Comments:US House of Representatives passes health care bill

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Why can't people realize how much we can't afford these wars right now?1420:14, 27 March 2010
For all you people who say..015:58, 27 March 2010
Yay!2702:39, 27 March 2010
Why don't people realize how much we can't afford this bill right now?502:22, 27 March 2010

Why can't people realize how much we can't afford these wars right now?

hmmmm... (talk)18:32, 23 March 2010

Some basic bias and excess metaphor aside, I've always found that George Lakoff's "Moral Politics" is the only book that properly explains why conservatives and progressives think the way they do, and why both systems of thought are coherent within their own internal logic. If you're wondering why on Earth conservatives don't mind the cost of wars but do mind the cost of healthcare (or vice versa), give the book a read. It's very insightful. Conservatives aren't dumb, they just use a different form of political reasoning that makes sense in its own right, insofar as any political reasoning can make sense. For a liberal, wars are about murdering foreigners and getting your sons killed, and healthcare about helping people; but for a conservative, wars are about protecting people (and the country) and healthcare is about coddling the weakest with money stolen from the best. (talk)05:47, 24 March 2010

Alas, a Social darwinist show's his true colours! Hitler is not Dead! Fascism lives on!

I suppose we could just solve the problem with Forced sterilisation, Then "the weak" wouldn't be able to reproduce and proliferate their heinous genes, Or Better yet we could just euthanise them all, for their own good, so that they no longer suffer, and we live in a world of, by and for "the best"! T-4 anyone?

This poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." (about 1938) (talk)14:58, 24 March 2010

Are you referring to me, second poster? I am not a conservative, not in the least. I'm just repeating Lakoff's theory on why conservatives support things like expensive wars while refusing to accept health care bills that might even lower costs (such as the one voted down in California). The point is, conservatives are misguided and ill informed about human nature; they aren't evil or stupid. (talk)05:24, 25 March 2010

Seeing the rich as "the best" and the poor as "the coddled weakest" seems like a pretty evil political philosophy at work. and as for the wars, Does anyone seriously believe that attacking and invading other nations (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen) protects the United States form terrorism? It fuels more terrorism because it simply validates the arguments of those who would seek to harm the US. Terrorism is at its very nature, ideological, not military. Killing and wounding "suspected terrorists", (in effect often civilians) simply alienates the remainder of the population and provides them the moral (and emotional) justification to retaliate in desperate ways. Granted there may be a few (ignorant) conservatives who believe these wars about protecting the country, but most understand the real reason for the recent wars is geopolitics - the U.S. is highly reliant on foreign fossil fuels (which are rapidly dwindling, and needs to assure its control of these resources as they start to run out. Fossil fuel security is vital to U.S. National Security (i.e.The US, can has a military larger than the next 17 nations combined, but it is quickly rendered useless if there is nothing to fuel it), and to preserving the American way of life and high standard of living. (talk)15:13, 26 March 2010

Ahh, the ancient "war for oil" garbage again. I can remember all the times I heard THAT load of bull in college...

No, these wars are NOT for oil. Not now, and they never were. If we wanted oil, we would NOT need war for it- despite the huge debate over it, surely drilling in ANWR would be a much better alternative. It's on land we own- no conquest required. It's close, so the shipping costs would be much cheaper. No need for expensive military equipment nor massive loss of life, either, so surely it'd be much more popular.

Out of all the complaints that are thrown at these wars, the "War for Oil" claim is easily the least logical, and the most annoying. It has no basis whatsoever in reality.

As for your claims about "the best" and "the coddled weakest", that hasn't got SQUAT to do with rich VS poor. It's more a matter of those who work for a living (or, in these economic times, those who WANT to work for a living but can't) VS those who'd rather have welfare provide everything for them. (talk)00:56, 27 March 2010

utter nonsense ... you are regurgitating crap that you have heard from idiots

SVTCobra03:11, 27 March 2010

For all you people who say..

.. that the "majority" of Americans did not want this bill, that death panels will destroy our elderly, that abortions are going to be federally funded, that we're headed towards communism, that Obama is a socialist. I have this to say to you:

[citation needed] (talk)15:57, 27 March 2010

Our health care system was stupid. Insurance companies were screwing it all up. Hopefully this will help fix some of that.

ShakataGaNai ^_^04:02, 22 March 2010

Exactly. We need to follow France, Germany, and Japan. They have the awesomest health care efar (talk)04:04, 22 March 2010

One less-often considered place is Switzerland. I have gone into whatever the Swiss call Accident and Emergency and was very impressed. I'm unsure how the Swiss finance it; I know I was billed as a foreigner, but I was covered under the European Health Insurance Card (still talked of in Britain as an E111, the name of the form it replaces).

