Should the U.S. healthcare bill be repealed?

[Straight Shooter]

The Republicans in the House of Representatives are set to pass a bill to repeal the healthcare bill even though there is no chance of it passing in the Senate. Where do you stand?

 

[CunningStunts]

There are some good things about the bill, and a lot of bad things. If it's take it or leave it as a whole, I say repeal it. Congress can do better by trying things that states have already tested and that WORK, then go from there. The whole reason they rammed this gigantic bill down America's throat was to save money, but even by the White House estimates, it will cost us billions more. :2 cents:

Edit to add this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-poll-public-divided-on-health-law-and-repeal

New poll shows America divided... of course, people who will benefit will say it is great, those already paying for their own insurance and now are asked to shoulder more are against it. Classic.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Calling the bill "job killing" is totally wrong and the GOP knows it, they need to get their facts right and it is funny how the GOP were blasting the Democrats for focusing on the health care bill and not on jobs when they were in power yet the first thing the GOP took up once they came into power was the health care bill.

 

[Master Roshi]

Calling the bill "job killing" is totally wrong and the GOP knows it, they need to get their facts right

actually the bill was basically written by the health insurance companies and many huge corporations like McDonald's would be exempt from having to supply health insurance to it's workers while the small business of 100 employees for example would have to shell out dough to pay for their worker's health insurance so the bill would definitely destroy whatever small businesses are left in the US but that is the plan unfortunately

 

[tiger1977]

As a whole, yes it should be repealed. Or at least reworked. There are some aspects of it that are really good, then there are a few that are really bad. But we're stuck with it right now, so we might as well accept it, unfortunately.

 

[Straight Shooter]

actually the bill was basically written by the health insurance companies and many huge corporations like McDonald's would be exempt from having to supply health insurance to it's workers while the small business of 100 employees for example would have to shell out dough to pay for their worker's health insurance so the bill would definitely destroy whatever small businesses are left in the US but that is the plan unfortunately

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/ap-assails-gop-claim-health-law-cost-jobs/

 

[vodkazvictim]

Give every person equal access to health free at the point of delivery.
You'd literally GUARANTEE THE HEALTH OF THE NATION
Remember; a healthier nation is a more productive nation.

 

[StanScratch]

If Boehner and his kin are so passionate in getting rid of "socialized health care", then how come they are so willing to use tax payers' dollars for their own health care? And how come our little tea party friends haven't picked up on this as of yet?

Oh, yeah...and if the GOP is so intent on reducing the budget deficits, why are they introducing a bill that will a bill that will actually raise budget deficits?

In reality, the only aim of the bill is for the GOP House members to score points with those gullible enough to swallow their tripe.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Give every person equal access to health free at the point of delivery.
You'd literally GUARANTEE THE HEALTH OF THE NATION
Remember; a healthier nation is a more productive nation.

Your statement and your signature quote are of equal intelligence. Guarantee the health of a nation? I assume that is done via the strong and the well heeled help pay for the health of the weak and the impoverished?

That completely goes against the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, and the practice of evolution.

Guaranteeing the collective health of a nation guarantees a downfall of a nation.

 

[Master Roshi]

republicans, democrats = controlled by the same interest, there is no difference between the 2 party system, its an illusion to make the people believe they have a choice, once you understand this then maybe we can start to elect leaders from the other parties that actually care about the future of the republic

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

I don't care either way, all I know is right above you there is a nation of 35 million healthy people laughing at you. :thumbsup:

 

[Straight Shooter]

I don't care either way, all I know is right above you there is a nation of 35 million healthy people laughing at you. :thumbsup:

That's okay because we laugh whenever Canada is even mentioned:1orglaugh

Edit: I take that back, I'm sorry. President Obama has asked us to tone down the rhetoric and to be more civil with the Tucson incident and all.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

That's okay because we laugh whenever Canada is even mentioned:1orglaugh

Edit: I take that back, I'm sorry. President Obama has asked us to tone down the rhetoric and to be more civil with the Tucson incident and all.

Oh no you didant. :nono:

 

[316sherm]

I say "no" and I agree with you...

I don't care either way, all I know is right above you there is a nation of 35 million healthy people laughing at you. :thumbsup:

:glugglug:
:2 cents:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I don't care either way, all I know is right above you there is a nation of 35 million healthy people laughing at you. :thumbsup:

Canada...Americas hat.

Yes, the bill should be repealed. No bill, is better then a bad one. Before going through all of this health care bullshit...they should have bitch slapped the insurance and pharmaceutical companies back into line, and started fixing the problem at it's foundation, before building on it. At least that's may thoughts on it.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Your statement and your signature quote are of equal intelligence. Guarantee the health of a nation? I assume that is done via the strong and the well heeled help pay for the health of the weak and the impoverished?

