Obamacare Causes Companies to Cut Hours page 3

189 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
What Obamacare represents is a complete nationalizing of the healthcare industry.

Are you only just realising this? About damn time too. Sick of my home having the worst healthcare in the western world.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:
What Obamacare represents is a complete nationalizing of the healthcare industry.

Are you only just realising this? About damn time too. Sick of my home having the worst healthcare in the western world.

Even IF nationalizing something were historically a good thing, and not just good in certain isolated anomolies, the US government is not an effective government at this sort of undertaking.

 
Flag Post

and not just good in certain isolated anomolies

hahahaha.

You know, I actually have to agree with mytie/jhco. Why bother arguing for the merits of national health care? If the US doesn’t accept their medicine, so to speak, and revolts on the idea, well…that’ not my problem. If and when the next superbug comes, we canadians can just shut down our borders, head north, and wait for the US to become a nice, clean, empty land again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

jake-o, I’ve NEVER been able to understand why SOME ppl are so intent on SEEING ONLY the ABUSES the indigent and working poor manifest,,,,INSTEAD OF the many, MANY ppl who are immensely helped by “entitlement” programs. Ya know entitlement as in BEING ENTITLED to something. Please, jake-o…read that definition. Please, read up on the many programs that help the many Americans who ARE ENTITLED TO some help and ARE NOT ABUSING those programs.

Don’t get me wrong—jhco can hyperbole shit to death—but I think the problem is that there are so many abuses to this system. There’s the stereotype most people know about (the illegal immigrants that live on it) and then theres so many others that use this system as a lifestyle to sustain them, rather than just for a few months like it was intended.

I know one lady, for instance, who has sat on welfare and other programs for several years and keeps having kids. It’s not anyone else’s problem but her own that she won’t get a drivers license, go to school, or utilize birth control (3 kids by 3 different guys, also). So if she keeps making these deliberate mistakes while on social assistance and digging herself a bigger hole, why should she expect to continue to be supported? This is just one example.

I think there has to be a better solution, and it probably has to do with reallocating the monies that were being used for welfare into job creation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

and not just good in certain isolated anomolies

hahahaha.

You know, I actually have to agree with mytie/jhco. Why bother arguing for the merits of national health care? If the US doesn’t accept their medicine, so to speak, and revolts on the idea, well…that’ not my problem. If and when the next superbug comes, we canadians can just shut down our borders, head north, and wait for the US to become a nice, clean, empty land again.

No one is arguing about the value of healthcare to those that need it. No one is saying “let sick people stay sick”. That’s silly. Besides, which country spends more money on disease prevention annually than any other country? That would be the USA. What we are arguing is who bears the costs of this, and who should bear the costs.

 
Flag Post

No one is arguing about the value of healthcare to those that need it. No one is saying “let sick people stay sick”. That’s silly. Besides, which country spends more money on disease prevention annually than any other country? That would be the USA. What we are arguing is who bears the costs of this, and who should bear the costs.

I don’t think the real question here is “value”, which no has an argument over, but “price”. What is the price of healthcare to those who need it? By nationalizing it, everyone bears the cost. If you don’t, well then the sick pay the costs… unless they can’t, then they are one of those sick people who stays sick. I feel your post makes a good case for Nationalized Healthcare, I am confused as to what the catch is.

You mentioned before how Nationalization will create a mass of consumers, driving demand, and therefor price (or at least congestion). I think you are right in that; I also think that it is something the US is underprepared for the at moment. But keep in the mind the alternative, those people that were previously not consuming health care… were well, not receiving healthcare. The sick who stay sick again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:I don’t think the real question here is “value”, which no has an argument over, but “price”. What is the price of healthcare to those who need it? By nationalizing it, everyone bears the cost. If you don’t, well then the sick pay the costs… unless they can’t, then they are one of those sick people who stays sick. I feel your post makes a good case for Nationalized Healthcare, I am confused as to what the catch is.

The issue is, that I don’t believe that everyone can afford healthcare, and I don’t think the US can afford healthcare for everyone. While I don’t believe it a good thing that people who need healthcare don’t get it, it may not be realistic to approach the situation any other way. I believe it isn’t a good thing for people who need a house not to get a house, but I don’t think the federal government should buy everyone a house, nor compel everyone to buy a house. I know, that isn’t the “nicest” way of looking at things, but that’s reality. We don’t have the medical industry to support that many consumers, and we don’t have the economy to pay for it. Besides, I think costs would go down if government decreased its involvement, not increased.

What is interesting, is we want the same goal, everyone treated. We want that, and the only logical choice you see is “nationalize”. On the contrary, that is the only illogical choice I see.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Donseptico, I’m not entirely sure what your argument boils down to. I think we both agree that private health care is expensive, but you didn’t really talk about public health care (part of my argument). Do you prefer public health care (everyone is obligated to take on insurance) or obligating those who pay taxes to pay for everyone’s health care?