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)20:52, 22 March 2010

I like how the guy says that "health insurance companies are ruining healthcare" when this bill represents a huge handout to the health insurance companies. Requiring every American to purchase their product? Yeah, that'll show 'em! (talk)03:03, 23 March 2010

Perhaps the Democrats thought that they would be able to make progress on health care by "placating" the insurance industry. Sort of like the "strategy" of "appeasement" toward the Nazis leading up to world war II (talk)18:51, 23 March 2010

YAY NEW TAXES! --KDP3 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)04:27, 22 March 2010

Come to Australia, we got a good mix

RockerballAustralia (talk)04:27, 22 March 2010

taxs are needed to run a nation KDP3 every one knows that expect republicans (talk)14:54, 22 March 2010

Raising taxes during a repression would do wonders for the America people. Something the elitist democrats are keen to forget.--KDP3 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)15:58, 22 March 2010

I don't see what the big issue is. We've had the NHS over here for donkeys' years, and it's worked out all right (I'm not saying the NHS is perfect—we all know it isn't—but it works). I don't quite understand the Republican objections to this—I presume they're based on funding? I don't envision many people minding a small tax increase if it will ensure their health... or the government could save some money by not spending it all on an illegal war in the Middle East...

Δενδοδγε τ\c16:01, 22 March 2010

Actually the Republican Party viewpoint is that health care is a privilege, not a right. There is a widespread belief here in the U.S. that such things as housing, food, and health care are privileges that must be obtained through personal wealth. Any assistance from government in providing these amenities is usually viewed as an attempt at socialism or even communism. This is a fundamental part of the competitive spirit of American Capitalism: Either you sink or you swim. (talk)18:28, 22 March 2010

From each according to his gullability, to each according to his greed.

The view that healthcare is a privelage is absurd. Someone turns up gasping their last at hospital - you honestly wouldn't save them? If not, you are what is referred to in polite conversation as an arrogant elitest cunt.

And, before you ask, I can easily afford healthcare. I'm willing to pay for those less fortunate to get it too. The only reason I dislike paying for the NHS is that a high proportion of that money is wasted in needless administration.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)18:36, 22 March 2010

Blood Red Sandman, I heartily agree with you that health care is among the most basic human rights. I'm simply expressing the viewpoint (which I personally find abhorrent) of those who are opposed to a national health care system in the United States. The politics of Social Darwinism are a formidable force in American domestic policy and are wholeheartedly embraced by the Republican Party. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think we will ever see true comprehensive health reform in this country because social darwinism is so pervasive (talk)18:54, 22 March 2010

Another important consideration is that while a majority of Americans (when Obama took office) wanted to have a national health care system, The insurance and pharmaceutical companies (with their armies of lobbyists) spent untold billions of dollars on a media smear campaign discrediting the idea of publicly funded health care. The American public was sold an image of a dystopian system marked by government rationing and "death panels" who decide if a patient's life is worth saving, among countless other myths. The fact is that the reigns of government in the US are held by an alliance of wealthy corporations who make the rules as they see fit to maximize their profits, regardless of the human costs. (talk)19:15, 22 March 2010

Indeed. America is a scary place. However, I think that for the bill to bust through, even if narrowly, is a historic moment. It proves that this new government - for all it still has many of the failings of the previous administration, for all I grant it no trust whatsoever - is making some progress. It may be tiny, but it's there and Obama and Co fought hard for it.

There is hope. Very little; I self-identify as an open cynic but in reality I'm a strong sceptic in that I am still willing to evaluate anything that can sway me from whatever opinion I have settled upon. I recognise that if (imperfect) people like Obama keep banging their heads against brick walls for long enough, eventually the wall will wear through and collapse.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)20:47, 22 March 2010

Nearly a trillion dollars shouldn't result in "tiny" progress; not that it's progress for the people I know who "make enough" on paper but still can't afford health insurance, fining them for something they'd only maybe be able to afford if the Obama administration was competent in any of its other efforts. (talk)04:27, 23 March 2010

Read my comment again, and the context it was made in. The progress I talk of is not the content of the bill but the fact it passed at all in the face of a propaganda campaign.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)07:39, 23 March 2010

Progress can't be done for progress's sake. When neither side is right, the "victory" of one over the other is a loss for everyone.

