Public health nightmares
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181974
Printed Date: 02 December 2025 at 1:46am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Public health nightmares
Posted By: Linus
Subject: Public health nightmares
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:11pm
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090606/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090606/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul
So let me get this straight--- They want businesses, that are already struggling to make money and not lay people off, be required to provide insurance? Eff that. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:18pm
|
Wouldn't be a problem if there was national healthcare.
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:21pm
But then you'd all be communists, duh. |
jmac3 wrote:Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:26pm
Did you even read the article? His bill for national healthcare would require businesses to provide it for employees or pay a fine. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:27pm
|
Which is in fact not national healthcare. My state has some nonsense, and yes I edited this sentence because I forget exactly how it works, ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:28pm
I think he means a better plan, such as how europe or Canadia does it. Also Linus I thought you might find this interesting: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090603142002.htm - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090603142002.htm |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:56pm
|
jmac--- it's forced "free" healthcare for the majority of citizens in America. Can hardly get more nationalized. Again, horrible idea because the employers will have to come up with the money some how, and that means laying more people off.
Choop-- Any competent healthcare worker washes their hands religiously, as MRSA is not something you want to mess with, and it EVERYWHERE. Study was done where 1/3 of stethoscopes has MRSA on it. Hospitals are dirty dirty places. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 10:59pm
|
Linus what do you not understand about how canada and europe work? I do not know all the fine details but I am 99% certain that employers aren't paying for it. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:00pm
|
Employers pay for a lot of healthcare anyways...am I missing something?
------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:01pm
| Yeah, they aren't. Sure you get health benefits for dental and stuff, but its through taxes. But again, taxes = OMG GUBERNMENTS TAKIN MAH RIGHTS!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:02pm
I want to say that it's probably not required by law. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:05pm
I get perfectly how they work, but doesn't change a damn thing about the "draft of a draft" bill that was written, which is what this thread is about, which is what I'm commenting on. What part of THAT do you not understand?
Not required by law, and therefor if a business can't afford to, they aren't forced to. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:08pm
|
"you link article" "wouldn't be a problem with national healthcare" "this bill would require businesses to pay" "it's forced "free" healthcare for the majority of citizens in America. Can hardly get more nationalized" See the third and fourth quote? That was you. I don't care about them. I merely stated that your crying about this "draft of a draft" wouldn't happen with national healthcare equivalent to other countries. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:15pm
|
Correct, having nationalized wouldn't make me cry about the "draft of a draft".
It would make me cry like a baby about having nationalized. But again, that's not the topic. The topic is the idiocy of even having the idea of forcing businesses to pay for healthcare in this economy. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:17pm
That's the difference between U.S. and Canada. Us Canadians don't have a problem with it, but in the U.S. people really really hate taxes, Boston Tea Party ring a bell? Probbly not because you have most likely never been educated on that piece of history. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:19pm
|
I'm not against taxes. I'm against taxes being used for one thing, when they can go to something more important. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:32pm
|
Look at our population and then the Nationalized Health Care Country populations, then compare efficiency in government we already have, and then the fiasco and potential of mismanagement and total financial fiasco if we tried it. The VA can't even keep 2.5 million veterans healthcare straight, lets let the government do it for 350 million.
Hols on to your wallet as cost spiral out of control and the taxes climb higher and higher and medical staff find differant higher paying careers after all those years in med school. Maybe being a lawyer would actually pay better, or even a union big city garbage collector. As any GS/13 VA Primary Care Physician if they are staying with the VA or going on to private practice after student loan/indentured service period is over. They could always work for Cyberdyne. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:48pm
Haha, are you serious? Yeah thanks we get US history as well. In fact we get educated on the shadier dealings in US history that is omitted from your curriculum. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 June 2009 at 11:55pm
|
Such as? -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:03am
All I can conclude from this is that American government bureaucrats and medical professionals must be FAR inferior to their European counterparts - seeing as how most European nations manage to provide good nationalized healthcare to their citizens for a fraction of the cost of the hybrid US system.
Every other civilized nation seems to be capable of doing this - if OS is right and the US just can't, then what else am I to conclude?
And US employers are not required to provide health insurance, but the tax laws make it more efficient (cheaper) for the employer to pay for a portion of the healthcare premium than for the employee to pay the whole thing. As a result, almost all medium/large employers provide health insurance for their full-time employees. This bill would extend that practice to smaller businesses and (I believe) part-time employees.
