of us would say you and your party are in the wrong side, again

thats weak Reef, you know this isnt Socialism. we had the most privatized, corrupt, and expensive Health Care System in the world. this is a fix to a huge problem and not a takeover. you know that. and you also know that its not a Gov't run program, the insurance companies aren't going anywhere they are just gonna have to do good a fair business from now on.

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252505
Well it appears that at least one of the Socialist bank bailouts was beneficial --
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Treasury said on Monday it would sell the 7.7 billion Citigroup common shares it owns over the course of 2010 under a prearranged written trading plan.
The Treasury, which acquired a 27 percent stake in Citigroup during bailouts of the banking giant in 2008 and 2009, said it would sell the shares into the market "through various means in an orderly and measured fashion."
At today's prices, the Treasury would earn more than an $8 billion profit on the sale, according to a Washington Post analysis.
so the gov't loaned them the money with interest, got paid back and made a profit. yep, thats socialism alright, lol. IT'S CAPITALISM IN IT'S TRUEST FORM DUDE! did you actually read this before you posted it? lmao

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3252570
so the gov't loaned them the money with interest, got paid back and made a profit. yep, thats socialism alright, lol. IT'S CAPITALISM IN IT'S TRUEST FORM DUDE! did you actually read this before you posted it? lmao
Actually I did. If you've read my past posts regarding Obama's policies, you'd realize the 'Socialist' jab was a sarcastic remark.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252561
Yet they will still claim the right to mandate wage and salary controls over the bank once they sell the shares.
How do you figure? Citigroup has already paid back the remainder of their loan last year. The stock is all the Feds have left. Once they sell those off, they have no further control.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3252567
thats weak Reef, you know this isnt Socialism. we had the most privatized, corrupt, and expensive Health Care System in the world. this is a fix to a huge problem and not a takeover. you know that. and you also know that its not a Gov't run program, the insurance companies aren't going anywhere they are just gonna have to do good a fair business from now on.
Obama just last week said this was the first step toward his goal of a universal plan which is indeed socialism. The current changes are going to lead to primary care shortages (which are already there) and raise premiums, Obama will use that as the excuse for a government takeover, wait and see.
And for all the problems with our system we still have a lot of Canadians who come here for services their wonderful government ran plan has too long a waiting list for.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3252564
we can quote scripture until the cows come home and use it for any arguement both for and against. for example, lets say some monster killed your child and your looking for advise. i could say "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" which you could use to inact revenge. or i could say " turn the other cheek" or numerous other examples for forgiving the murderer. scripture has been used both positively and negatively to explain ones motives or beliefs.
my question was how can Christians not back a bill that clearly will help those in need, especially children? i wasn't saying anything about this being a Christian bill, or the seperation of church and state. i just wanted to know how Christians can look at this legislation honestly and say no i'm not backing that....
It is really simple, 1 you reap what you sow. If you don't take self responsibility for your own actions, you're gonna have to pay the fiddler. And that is scriptural. Scripturally, giving (to the poor) has ALWAYS BEEN VOLENTARY.
2. You're whole premise is wrong. This isn't gonna help kids, if anything this is going to lower the standard of care EVERYONE recieves. If you somehow missed SCHIP. Where kids up to the age of 25 where covered long before Obama became president. Then you're simply misinformed.
If I walked into the ER last year, I'd still qualify for government subsidided care targetted to "children", and I make 80k a year. What a joke.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252579
How do you figure? Citigroup has already paid back the remainder of their loan last year. The stock is all the Feds have left. Once they sell those off, they have no further control.
It's actually Schumer and a couple other Senators who are suggestiing the government still has the power to impose regulations on the salaries. Don't know if they will make a serious attempt to do so or not.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252416
Depends, are you going to make a good point or not? If you're simply gonna regurgitate the vomit that Obama says. Then I might get mad at you...
Nah, I made my points on the topic at hand, including predicting that what we'd end up with would be a political (i.e. horrible) solution to an actual problem, starting back in Q4 of '09.
I was simply curious what credentials I need to possess in order to lecture you.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252454
I think that may keep him awake nights, worrying about you being mad at him

lol

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252590
It is really simple, 1 you reap what you sow. If you don't take self responsibility for your own actions, you're gonna have to pay the fiddler. And that is scriptural. Scripturally, giving (to the poor) has ALWAYS BEEN VOLENTARY.
2. You're whole premise is wrong. This isn't gonna help kids, if anything this is going to lower the standard of care EVERYONE recieves. If you somehow missed SCHIP. Where kids up to the age of 25 where covered long before Obama became president. Then you're simply misinformed.
If I walked into the ER last year, I'd still qualify for government subsidided care targetted to "children", and I make 80k a year. What a joke.
how is geting sick and losing your insurance because of it "reaping what you sow". are you saying that we should pay for insurance but not use it? the system is corrupt and needed to be fixed....