That completely goes against the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, and the practice of evolution.

Guaranteeing the collective health of a nation guarantees a downfall of a nation.

Guess what? You're part of the weak and impoverished. You just don't realise it yet.

Yes. Know why? Because it's the weak and impoverished that pay for the nation with their taxes.
It's the weak and the impoverished that make the nation strong by working, by being productive.
All the rich do is sit behind their desks.
It's always the poor doing the work.
Ill health among the poor means less productivity.
Less productivity means just that; and so with less health for the workers the nation grows weaker as less work is done and the work is of lower quality.

Laws of nature? So you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree then?
Guess what? You're protected from the most dangerous elements of society mainly by the police. Without the police you would be very vulnerable to those elements of society.

Survival of the fittest... So you think Bill Gates is an example of the fittest and most worthy to survive? He's one of the richest men in america after all.
Here in Europe the Royal families have ruled for thousands of years.
They have a long tradition of being inbred, stupid hamophiliacs; they don't think and their wounds have extreme trouble healing.
Survival of the fittest didn't favour them, with the jump to a society that wasn't led by them, great leaps forward were achieved. THAT is evolution, not letting the poor die and caring for the rich.

The initial aims of Communism were to care for all members of society and what did Communist Russia achieve? it was first into space (yes, Capitalist america was first to the moon, but you may have noticed that we haven't been to the moon in many years... whereas sattelites in space are universally desired and the T37 gave the Germans hell because it was so hard to kill. M4 Sherman tanks were rather easier to kill. American crews referred to them as Ronsons because they lit every time.)

So what happened when the elites of the Soviet Union became selfish and started only to care for the oligarchs? The elites?
The Soviet Union fell.

Now remember this; the most intelligent people (surely the fittest and therefore most likely to survive?) generally embrace such ideals as universal health care. Just look at the guy who discovered a cure for polio and gave it away free.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you've never discovered anything anywhere near as valuable? Why? Because you're not one of the more intelligent members of society.
Ergo you're not part of the fittest you deem most likely to survive. Universal healthcare is in YOUR favour. Remember that.

Not to mention that disease doesn't respect boundaries; the rich inevitably come into contact with the poor (you don't think rich guys go only to rich whores do you?) and any disease the poor get, the rich will get, then have to pay to be cured.

Now lets have a look at what happens when the rich and the well-heeled (those you deem to be the fittest) run the country:
Oh dear! The country engages in illegal wars, which weaken it!
Oh dear! The country allows it's financial system to become so undermined that there is a systematic collapse in order for the rich to profit!
Why does this happen? Because the rich do NOT care about the country. They will destroy it if there's profit in it and simply relocate to another country, a la fabulous fab.
Therefore there is no reason for a country to protect the rich at the expense of the poor.

Now seeing as you're on freeones looking for free porn, I'm gonna assume you're not rich, so welcome to the club of the poor and weak. Vote for universal healthcare; it's in your favour.
Unless you'd like to tell us what job you do?
How much you make?
What universal healthcare would actually cost you?
You're welcome to prove me wrong. But I'll be VERY surprised if you do.

Let me give you an example from the country of my birth:
After the 2nd world war England was in ruins.
Clement Attlee came to power.
Under Clement Attlee's government we got a national health service, we got a national schooling system and all monopolies had to be state owned. THAT is the way to do things.

But of course you think that's weak, don't you? What you don't know is that Attlee wasn't weak; just the opposite - he sent troops to Korea and it was under Attlee that England became a nuclear power.
The poor and weak in Britain (the average joe on the street) profitted from Attlees reign (a rare example of an honest politician) and as a result Britain profitted; Attlee was instrumental to England's recovery from WW2 and subsequent retention of status as a 3rd world power.

Consider also this; The right thing to do is always to maximise happiness.
Ergo, NOT helping the many in order that the few do better is the wrong thing to do.
Go look in the bible; doesn't it say that the rich should help the poor?

Now you may think that being English, our English NHS, which has proven so very successful, wouldn't work if applied over in your colonies, well:

I don't care either way, all I know is right above you there is a nation of 35 million healthy people laughing at you. :thumbsup:

 

[Master Roshi]

I'd also argue that if americans just changed their diet, the health care costs would decrease drastically

 

[Straight Shooter]

I wouldn't mind a single-payer health system and I was in favor of the public option, I just wish that Obama would have fought for it more and I think it could've been passed

 

[Master Roshi]

but then again if americans did this then that would take profits out of the pockets of big pharma and the health insurance companies

 

[Master Roshi]

I'd rather follow this food pyramid



as opposed to this one




but the second food pyramid is what makes the 5 major food corporations rich as well as big pharma, its a win win partnership between these two industries, you see the USDA food pyramid is designed for maximum profit, not the optimum health of the USA