One thing? Sure. Who ever heard of a sexy video clerk?
But that’s just it…is it really a good bill? It seems like it’s being rushed through Congress in order to get it out of the way rather than examine it piecemeal to ensure that it doesn’t contain language/restrictions that are harmful to the American populace at large.
When Obama (or anyone else) says “We need universal healthcare so that people that don’t have it, can’t afford it, etc are covered”…I agree with that. It isn’t about the ideal, it’s about the implementation.
The bill is very lengthy, and according to some things I’ve seen, many CongressCritters are going to vote for or against it without even having read it!
That’s a travesty!
Not to mention that once again, Congress is passing a bill that is exclusionary to themselves. “Congressman, are you subject to this bill like the rest of Americans?”
“No.”
Fuck that.
It’s the same kind of political pandering that allows silver-spooner children to get out of the draft, or any other myriad of issues.
I for one do NOT want the govt to FORCE their plan on me should I lapse in coverage, no matter how brief.
Going only by what I have read and heard without actually reading the exhaustive text of the bill, please fight my ignorance and set me at ease.
The title of this thread is driving me crazy. I keep hearing Gene Wilder: “We are the music-makers,/ and we are the dreamers of dreams.”
Crafter_Man doesn’t like libraries You know, books are just so damned cheap!!!
And I mean, it’s not like you can’t just go into a book store and ask for access to microfilm and microfiche of back issues of local newspapers going back to the early 1900s, and local documents, important archives, etc. Duh!
Have the government do what the private insurers do. Private insurers take a 30+% cut of premiums to do what they do, the hellhole socialist bureaucracy that runs Canada’s single-payer system has a 1% overhead.
Allow comparative effectiveness studies to work out which treatments work and which are just expensive bill padders.
Have a national medical records system.
Prevent healthcare lobbyists from physically wriiting healthcare legislation, as they did with the 2003 Medicare bill. Have an independent body set the costs that hospitals and doctors can charge, not allow hospitals and doctors to do it. EDIT : regulate pharmaceutical companies too. Some prescriptions can cost hundreds of dollars a month, they’d cost a fraction with a single buyer for all meds. European countries are roughly $10 a prescription, free for oldies/schoolkids.
Very difficult to do but the national debt, demographics and the explosive cost and profit growth of the current system mean they’ll have to find a way eventually.
How do you know he waas attacked by union people?
:rolleyes: How about an independent body that sets the costs that grocery stores can charge?
Other than lissener?
No, I take it back. NOBODY finds lissener* sexy.
-
-
lissener, dude, I often agree with you. I also believe that* Starship Troopers* is an anti-fascist satire. It’s just that, well, you are VERY low-hanging fruit, and I need to sometimes grab a cheap shot to make up for my gags nobody gets. Or gets, but don’t think are funny.
-
lissener, dude, I often agree with you. I also believe that* Starship Troopers* is an anti-fascist satire. It’s just that, well, you are VERY low-hanging fruit, and I need to sometimes grab a cheap shot to make up for my gags nobody gets. Or gets, but don’t think are funny.
And social security is the case in point usually used. If you think social security is a good thing you are probably pro UHC. If you think that it’s a bad thing you are probably anti-UHC. It’s one of my pet peeves when people try to act like their opponent is dishonest rather than addressing their arguments. If you are pro-socialism in these cases, be so, be so honestly, I am. But there ARE arguments against it and it comes from a different idea of organizing principles, and NOT some dishonest and hateful agenda.
Don’t they? I recall Keynes saying just exactly that is a good idea under some circumstances.
Why not? UHC is not much bigger a deal, and no different constitutionally, than Social Security or Medicare, the constitutionality of which has not been seriously challenged in living memory.
psst, post 53 :).
And dropzone, I wasn’t going there–I was just going for the happy thoughts of sexy librarians is all.
To put it in an even more facetious manner, we wouldn’t be rubbing the shock paddles together and yelling “Clear!” if we didn’t have to.
Not to say we all haven’t had mornings like that, but its reasonable to make an absurd point to underline a valid principle. Kind of like the opposite of reductio ad absurdum.
The same way all the other industrialized democracies with UHC (i.e., all of them) have done it (which they have), I suppose.
That’s right - if you want a book, why not buy it? Ooops, I forgot. You’re the welfare queen. Sitting on your ass and making excuses why you can’t work. Nothing is your fault. My bad.
I do not think Social Security or Medicare is constitutional, either.
Well, of course not. Members of Congress already have health insurance, as a job benefit, just like millions of other Americans already have health insurance as a job benefit. The point of UHC is to provide health insurance to the millions more who don’t.
You dislike libraries? Awesome. Of all the government programs to dislike, that one takes the cake.
Dishonest, yes. See post #77.
But will they ever be forced to have UHC if they ever find themselves in dire financial straits?
Nevermind. Not happening.
It can come from an honest and unhateful agenda. That doesn’t mean it always does.