• musclemecca bodybuilding forums does not sell or endorse any bodybuilding gear, products or supplements.
    Musclemecca has no affiliation with advertisers; they simply purchase advertising space here. If you have questions go to their site and ask them directly.
    Advertisers are responsible for the content in their forums.
    DO NOT SELL ILLEGAL PRODUCTS ON OUR FORUM

Health Care Bill Passes House

Arcane1129

Arcane1129

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
1,980
Points
38
House sends health care bill to Obama's desk - Health care reform- msnbc.com

Not much to go on, I'm aware. This was just the first thing I saw about it.

Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention the media/world news the for the past year (I've kinda been away from most news). I read the above article to get the main points of the bill...how am I, and the rest of the U.S., going to be affected?

Parts of it:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation awaiting the president's approval would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.

For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.

Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the larger of the two bills, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.

-------------------------------------

I don't know much about this, but it sounds to me:

-Insurance companies can't deny people for pre-existing conditions
-People under a certain income level will be assisted in paying insurance premiums
-You are forced to purchase health care
-Somehow the government will be cutting the deficit (by a largely insignificant amount)...I'm guessing by taxing the higher income brackets?
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Welcome to the 21st century, have a nice day.
 
R

Ryeland

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
491
Points
16
Yes cause the system was working so well before this.

"Health care premiums shot up more than 90% between 2000 and 2007, while the profits of the 10 largest insurers increased 428 percent over the same period. Without real reform, there will be a 94% increase in health insurance premiums by 2020. Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the US were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, despite having the most expensive per capital health care in the world, the US in only ranked 37th in the quality of care."

Source Article
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38

You might want to take a look outside the USA at health care. The USA isn't even in the top 10 in the world for health care.

Here are two survey rankings of health care, notice where the USA doesn't rank?

Top 10:
Russia
Brazil
Cuba - dubious as stratified
China
Taiwan
Switzerland
Canada
Britain
Germany
France

The other ranking:

1. United Kingdom
2. France Report
Universal coverage; high quality treatment and ease of accessibility; amount spent by government (10% of gross national income) on healthcare is highest in the world; life expectancy exceeded only by Japan.
3. Cuba
4. Lower Slobovia
5. Canada
6. Poland Report
7. Italy
Low-cost health care with a good standard of medical assistance; Italian healthcare providers are dedicated and well-trained; national health system is administered through local health authorities; provides low or no-cost healthcare, includeing in-patient, outpatient vists with primary care providers and specialists, dental visits, outpatient procedures,some or all of medications and emergency care.
8. Norway
9. Iceland
10. Austria
11. Australia
12. Singapore
.............................................












51. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
"Any time a government tries to give you a service or something of substance, they have to steal if from someone else. The whole process is immoral because it's based on government theft."






You guys can argue all you want, but at the end of the day this healthcare "reform" bill will do nothing but put the United States further in debt. Healthcare is NOT a right. If you think it is, then you have no understanding of the US Constitution.
 
Oloz

Oloz

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
505
Points
16
Cap medical malpractice law suits and stop giving care to illegal immigrants, and put a police officer in every hospital to deport them. Health reform.



 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
Cap medical malpractice law suits and stop giving care to illegal immigrants, and put a police officer in every hospital to deport them. Health reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRS-Ft3uEz8
I agree, except for the police officer part.

We shouldn't need force to remove illegal aliens. If we take away all the free incentives (in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services), then they will eventually leave on their own.

Using force would only make the problems worse.
 
Bulkboy

Bulkboy

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
4,199
Points
0
"Any time a government tries to give you a service or something of substance, they have to steal if from someone else. The whole process is immoral because it's based on government theft."

follow this train of thoughts to the extreme and we will have no functioning society. what exactly should government pay for? only defense? in that case i may argue that i dont want to pay for defense. id rather not pay any taxes and defend myself if someone invades my country. basically leaving u with anarchy.

EVERYTHING a society is based on becomes immoral if u take private property right to the extreme. its "my right" to not share my water bottle with a person in the desert dying from thirst. that doesent make it right.






You guys can argue all you want, but at the end of the day this healthcare "reform" bill will do nothing but put the United States further in debt. Healthcare is NOT a right. If you think it is, then you have no understanding of the US Constitution.

1) the US currently spends 16% of GDP on health care as opposed to around 8-9% in most other western nations with universal health care. how can u argue against the reform from a long term economic perspective?