Sorry, missed this completely…

In order of my personal preference…
Nationalised (e.g. paid for through general or specific taxation and service charges, as per the UK and other western countries)…

EDIT: As illustrated in my earlier post, this MAY work out cheaper for everyone than an insurance led system.

REGULATED Private insurance funded (e.g. with controls on premiums to make it affordable for all to take up)

Private insurance funded (e.g. pretty much as it was before ‘obamacare’)

Some god awful hybrid system (which just complicates the whole system and introduces additional cost factors)

 
Flag Post

Rest in peace, Hostess.

 
Flag Post

What is interesting, is we want the same goal, everyone treated. We want that, and the only logical choice you see is “nationalize”. On the contrary, that is the only illogical choice I see.

Every other developed country (UN definitions) has some form of nationalised health care, and we all manage to pay for it. What I don’t understand is why you see the US as uniquely unable to follow suit. Do you see your politicians and bureaucrats as being even more inept than ours, or is it something else? All I have ever been able to get by way of an answer to this is along the lines that “we’re different”, which is vague to say the least, and essentially untrue anyway. There can’t be too many Americans who really believe that the poor should be allowed to die from treatable conditions. So can you elaborate on why it is so illogical?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

What is interesting, is we want the same goal, everyone treated. We want that, and the only logical choice you see is “nationalize”. On the contrary, that is the only illogical choice I see.

Every other developed country (UN definitions) has some form of nationalised health care, and we all manage to pay for it. What I don’t understand is why you see the US as uniquely unable to follow suit. Do you see your politicians and bureaucrats as being even more inept than ours, or is it something else? All I have ever been able to get by way of an answer to this is along the lines that “we’re different”, which is vague to say the least, and essentially untrue anyway. There can’t be too many Americans who really believe that the poor should be allowed to die from treatable conditions. So can you elaborate on why it is so illogical?

That’s pretty definitive. Could you please cite sources for two facts that you so definitively stated: 1) All other first world nations have nationalized healthcare. 2) They are all doing it without any financial problems

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

and not just good in certain isolated anomolies

hahahaha.

You know, I actually have to agree with mytie/jhco. Why bother arguing for the merits of national health care? If the US doesn’t accept their medicine, so to speak, and revolts on the idea, well…that’ not my problem. If and when the next superbug comes, we canadians can just shut down our borders, head north, and wait for the US to become a nice, clean, empty land again.

But when you Canadians have all your vaccine use (because socialized medicine = government funded vaccine use, you’ll be shooting up vaccines so much people will think you’re all heroin addicts) result in a massive outbreak of low functioning autism and suddenly most of your population is not mentally fit to work then your economy will go down the toilet. And don’t think you’ll be able to get into America and cash in on our Economy, because as much as we hate China and would like to start trade war with them, they had one good idea. The great wall. After we finish walling ourselves off from Mexico the Canuck border comes next.

Your vaccines may seem fun now, but in a few decades when you’re paying for a massive entitlement program to help people whose autism problems make them incapable of working then maybe you’ll feel foolish about trying to make a good healthcare system instead of putting your money into the pockets of CEOs and praying to Jesus for healing in favor of medicine.

 
Flag Post

Compare this with this. Sorry one’s Wiki and the other’s a bit out of date, but the UN site’s search engine is crap. I was going round in circles. However, you will observe that the two lists are remarkably similar.

I never said there were no financial problems, but they are clearly manageable. I was born into the NHS, and it’s still going strong despite the problems it has seen over the years. It’s a matter of getting one’s priorities right. Most of these schemes have been running for decades, so whatever system is used to pay for them, in every case universal health care works.

 
Flag Post

Oh look, the “vaccines cause autism ZOMGNO!!!” crowd is here.
That’s the crowd that gets their information from a debunked ex-doctor, and a former Playboy Playmate.

Please, tell me again about your valid studies proving a link between vaccines and autism?

 
Flag Post

@softest—it’s called dry humor. It’s how he argues.

 
Flag Post

…did I miss a sarcasm tag?
D’oh. My bad.

Sorry, the vaccine naysayers are particularly irksome to me. :D

 
Flag Post

@stilts (did I mention how pleased I am you’re back?)

I was thinking the major flaw in my argument is that the border is so long and we canadians are so inept and trusting that some random asshole from your side will get through and fuck us all over, and since our population is located south of the border there will be way too many idiots who just stay where they are because it’s “cold” (traitors) that when they finally move up to nunavat they’ll infect the rest of us.