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252576
Actually I did. If you've read my past posts regarding Obama's policies, you'd realize the 'Socialist' jab was a sarcastic remark.
my bad, i got caught up in the moment....

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252589
Obama just last week said this was the first step toward his goal of a universal plan which is indeed socialism. The current changes are going to lead to primary care shortages (which are already there) and raise premiums, Obama will use that as the excuse for a government takeover, wait and see.
And for all the problems with our system we still have a lot of Canadians who come here for services their wonderful government ran plan has too long a waiting list for.
Dude, you have to do better. Universal healthcare is not socialism. If the government owned every aspect of it, then yes, that would be socialism. But to use The Peoples resources (money) to pay for healthcare is more properly known as a society taking care of its own, which is not socialism. Don't use the scare word to scare people who don't know. About your second point, you are almost right - the current changes could lead to shortages in the short term, but only because it takes so long to train healthcare professionals. The bill expands training for doctors, nurses, etc. so the shortfall will eventually be made up. A temporary shortage is no reason to hate this bill. As for premiums, we'll see...more young, healthy individuals in the insurance pool could even reduce premiums.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3252897
how is geting sick and losing your insurance because of it "reaping what you sow". are you saying that we should pay for insurance but not use it? the system is corrupt and needed to be fixed....
lol, so the system is corrupt and we need to fix it, but the answer is giving control of the system to the most corrupt organization (minus the UN) that we have in the united states...
The simple fact is, I still believe that you are incharge of your own destiny, and you make or break yourself. I still believe in the American dream. If you on the other hand think it is life's lottery that makes or breaks you. Then it is over...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252507
I love how based off of political views, someone is telling me what is and is not "christian." Not based on scripture. I find it ironic, because it seems to me, that government is trying to tell me what my interpretation of scripture is. Which is precidcely what the "no establishment of religion " was trying to prevent. Not this garbage separation of church and state as it is being interpreted today...
Hang on a sec. Let's be fair, if not accurate, here.
I see no point at which anyone called your faith into question. I, in particular, certainly did not.
Because of your "How dare you..." statement, however, I could not help but ask what credentials you would find acceptable in order for me to do so. Faith is, by definition, a matter of opinion - i.e. belief in things not seen. If qualification to argue it requires the same structural components of both belief and ideals which any given faith purports, then its institutions are also dogmatic. What if someone of a different flavor of Christianity called into question your belief structure? After all, there are some 350 flavors, all of which disagree with each other on some point or another - else there would be only ONE faith, ONE bible, and ONE interpretation of it.
Again, not arguing your faith or beliefs - just saying - if arguments are unacceptable because we don't hold the same belief structure, that becomes something of a problem going forward w/ a constructive debate, not to mention there'd be no need for debate in the first place.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3252917
Dude, you have to do better. Universal healthcare is not socialism. If the government owned every aspect of it, then yes, that would be socialism. But to use The Peoples resources (money) to pay for healthcare is more properly known as a society taking care of its own, which is not socialism. Don't use the scare word to scare people who don't know. About your second point, you are almost right - the current changes could lead to shortages in the short term, but only because it takes so long to train healthcare professionals. The bill expands training for doctors, nurses, etc. so the shortfall will eventually be made up. A temporary shortage is no reason to hate this bill. As for premiums, we'll see...more young, healthy individuals in the insurance pool could even reduce premiums.
"“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
-Barack Hussein Obama
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-...lth-care-plan/
But let's look at what he have with this bill
1. Government requires you to buy health insurance
2. The government dictates what level of coverage you must purchase
3. The government dictates what percentage of premiums can go to the insurance company overhead, salary and profits
At again, according to the Ossiah this is only a first step but if you look at those 3 provisions this is already drifting into the realm of Socialism, it isn't good ol fashioned communism as practiced by the Russians but it's right in line with modern European type socialism.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252989
"“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
-Barack Hussein Obama
Well, here's the first mistake in President "Hussein's" analysis. We don't spend 14% of GDP on health care, we spend closer to 18% and rising at triple the rate of inflation. (As opposed to other "1st World" nation's 9-11%, which statistics I've posted before.)
Why that number is rising at the rate it is, is not just because the cost of health care is rising on a per unit basis, it's also because the population is aging, we refuse to consider tort reform, a single payer option, etc. Insurance relies on the dollars by people paying into the system to be greater than the dollars of people withdrawing from it. That trend has already reversed itself for the simple reason that the population is not increasing at the rate originally predicted by the model.
Imminent fail on the Insurance Company's parts. They have no choice but to raise rates significantly in order to meet the promises they've made to an aging population which already has existing contracts.
The Insurance Company model is essentially the same as Social Security's. How, without reform or a taxpayer bailout, do you expect the system to continue as is?
The insurance companies have two options to stave off failure of their business model.
1) Bring more payers into the system (the solution just now proposed, and very poorly delineated)
2) Maintain the status quo by raising your rates 40-50%.
No matter what, continuation of your current level of health care coverage is going to cost you substantially more.
Pick your poison.