Noble effort, but still putting lipstick on a pig.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:04am
Well slap me in the face and call me Linus...I should have noticed that little bit. --- Also, Linus et al., any respectable employer will give you some type of coverage. It's basically a requirement if you want college graduates. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:05am
I don't even remember any of the specifics anymore, I wish I did so I could find a link or something. Basically just the US funding coups etc. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:05am
The Boston tea party wasn't about hating taxes... ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:07am
|
PP nailed it and I'm sad to say I didn't recall that, as I took a course on this. The government doesn't tax employers for providing health care. They get to write it off, and the employee doesn't have to pay for it. I can remember the exact page this was on but alas, I no longer possess the book. Otherwise I would go into greater depth. edit for run on sentence :(
DEY TOOK ER JERBS -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:18am
Ok, I actually read the article now. My thoughts:
This would screw over a lot of HMOs and whatever the other provider types are called. The only way they make money is by controlling certain aspects of the doctor/patients relationship. In addition, many doctors charge less for certain providers, and this would royally screw that up. edit for now bolded section: WAIT WHAT!?!? It has been mathematically proven that subsidies are generally an awful idea. Why don't you just let the market correct itself by removing some barriers to entry in the medical research field?
This is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and Adam Smith just rolled over in his grave...twice. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 12:19am
| Also...poor people don't have jobs, or have **edited**ty jobs. How does this help the problem of providing healthcare to all? |
Posted By: MeanMan
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 7:57am
|
They could attempt to get a job.... I know it's not always possible to get one, but a lot of people are lazy. My uncle does Veterans Services, and people don't even try to do things, like get a job, and expect handouts. ------------- 
hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives." |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 11:39am
|
Sure - some people do in fact need to "just get a job."
But surely we can agree that at least in today's situation, there are some people who are legitimately trying yet failing to find work?
More importantly, however, that is beside the point. The unemployed generally do have health coverage, courtesy of our quasi-socialized health system. The people who do NOT have health insurance are mostly people WITH jobs (and their children). Dental assistants, for instance, frequently do not have health insurance. Well-educated dedicated health professionals, yet with no health insurance of their own. This law would require the dentists to get health insurance for their dental assistants.
Another big group are the "gig economy" people, to use an annoying new phrase - people who work multiple jobs, or perhaps are technically unemployed but work series of individual assignments, or a combination of the above. Part-time cashier at the hardware store, part-time handyman, and part-time dogwalker - a hard-working man to be sure, but almost certainly uninsured (along with the family he is working hard to take care of). This man went and got not just one jerb, but several - but it still will not help him when his kid breaks a leg on the playground.
Talking about "get a jerb" is not helpful when discussing the US health fiasco, because it is not the undeserving poor that are at issue.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 1:30pm
We (or at least my peers and I) learned about quite a bit of shady stuff, but it was glossed over as unimportant or presented as something semi-positive. A few examples I remember vividly are yellow-journalism barely being mentioned, and Tuskegee experiments being described as just an experiment on syphilis (it actually wasn't in the curriculum at all; we were doing WWII and the Tuskegee Airmen were mentioned and one of the girls in class asked if the pilots had anything to do with the Tuskegee experiments), Latin-American dictators being described only as Pro-U.S., and how when the U.S. backed a state when a revolution came, the revolutionaries were bad people, but when the U.S. backed revolutionaries, the people in power were the baddies.
The problem I've always seen is that it is usually a step backward for the provider of a household to get any number of jobs because anything anyone in that position can reasonably expect to get won't pay well enough. I've even known people who only had to support themselves to go so far as to purposely get caught committing a crime so they could go to jail because the jail would provide more for them than they expected to earn. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 1:37pm
|
Not to mention, a sizable portion of homeless have mental illnesses... -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 1:53pm
It was about LOVING tea. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 4:17pm
Yes, they were protesting the taxes on tea. Weren't they? |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 4:54pm
yep. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 4:58pm
They were protesting being taxed without having a say in the matter. Hence "No taxation without representation" -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 5:35pm
| Well, they were pretty pissed off. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 5:40pm
|
At, among other things, not having representation. NOT just having to pay taxes.
The increase on tea tarrifs was a flashpoint, but not the only cause. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 6:51pm
|
What Linus said. It was about being a powerless colony, not a general "OMG taxes r bad". ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 7:04pm
| Wait wait, what? Here we were told it was to brew delicious tea in the harbour, as the salt water was much too harsh on its own... |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 7:15pm
|
That's Canadian education for you. Always thinking about the environment and it's harshness. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 06 June 2009 at 7:24pm
| Ahahaha. |