The New Congress

[SuperJerk 0]

That's ridicules.

"Ridiculous".

 

(only because you've made the same mistake a few times, and it bugs me each time)

 

My other typos feel neglected.

[Guest Grossman=Fag]

My insurance costs peanuts. A few bucks a week. If you're getting raped to the tune of thousands of dollars per year, find a different provider.

 

I'd rather pay my own premium for healthcare than know that I'm paying, on a federal level, for the healthcare of someone I don't give a shit about.

 

I absolutely should not get off of "I shouldn't have to pay for this" because I shouldn't. Phil in Topeka has a urinary tract infection, that's his problem. Not mine.

 

Furthermore, I'm more than willing to incur the costs of my own healthcare, as extravagant as it might be in fifty years. Frankly, it's more principle than pocketbook.

[SuperJerk 0]

My insurance costs peanuts. A few bucks a week. If you're getting metd to the tune of thousands of dollars per year, find a different provider.

 

I'd rather pay my own premium for healthcare than know that I'm paying, on a federal level, for the healthcare of someone I don't give a shit about.

 

I absolutely should not get off of "I shouldn't have to pay for this" because I shouldn't. Phil in Topeka has a urinary tract infection, that's his problem. Not mine.

 

Furthermore, I'm more than willing to incur the costs of my own healthcare, as extravagant as it might be in fifty years. Frankly, it's more principle than pocketbook.

 

No, it probably doesn't cost "peanuts" at all.

 

Your insurance tab is actually being picked up by the company you work for. I don't know what you do, but I'm that cost of business is being passed on to someone, somewhere. Hence, your health insurance is an economic burden on someone else.

[Guest Grossman=Fag]

A private company, not John Q. Taxpayer. I'd just drop it entirely if I wasn't sure I'd break my leg the day after doing so.

[SuperJerk 0]

So, let me get this straight...

 

You get insurance for below cost because your employer subsidizes your premium. But you wouldn't want anyone else to have their health insurance paid for on their behalf because you don't want to have to pay for part of it (as well as for more of your own)?

 

In other words, you want to continue to get something for next-to nothing at the expense of people who can't afford it getting it at all?

[Guest Grossman=Fag]

I want my own insurance same as I've had for years, that I earn from my employer as an agreed-upon benefit for my time there.

 

Frankly, I don't give a shit about what anyone else gets, I just don't want the cost of it yanked out of my check anymore than it already is.

 

To answer your question, if it continues to equate to "I get the same service for next to nothing." Then sure, I'll take it.

[Slayer 0]

In other words, you want to continue to get something for next-to nothing at the expense of people who can't afford it getting it at all?

The system works!

[SuperJerk 0]

I want my own insurance same as I've had for years, that I earn from my employer as an agreed-upon benefit for my time there.

 

Frankly, I don't give a shit about what anyone else gets, I just don't want the cost of it yanked out of my check anymore than it already is.

 

To answer your question, if it continues to equate to "I get the same service for next to nothing." Then sure, I'll take it.

 

You probably aren't getting it for next to nothing, though. Your employer is probably passing the cost of the insurance on to you in the form of lower wages. Thus, it is being "yanked out" of your check without you even realizing it.

[Guest Grossman=Fag]

Even so, it's my healthcare. What would prompt that company (or anyone's) to suddenly give me a raise should we implement national health care, when they can just make a larger profit, at the same time sticking me with everyone else's hospital bills.

[SuperJerk 0]

Even so, it's my healthcare. What would prompt that company (or anyone's) to suddenly give me a raise should we implement national health care, when they can just make a larger profit, at the same time sticking me with everyone else's hospital bills.

Yes, you and you alone would be stuck with everyone else's hospital bills, and the rest of us wouldn't have to pay a dime.

[Guest Grossman=Fag]

Don't be ridiculous, you know that goes for everybody. I want you to honestly answer me WHY the people who already have health coverage as I described would benefit from a national system. Especially in terms of quality of care, and the scenario I mentioned above. Why would companies then increase wages/other benefits if the current system was obsolete?