And again, hahahaha at the dumbass who thinks the US is somehow exceptional when it comes to health care. We all do it, and we all get by, even if we have to pay more taxes. Yes, the downside is that we don’t get to launch more adventurist wars in places we know nothing about. Darn.

 
Flag Post

The issue is, that I don’t believe that everyone can afford healthcare, and I don’t think the US can afford healthcare for everyone. While I don’t believe it a good thing that people who need healthcare don’t get it, it may not be realistic to approach the situation any other way. I believe it isn’t a good thing for people who need a house not to get a house, but I don’t think the federal government should buy everyone a house, nor compel everyone to buy a house. I know, that isn’t the “nicest” way of looking at things, but that’s reality. We don’t have the medical industry to support that many consumers, and we don’t have the economy to pay for it. Besides, I think costs would go down if government decreased its involvement, not increased.
What is interesting, is we want the same goal, everyone treated. We want that, and the only logical choice you see is “nationalize”. On the contrary, that is the only illogical choice I see.

I actually think that is pretty fair. To be more concise I do feel the US should Nationalize it’s healthcare. I consider it an important institution, a justification, of the State. But, and this is a big but, “should” is a pretty vague term. I am not sure that the US should Nationalize it’s healthcare right now. In fact, I’m pretty sure it shouldn’t – but that is guess work.

I think there is too much resistance, and far too little money. That the most difficult period will be the transition period, and the most volatile. I feel to do this they need to do it right, and that any problems will be used to flagellate them and poison the well. Things as they are I can’t imagine this going great, and when it doesn’t, that in turn is going to create bigger problems that will echo down.

As for the general comments about cost. It is not that the cost is inordinate, or once stabilized particularly more expensive. But the US is in a ridiculous amount of debt per capita. Sooner or later they are going to have to slash and burn, and if Healthcare is running like a dream, a popular success, and not guzzling tax dollars I’ll have to eat my hat. The US is different because it feels different, it is a major major public works trying to push it’s way though without popular opinion at the crest of a major economic downfall.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

What is interesting, is we want the same goal, everyone treated. We want that, and the only logical choice you see is “nationalize”. On the contrary, that is the only illogical choice I see.

Every other developed country (UN definitions) has some form of nationalised health care, and we all manage to pay for it. What I don’t understand is why you see the US as uniquely unable to follow suit. Do you see your politicians and bureaucrats as being even more inept than ours, or is it something else? All I have ever been able to get by way of an answer to this is along the lines that “we’re different”, which is vague to say the least, and essentially untrue anyway. There can’t be too many Americans who really believe that the poor should be allowed to die from treatable conditions. So can you elaborate on why it is so illogical?

Because we are borrowing money to pay our debt payments. Now you through on a more than Trillion dollar social program no one wants and you just put us deeper in debt. Besides, why do we have to follow along with other countries? I thought we were a country of our own with borders and our own government?

You know, the UK isn’t exactly solvent. How long before you lose your healthcare? Look at Greece and how many social programs they had going. They now are almost bankrupt paying for them.

 
Flag Post

Ungeziefer, You snuck in on me. Economists are expecting us to go back into a deeper recession (we haven’t left the first one). They expect it as soon as next year. Have you seen our markets start to peter out? They seem to be pulling their money out. I wonder how this will effect other countries, especially since they wanted what has happened so badly?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Ya know, MyTie….
“they” say the same fucking bullshit nonsense when the MINIMUM wage is raised.
A hard kick in the nutsack to all those who piss, whine, moan, wail, sob about SHARING this country’s great wealth (wealth, by the way, that also IS CREATED BY the working poor) w/ those who have no REAL, SENISBLE health care.

All this crap about Obamacare is just the new bigotry.
Ya can’t hate niggers,,,,
ya can’t hate faggots,,,
ya can’t hate Jews,,,
ya can’t hate Pollocks,,,

SO, let’s hate those fucking POOR PEOPLE who ought to be pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. YEAH. They are the cause of all the problems in America. Let’s blame them.

Sound familiar?

What are you talking about?

 
Flag Post

I haven’t figured out half his posts, so I just ignore them for the most part.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

What are you talking about?

Do you want an interpretation?

He’s saying people dislike Obama mainly because of his ethnicity, not policy. And also that they are demonizing the middle/lower class in favor of the rich. Take it or leave it, I’m just spelling it out to you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Look at Greece and how many social programs they had going. They now are almost bankrupt paying for them.

Wrong. Greeces problems do not come primarily or even secondarily from their social programs. They come from a high amount of non-social handouts, tax breaks as well as a high amount of corruption, tax evasion as well as financial gambling. The last three all more important separately and individually than all the other issues(including social programs) together.

 
Flag Post

How is it possible the Netherlands (and other countries) are capable of providing health care for everyone, and the US is too poor for that?