Fishy c (talk)22:03, 24 March 2010

For the second time, I talk not of the content but the fact that it is possible to pass it in the face of such an absurd propaganda campaign. I think both sides must recognise that the campaign was ludicrous (though I know they won't), and while the opposers may feel that this was perhaps the wrong bill to break through, the fact that it happened at all is progress. For the second time, read the context in which my comment was made.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)22:37, 24 March 2010

Its strange that KDP3 says Dem's are Elitist when all the republicans accuse them of being Socialist? or was it a Nazi i suggest the republicans choose an insult and stick with it. (talk)20:59, 22 March 2010

From the way you speak, you believe that Nazism and Socialism are particularly different?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

-Adolph Hitler, 1927

Granted, he changed his stance on being a self-described socialist two years later, but this was mostly due to the damage it did to his party's image. (talk)02:39, 27 March 2010

Another way of summarizing the typical attitude towards Social Welfare in the US is "Every man for himself! I've got mine, Go get yours!" (talk)22:26, 22 March 2010

Welcome to First World, Americans! (talk)23:44, 22 March 2010

Not to piss on your parade, but no, I'm afraid this so-called "Health Care Reform" does not qualify as anything close to "First World". It's merely a guaranteed expanded customer base for the insurance companies, by means of an enforced purchase law. i.e. you are fined if you don't want to (or can't afford to) pay whatever exorbitant fees insurance companies decide to charge you for health care coverage. First World health care would be a publicly funded not for profit single-payer system like every other wealthy nation in the world has (i.e. France, Japan, UK, etc.) (talk)00:06, 23 March 2010

Never mind all the deals made to get this atrocity of a bill thrown in. Never mind that some states whose legislators support the bill won't have to foot the bill, which is that much more to force those of us who DON'T like it to pay. Never mind that at least one (likely outdated by now) version of the bill comes with likely-illegal language that suggests that future administrations will be unable to alter or repeal it once passed.

Things like this render the issue of whether a European-style health care system is good or bad a pointless debate for the moment. Between the back-door deals, and trying to nail it down so that future generations can't repeal this overhaul if it's bad, or even improve on it in the unlikely event that it somehow turns out to be good, nobody in their right mind can possibly think that Congress has the people's well-being at heart. (talk)23:52, 22 March 2010

Why don't people realize how much we can't afford this bill right now?

This bill costs $1 trillion. There are two ways to pay for it: raise taxes by 37.4% or print more money and cause an enormous amount of inflation. Why are we passing this bill when we already have so much debt and when there are alternatives that will also improve healthcare and save money instead of costing more money.

Wikitiki89 (talk)14:42, 23 March 2010

Why don't people realize Universal Health Care will make everyone (but owners of companies with more than 100 employes) less? And how come the people could afford 2 wars but not Health Care for the whole country? (talk)17:05, 23 March 2010

I'm afraid your statistics are a gross misrepresentation of the facts. That being said, tell me, what would be wrong with raising taxes by 37.4 % on those who make more than $200,000 a year so that the rest us us can have access to the health care that they take for granted. (talk)17:50, 23 March 2010

On that note, The reason we're in so much debt is that the last time the Republicans were in control of Congress and the presidency, They launched two illegal wars of invasion, both of which had price-tags in the Trillions of $. So using the "fiscal responsibility" argument as an excuse not to have a National Health Care system is completely ludicrous. Unfortunately, all this bill does is make the Insurance companies more money by mandating an expansion to their customer base. I really don't understand why the teabaggers and Republicans are whining, since all this "health care reform" does is make their corporate buddies richer, so they should be happy. (talk)17:59, 23 March 2010

"So using the "fiscal responsibility" argument as an excuse not to have a National Health Care system is completely ludicrous."

Somehow, I think the "fiscal responsibility" argument gains a lot more credence when you take into account that the current administration has already spent more money in one year than the previous one did in eight. On top of that, they've done that during a recession, while the economy was strong for most of the Bush years... until near the very end, when the Democrats took Congress, spending spiked, and the economy's sinking started.

Also... if you're gonna bash Republicans over these allegedly-illegal wars... .. . shouldn't you also be bashing Obama for not already pulling out? The chant for the past eight years has been that we should pull out as fast as possible, and now that the side who chanted it is in power... it's not happening, why? Or did it magically turn into a good war just because a Liberal Democrat is in charge? (talk)02:22, 27 March 2010

It's funny... when I find that I "don't know why" the experts in a field "haven't realised" something that occurs to me about an issue that they have spent immeasurably longer thinking through, I would tend to predict that it is my reasoning that is at fault, not theirs. Each unto their own.

Bigbluefish (talk)19:19, 23 March 2010