2) why cant healthcare be a right? didnt the US constitution once allow slavery? wasnt that changed? reffering to the constitution every time a debate about healthcare comes up is a moot point. sometimes reform is needed. the constitution has been amended many times. u cant expect society to not change in 200 years.
 

MuscleMecca Crew

Mecca Staff
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
This.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=713

Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many — the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn't be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company.
 
Oloz

Oloz

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
505
Points
16
Can't wait to pay for heroin addicts and other drug users who abuse their body that need help due to their own bad behavior.
 
tim290280

tim290280

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
9,163
Points
38
Can't wait to pay for heroin addicts and other drug users who abuse their body that need help due to their own bad behavior.

I keep hearing this argument like it means something. You pay for them anyway. Societal costs of deadbeats, losers, fat people, etc, etc, etc is still there.

Also I like to flip the coin on this one and say that "healthy" people are just as likely to need health care. Most active people will suffer an injury that will require hospitalisation. Hell I don't know of any of the guys I played football with that didn't need some medical care (major operations were about a third of the team).

Tech said:
We shouldn't need force to remove illegal aliens. If we take away all the free incentives (in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services), then they will eventually leave on their own.
Hate to break this to you, but the USA is built on slave labour, kicking out the illegals would grind industry to a halt. The fact that you have Mexicans working for a pitance is the only way most industrial and agricultural labour can be run under your economic model. The income is beneath "basic wage" thus it is actually a "slave" wage (I forget which international body ascribed this). Not to mention a lot of the service industry working below minimum wage and relying on "tips" to make basic wage. This is also slave labour.
 
El Freako

El Freako

LIFT OR DIE
VIP
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,142
Points
38
I don't understand the objections to healthcare reform. Healthcare should be available to all levels of society, it shouldn't just be the rich who are the only ones who can afford treatment. Sure junkies and other social detritus will use it, but so will students, single-parent families, the disabled, etc, people who would otherwise not be able to afford it.
 
Oloz

Oloz

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
505
Points
16
I keep hearing this argument like it means something. You pay for them anyway. Societal costs of deadbeats, losers, fat people, etc, etc, etc is still there.

Also I like to flip the coin on this one and say that "healthy" people are just as likely to need health care. Most active people will suffer an injury that will require hospitalisation. Hell I don't know of any of the guys I played football with that didn't need some medical care (major operations were about a third of the team).


Hate to break this to you, but the USA is built on slave labour, kicking out the illegals would grind industry to a halt. The fact that you have Mexicans working for a pitance is the only way most industrial and agricultural labour can be run under your economic model. The income is beneath "basic wage" thus it is actually a "slave" wage (I forget which international body ascribed this). Not to mention a lot of the service industry working below minimum wage and relying on "tips" to make basic wage. This is also slave labour.


Well good, we need to shed some jobs in the service sector so we can go back to producing things.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
It's frustrating when people constantly complain about how awful and inept the US government is, yet they have no problem turning over control of healthcare to them. Everything the federal government runs eventually ends up bankrupt.....thats not an opinion, it's a fact.

It's sad that so many people don't understand why the cost of healthcare is currently so high in the United States. The reason is too much government interference.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul345.html

The problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, rising costs and red tape do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market.
 
PrinceVegeta

PrinceVegeta

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
10,156
Points
38
Health care FTW!!

And i find it weird that the Netherlands doesnt rank in the top 10 healthcare systems, i think the Netherlands has a better healthcare system then Germany..
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
Honestly, it makes me cringe every time someone discusses about the current US health care system costs. It's always the exact same nonsense, such as costs are the highest per GDP, yet lifespan is less than other companies.

First, the ranking of the US quality of care is a joke. It's the same type of UN bs socialist rankings which have Norway and other western europe countries as the best places in the world to live. I'm not bashing Norway (Bulkboy), I'm just saying that is the type of criteria the rankings give weight to.

If the US had the 37th best quality of care in the world, why would Canadian Premier's travel to the US to receive heart surgery (happened two months ago), or why would foreign leaders go to the Mayo Clinic every year for a check up?

Next, the US does not have a capitalist system, it has a CRONY capitalist system! What they have is big corporations in bed with big governments which leads to big costs. Approximately 50% of health care is subsidized in the US anyways, the main benefactors ARE the big drug companies and the big insurance companies who have million dollar lobbyists which infect congress and arrange for special contracts, tax breaks, and legislature which benefits them. The Obama administration claims "omg insurance companies are bad, we must stop them!!11!"... yet this is just going to further benefit big business by forcing people to have insurance, and pay a fine if they don't.