[SuperJerk 0]

Don't be ridiculous, you know that goes for everybody. I want you to honestly answer me WHY the people who already have health coverage as I described would benefit from a national system. Especially in terms of quality of care, and the scenario I mentioned above. Why would companies then increase wages/other benefits if the current system was obsolete?

The American people, including you, are already paying heavily for health care in the form of premiums, taxes, and hidden costs.

 

But, because you don't immediately see the cost (even though you're still paying it), you're perfectly content to deny a significant portion of the population access to health care so long as you don't have to see the price you're paying?

 

And what about the cost to society of people going without health care?

[Guest Dope Priest Prophecy]

You completely avoided everything I just said.

 

I can afford my healthcare. So can millions of other insured americans.

 

We're all perfectly content to deny entire continents FOOD, so don't even push an altruistic motive.

 

Once again:

I want you to honestly answer me WHY the people who already have health coverage as I described would benefit from a national system. Especially in terms of quality of care, and the scenario I mentioned above. Why would companies then increase wages/other benefits if the current system was obsolete?

 

What you just said was "Hey, we're getting ripped off anyway!" Well no shit, but I can swing it and have for years. Why potentially fuck EVERYONE? This administration can't even keep track of shit we're trying to blow up, let alone cure.

[NoCalMike 0]

You completely avoided everything I just said.

 

I can afford my healthcare. So can millions of other insured americans.

 

We're all perfectly content to deny entire continents FOOD, so don't even push an altruistic motive.

 

Once again:

I want you to honestly answer me WHY the people who already have health coverage as I described would benefit from a national system. Especially in terms of quality of care, and the scenario I mentioned above. Why would companies then increase wages/other benefits if the current system was obsolete?

 

What you just said was "Hey, we're getting ripped off anyway!" Well no shit, but I can swing it and have for years. Why potentially fuck EVERYONE? This administration can't even keep track of shit we're trying to blow up, let alone cure.

 

Higher wages might happen because the company would no longer be paying insurance premiums to you. I mean you do realize that you only get a few bucks a week taken out of your check because the company is picking up the $200/month real-life cost right? So if there was national healthcare, that cost to the company leaves, which might(but not necessarily) translate into higher wages because they would no longer pay for your healthcare, which would be a huge burden off a company.

 

Health Insurance(among most other insurance) is a scam anyway. Sure, we all pay our pennies into our company premium, and yes if we get a minor injury it will be covered, but just wait until something major happens, and like everything else, it will come down to who you work for, how much the company is paying for your premium, and watch your ass be denied coverage. The insurance industry will find some type of loophole or fine print somewhere, eventually, to get out of covering you, that is what their lawyers do best.

 

A lot of our costs are due to the uninsured not going to the doctor/hospital for the quick simple injuries, because of the out of pocket expenses. So they don't go until the injury is unbearable, in which time they still can't and don't pay for it, and the cost just gets passed along anyway.

[Gary Floyd 0]

That's ridicules.

The long lost Greek god

[SuperJerk 0]

You completely avoided everything I just said.

 

I can afford my healthcare. So can millions of other insured americans.

 

We're all perfectly content to deny entire continents FOOD, so don't even push an altruistic motive.

 

Once again:

I want you to honestly answer me WHY the people who already have health coverage as I described would benefit from a national system. Especially in terms of quality of care, and the scenario I mentioned above. Why would companies then increase wages/other benefits if the current system was obsolete?

 

What you just said was "Hey, we're getting ripped off anyway!" Well no shit, but I can swing it and have for years. Why potentially fuck EVERYONE? This administration can't even keep track of shit we're trying to blow up, let alone cure.

 

I didn't avoid the question, I just didn't answer a loaded question based on something I never said.

I never said you'd get a raise if there was universal healthcare. I said you're probably getting lower wages now because your company has to pay for your health insurance.

 

Your assumption that universal health care would lead to lower quality of care is not a premise I accept. There are plenty of government run programs and agencies that are cost-efficient and well-run. To assume quality would automatically go down because the government is involved is an argumentative short-cut that I don't find convincing.

 

Now, let's look at your real question, which is why would "the people who already have health coverage as I described would benefit from a national system"?