 

[reefraff]

This doesn't bode well for the Democrat party. These numbers are going to become much more negative once the mind numb public figures out most of the good in this bill wont happen until 2014
From USA Today
Obama's approval rating was 47%-50% — the first time his disapproval rating has hit 50%.
In the survey:
• A plurality predicts the law will improve health care coverage generally and the overall health of Americans. But a majority says it also will drive up overall costs and worsen the federal budget deficit.
• When it comes to their families, they see less gain and more pain: Pluralities say it will make coverage and quality of care worse for them. By 50%-21%, they predict it will make their costs higher.
Opponents of the health care bill are a bit more likely than supporters to say the vote will have a major impact on their vote for Congress in the fall. Three in 10 are much more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes the bill. One in four are much more likely to vote for a candidate who supports it.
The poll of 1,033 adults, taken by land line and cellphone Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/–4 percentage points.
Half call passage of the bill "a bad thing" and 47% "a good thing." That differs from a one-day USA TODAY poll taken March 22 — a day after the House approved the legislation — in which a 49%-40% plurality called the bill "a good thing."
"Any one-day poll in the immediate aftermath of a major event is likely to be subject not only to sampling error but also to very short-term effects," says political scientist Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At the time, "the news cycle was dominated by the positive side of the story, and only a little bit by the Republicans' rebuttal to that."
There was a strong reaction against the tactics Democratic leaders used to pass the bill. A 53% majority call Democratic methods "an abuse of power;" 40% say they are appropriate.
And when asked about incidents of vandalism and threats that followed the bill's passage, Americans are more inclined to blame Democratic political tactics than critics' harsh rhetoric. Forty-nine percent say Democratic tactics are "a major reason" for the incidents, while 46% blame criticism by conservative commentators and 43% the criticism of Republican leaders.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3252975
Hang on a sec. Let's be fair, if not accurate, here.
I see no point at which anyone called your faith into question. I, in particular, certainly did not.
Because of your "How dare you..." statement, however, I could not help but ask what credentials you would find acceptable in order for me to do so. Faith is, by definition, a matter of opinion - i.e. belief in things not seen. If qualification to argue it requires the same structural components of both belief and ideals which any given faith purports, then its institutions are also dogmatic. What if someone of a different flavor of Christianity called into question your belief structure? After all, there are some 350 flavors, all of which disagree with each other on some point or another - else there would be only ONE faith, ONE bible, and ONE interpretation of it.
Again, not arguing your faith or beliefs - just saying - if arguments are unacceptable because we don't hold the same belief structure, that becomes something of a problem going forward w/ a constructive debate, not to mention there'd be no need for debate in the first place.
You didn't say anything that kind of ticked me off. The certain person who introduced the argument that says redistribution of wealth is a christian idea. Ticks me off. It would be like democrats saying that socialism is American. Oh wait they do say that...
The other ironic thing that the said brain dead liberal also leaves out is abortion. Personally I think there is going to be government funded abortions as a result of this bill. It is like hiring a fox to guard a hen house, then taking the fox's word that he won't eat any chickens... And there is no way you can justify killing the "weakest among us" (see Obama in that Mega church debate) as christian.

 

[darthtang aw]

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!
It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."
Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.
In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.
We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.
The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.
That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, ----change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.
President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.
Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.
It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.
The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.
Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.
Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers

[hr]
, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "

[hr]
" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)
Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.
Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)
This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!
My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.
For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."
Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.
continued.......