Bulkboy said:
follow this train of thoughts to the extreme and we will have no functioning society. what exactly should government pay for? only defense? in that case i may argue that i dont want to pay for defense. id rather not pay any taxes and defend myself if someone invades my country. basically leaving u with anarchy.

Thats nice... fortunately, nobody here (or hardly anywhere) ever advocates taking the point to this extreme, yet that still doesn't stop you from doing so dozens of times with a blatant strawman argument, does it?

It always amazes me how somehow, every time anyone speaks against the insane amount of bloat and socialism in the government it's always "omg you want anarchy! we need roads and police and defense or we will all be drug addicts who kill each other!!!"..... can you guys who fall into this category PLEASE cut this out?

Bulkboy said:
EVERYTHING a society is based on becomes immoral if u take private property right to the extreme. its "my right" to not share my water bottle with a person in the desert dying from thirst. that doesent make it right.

Well, it's not a nice thing to do, and I hope (and have faith) that most people will do the right thing and help out someone in need. But, if you don't give that person water, should the government be allowed to arrest you?
 
Ironslave

Ironslave

Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
4,608
Points
38
Tim290280 said:
I keep hearing this argument like it means something. You pay for them anyway. Societal costs of deadbeats, losers, fat people, etc, etc, etc is still there.

It is, and it really sucks.

Also I like to flip the coin on this one and say that "healthy" people are just as likely to need health care. Most active people will suffer an injury that will require hospitalisation. Hell I don't know of any of the guys I played football with that didn't need some medical care (major operations were about a third of the team).

No chance. From Australia: (Tim's country)

Colagiuri S, et al. The cost of overweight and obesity in Australia. Med J Aust. 2010 Mar 1;192(5):260-4.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare health care costs for normal-weight, overweight and obese Australians. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of 5-year follow-up data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study, collected in 2004-2005. Data were available for 6140 participants aged >or= 25 years at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct health care cost, direct non-health care cost and government subsidies associated with overweight and obesity, defined by both body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). RESULTS: The annual total direct cost (health care and non-health care) per person increased from $1472 (95% CI, $1204-$1740) for those of normal weight to $2788 (95% CI, $2542-$3035) for the obese, however defined (by BMI, WC or both). In 2005, the total direct cost for Australians aged >or= 30 years was $6.5 billion (95% CI, $5.8-$7.3 billion) for overweight and $14.5 billion (95% CI, $13.2-$15.7 billion) for obesity. The total excess annual direct cost due to overweight and obesity (above the cost for normal-weight individuals) was $10.7 billion. Overweight and obese individuals also received $35.6 billion (95% CI, $33.4-$38.0 billion) in government subsidies. Comparing costs by weight change since 1999-2000, those who remained obese in 2004-2005 had the highest annual total direct cost. Cost was lower in overweight or obese people who lost weight or reduced WC compared with those who progressed to becoming, or remained, obese. CONCLUSION: The total annual direct cost of overweight and obesity in Australia in 2005 was $21 billion, substantially higher than previous estimates. There is financial incentive at both individual and societal levels for overweight and obese people to lose weight and/or reduce WC.


Sure, some elite athletes might eventually need health care for athletic related injuries, but say hypothetically, why should the guy who went through high school on the chess club and eventually becomes appointed to the board of a large, successful company be forced to pay for the knee surgeries of the guys on the football team who made his life hell in high school?


There is also one thing which has not even been discussed.... can anybody take a wild guess, what industries in heath care where the costs are plummeting yet the quality of care is soaring? For the answer, see this.






Lastly, this hasn't been discussed. But this bill which was passed is THE least transparent, most corrupt bill in the history of politics. The amount of back room deals, bribes, handouts, and shady tactics which went into getting this bill past are like nothing ever seen, regardless if you support the bill or not!

I thought the public was going to get 5 days to look at every bill, not 36 hours?





This bill has gotten to the point where it has nothing to do with giving health care for the people, it has to do with the democrats wanting this passed for the sake it it passing for their ego and nothing more. Pelosi even said that they had to pass the bill so people can "find out what is in it".





Again, this bill got to the point where they needed to pass it just to save face, nothing more.
 
Tech

Tech

Ron Paul FTW
VIP
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
10,334
Points
38
Tanning enthusiasts will have to shell out more to achieve the golden shade. The health care law imposes a 10 percent tax on the service.

Lawmakers had considered taxing elective cosmetic procedures, but changed the language to tax indoor tanning services instead.


lol. America is such a joke.
 
Top