I believe I answered this when I said: "And what about the cost to society of people going without health care?" Those societal costs can affect everyone. For example:

 

-Lowered economic productivity due to unhealthy workers. We want our economy to be productive so we can all enjoy the standard of living it affords us. But a sick worker isn't a productive worker, and productivity and efficiency are valuable qualities our economy needs.

 

-Lowered educational opportunities for children who frequently miss school due to illness (i.e. "brats with runny noses"). When kids miss school because they're sick all the time, isn't there a greater chance they'll grow up to become a burden on society in adulthood? And that other guy's kid who does come to school with a runny nose is probably infecting the entire 3rd grade.

 

-Higher infant mortality rates. Not only are dead babies a bad thing by itself (you may disagree), but the cost of taking care of that child was money that was wasted if they die in the first year. That kid isn't going to grow up to contribute to our society in any way, because he or she will be dead.

 

-Diseases being spread instead of being treated. Sure you have health insurance to help treat the illness, but wouldn't you be better off if you didn't get sick in the first place?

 

-Because preventative health care is an economic luxery for the lower class, there's a greater cost in the long run to tax-payers and insurance providers for emergency medical care of preventable diseases and ailments.

[EricMM 0]

Whether or not nationalized healthcare would translate into higher wages from your employer would have to do solely with how you and your co-workers deal with your company.

 

Thats what stuff like unions is for. If they are no longer paying for your insurance then you should see that money back. The only reason you would lose that money would be if you didn't do anything to keep it.

[snuffbox 0]

House is actually debating Iraq now. John Boenher just compared Iraq to the American Civil War...not saying the relevent, like "Imagine if England had sent a force of 15,000 down the middle of Gettysburg?" but saying we should stay because Lincoln didn't bring the union soldiers home right away.

[snuffbox 0]

Roy Blunt says the terrorists are watching C-SPAN right now.

[SuperJerk 0]

House is actually debating Iraq now. John Boenher just compared Iraq to the American Civil War...not saying the relevent, like "Imagine if England had sent a force of 15,000 down the middle of Gettysburg?" but saying we should stay because Lincoln didn't bring the union soldiers home right away.

I hate how nobody ever compares Iraq to the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, or World War I.

[snuffbox 0]

I'm sure Billy Kristol called Iraq a 'splendid little war' at some point.

[snuffbox 0]

Charlie Norwood has died.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

House is actually debating Iraq now. John Boenher just compared Iraq to the American Civil War...not saying the relevent, like "Imagine if England had sent a force of 15,000 down the middle of Gettysburg?" but saying we should stay because Lincoln didn't bring the union soldiers home right away.

I hate how nobody ever compares Iraq to the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, or World War I.

 

I think that the insurgency in the Phillipines following the Spanish-American war is a good parallel.

[2GOLD 0]

House is actually debating Iraq now. John Boenher just compared Iraq to the American Civil War...not saying the relevent, like "Imagine if England had sent a force of 15,000 down the middle of Gettysburg?" but saying we should stay because Lincoln didn't bring the union soldiers home right away.

 

...WHAT?!?

[snuffbox 0]

I heard it with my own ears.

 

Republicans have offered nothing but insanity & lame rhetoric this afternoon. It's not looking good for the GOP next year at all.

[2GOLD 0]

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't bring the soldiers home right away because the Confederacy would have directed all their troops to march on Washington and created by far the bloodiest battle in history that might have ended with the US no longer existing.

 

What a fucking idiot. What state elected him?

[snuffbox 0]

Ohio. He was the Majority Leader when the GOP controlled, Minority Leader now.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'm pretty sure Lincoln didn't bring the soldiers home right away because the Confederacy would have directed all their troops to march on Washington and created by far the bloodiest battle in history that might have ended with the US no longer existing.

 

What a fucking idiot. What state elected him?

 

Maybe he has never heard of "Reconstruction".

[snuffbox 0]

Iraq is somewhat like if Lincoln would have decided to ignore trhe Confederacy to focus on Natives in the West. He would pull troops from the Southern Theater and send them into the western territories, same for the monetary funds. With all focus on acheiving stablized States to the west, and attempts to make the various Native American tribes suddenly, miraculously, get along, the Confederacy would be allowed to ferment & grow more and more.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

That's actually a pretty decent analogy.