Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat depends on how much your reduce. Any amount of reduction of income due to taxation is an infringement on your right of self determination.
reduced but not impossible and therefore not an infringement to your right to claim self determination.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy is it irrelevant?
irrelevant, the point of the legislation is that the present system was being brought down whodey, why cant you see that?
So it is irrelevant that millions lost their health care due to the ACA. Check.
It is irrelevant that more people pay more for the health coverage that covers less. Check.
It is irrelevant that the said legislation has further divided America politically. Check.
It is irrelevant that there are any flaws that cause people harm or grevience. Check.
You sir are a tyrannical monster. No wonder you support that stuff. In fact, why are you even talking to me since I'm irrelevant as well?
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/
Wajoma belongs to the - I'm alright jack keep your hands [off] of my stack health service.😵
You need to see the map by using this link as I cannot reproduce it here for you. Otherwise the following information might possibly help inform this debate.
As excited as American liberals and proponents of expanding access to health care might be about the Supreme Court's decision to largely uphold the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. still stands out from much of the developed world in state efforts to make medical care available to the public. If universal health care in the U.S. is your goal, then today was a big step forward, but maybe also a reminder of how far behind America still lags.So the USA is in good company with Belarus and the Balkans. Well done and God bless (help) America.
The above map shows, in green, countries that administer some sort of universal health care plan. Most are through compulsory but government-subsidized public insurance plans, such as the UK's National Health Service. Some countries that have socialized and ostensibly universal health care systems but do not actually apply them universally, for example in poverty- and corruption-rife states in Africa or Latin America, are not counted.
What's astonishing is how cleanly the green and grey separate the developed nations from the developing, almost categorically. Nearly the entire developed world is colored, from Europe to the Asian powerhouses to South America's southern cone to the Anglophone states of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The only developed outliers are a few still-troubled Balkan states, the Soviet-style autocracy of Belarus, and the U.S. of A., the richest nation in the world.
The handful of developing countries that provide universal access to health care include oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Oman, Latin success story Costa Rica, Kyrgyzstan, and, famously, Cuba, among a few others. A number of countries have attempted universal health care but failed, such as South Africa, which maintains a notoriously inefficient and troubled public plan to complement the private plans popular among middle- and upper-class citizens.
None of this is to downplay the importance of today's Supreme Court ruling for supporters of the U.S. effort to expand health care coverage, nor to argue that U.S. health care is equivalent to that in, say, Egypt or Belarus. It's precisely because the quality of U.S. health care is so high that makes this map interesting.
That brings us to another way that America is a big outlier on health care. The grey countries on this map tend to spend significantly less per capita on health care than do the green countries -- except for the U.S., where the government spends way more on health care per person than do most countries with free, universal health care. This is also true of health care costs as a share of national GDP -- in other words, how much of a country's money goes into health care.
"The overall level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government) spending on health per capita is still greater than in all other OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries, except Norway and the Netherlands," according to a recent OECD report, which covers most of the developed world.
....
Originally posted by finneganwow, just wow, its like a third world country healthcare wise.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/
You need to see the map by using this link as I cannot reproduce it here for you. Otherwise the following information might possibly help inform this debate.
[quote]As excited as American liberals a ...[text shortened]... he USA is in good company with Belarus and the Balkans. Well done and God bless (help) America.
Originally posted by whodeyits irrelevant because the act is law and you are still bitchin about the president
Why is it irrelevant?
So it is irrelevant that millions lost their health care due to the ACA. Check.
It is irrelevant that more people pay more for the health coverage that covers less. Check.
It is irrelevant that the said legislation has further divided America politically. Check.
It is irrelevant that there are any flaws that cause people ...[text shortened]... r you support that stuff. In fact, why are you even talking to me since I'm irrelevant as well?
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo be honest, Robbie, I think you are making an error that is still very common and that is to project onto Obama qualities that he does not in fact possess. He was selected as the Democratic candidate because he was acceptable to the power brokers and the money brokers who control the process. He was acceptable because he was the LEAST progressive and the LEAST radical of the available candidates. Obama has a massive mandate for change and he is not delivering the change people imagined. Partly that is because the post of president is far less powerful than people may imagine. Partly it is because he, personally, has no desire to deliver the types of change that people need. Obama is not different. He is just more of the same.
its irrelevant because the act is law and you are still bitchin about the president
So what is Obamacare? It is a system that passes stupid amounts of public money through private sector insurers and what comes out the other end is business profits and administrative overhead costs. Because of its weaknesses and flaws, Obamacare may well set back by yet another decade or three any hopes for an intelligent and affordable system of universal health care in the US.
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganPerhaps you are correct however it appears to me that the issue is far more complicated than simply the President being unable or unwilling to deliver. American hospitals were closing at an unprecedented rate. The American system historically has been a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sector, it was unsustainable. So you are faced with these issues what do you do?
To be honest, Robbie, I think you are making an error that is still very common and that is to project onto Obama qualities that he does not in fact possess. He was selected as the Democratic candidate because he was acceptable to the power brokers and the money brokers who control the process. He was acceptable because he was the LEAST progressive and the ...[text shortened]... or three any hopes for an intelligent and affordable system of universal health care in the US.
I simply dont understand why they did not expand medicare. Perhaps it was not financially viable, perhaps it was political opposition, but either way, the situation was unsustainable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI lose patience with all this realpolitik or whatever we are supposed to call it. America has a decent level of support for socialist policies as evidenced by the popularity of Senator Bernie Saunders.
Perhaps you are correct however it appears to me that the issue is far more complicated than simply the President being unable or unwilling to deliver. American hospitals were closing at an unprecedented rate. The American system historically has been a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sector, it was unsustainable. So you are ...[text shortened]... ly viable, perhaps it was political opposition, but either way, the situation was unsustainable.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/10/senator-bernie-sanders-an-american-icon/
Whether that support is yet large enough to gain control is not going to be discovered until the electorate is offered the choice. In the meanwhile, the neoliberal agenda is not only harming the American people but also infecting our own democracy to a growing and dangerous extent.
And whatever its merits, Obamacare is not universal healthcare and that is shameful.
The logic is becoming overwhelming and it will have to happen at some point - the neoliberal poison has to be sucked out of politics.
Originally posted by WajomaThe proof lies in the bill. Part of ACA was the funding to hire 1500 additional armed IRS agents. To convince, force, or help people to conform, whether or not they liked it.
Ahhh, you see, now we're getting at the truth, here's bills' superiority complex on display.
You see that, bill thinks people that disagree with him don't know best how to run their own lives, bill cannot convince people with reason and because that fails he must use force and threats of force to bend and shape his inferiors.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Constitution of the United State granted the federal government certain powers. Running health care wasn't one of them, and forcing people to buy products wasn't either.
because they are part of the union and should be made to comply with the wishes of the people of the United states of America. Yes watching the Tea Party was like watching southern baptist faith healers dancing with snakes, crazeeeeeeee!
Originally posted by JS357If everyone was allowed to opt out of ACA there would be no ACA. It's another case of "if bullfrogs had wings......"
So if everyone was allowed to opt out of the ACA and this was shown to be a threat to the public health, then you would support the government mandate?
PS: What healthcare system do you belong to now?