18 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

In his divine glory, our saviour and Imperious Leader George W. Bush vetoed another health bill providing free health care to children who would not otherwise be covered, thus proving that his personal crusade in Iraq is far more important than the American people; you know, the people he was sworn to protect and such?
Reuters has the story:
http://www.reuters.c...T00804920071213
The gist of it? Health insurance would have been provided to about ten million children in low and moderate income families at the cost of slightly increased cigarette and tobacco taxes. It's aimed at providing people who are "too rich" to qualify for Medicaid, and too poor to get health insurance through one of the major companies, some measure of protection against the corporatized American system. The Fuehrer, however, has better plans for this money.

The cost of this program, to provide free health care to ten million needy, sick children, is $35 billion. $60 billion if you count the meager funds already there, but yeah, just about $35 billion. The House just authorized $696 billion in military programs (That's $696 billion ON TOP of the annual Defence Department budget, by the way), including an, wait for it... additional $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! For a nation which spends significantly more money per capita than Canada on health care ($6,096 vs. $3,173; 15.4% vs. 9.8% of GDP; statistics from the World Health Organization), it seems rather... impressive, that we don't even have health care for the poor, let alone universal health care.

Of course, our Great Leader could always cancel the illegal war he coerced people into. Ah, that's another one that people seem to have missed.

US President George W. Bush threatened nations with retaliation if they did not vote for a UN resolution backing the Iraq war, according to a transcript published Wednesday of a conversation he had with former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.

In the transcript of a meeting on February 22, 2003 -- a month before the US-led invasion of Iraq -- published in El Pais newspaper, Bush tells Aznar that nations such as Mexico, Angola, Chile and Cameroon must know that the security of the United States is at stake.

He says during the meeting on his ranch in Texas that Angola stood to lose financial aid while Chile could see a free trade agreement held up in the US Senate if they did not back the resolution, the left-wing paper said.

The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States at the time, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

The White House did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript, with national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe declining to comment.

http://afp.google.co...7btDtgfbe2NGt8Q

You know, for once, it would be nice if people realized that the worst president ever (By opinion polls) is simultaneously screwing the poor, extorting and threatening other countries, and getting innocent Americans and Iraqis killed on a day to day basis, but I imagine that's too much to ask these days.

[Soul]

*faceplam*
Bush is an even bigger fool then I realized and he's a big jerk to boot.

[Blodo]

You would think that this guy would finally get court marshalled after his fair count of war crimes and policing the entire world under the threat of military intervention and/or economic backlash.

Not in modern America he won't.

[Aro]

*faceplam*
Bush is an even bigger fool then I realized and he's a big jerk to boot.

QFT!

[Hostile]

Funny it's not mentioned here that the maximum income level to recieve these benefits was $80,000/year. If you consider that poor people than I'd love to have your paycheck. This wasn't denying poor people healthcare. Poor people get healthcare for free in the US. This was denying the first step towards a national health care system.

Funny how when you present some facts that the picture changes abit doesn't it?

You know, for once, it would be nice if people realized that the worst president ever (By opinion polls) is simultaneously screwing the poor, extorting and threatening other countries, and getting innocent Americans and Iraqis killed on a day to day basis, but I imagine that's too much to ask these days.

People thought the same thing about Reagan when he was in office, now he's an american hero. Let history determine that.

Screwing the poor? See my opening statements.

extorting and threatening other nations? Gee, you mean the same thing every nation has done since the creation of the nation state?!

getting innocent americans killed? It's a volunteer army. Of course thier innocent. Glad to see even you admit that fact.

getting innocent iraqis killed? That would be the insurgents, terrorists, and death squads doing that, not George Bush or the american army.

[duke_Qa]

would it bad with a public healthcare system in the US? as Spencer said, you are spending more tax-money on healthcare than canada per capita, but still don't have a public healthcare system. doesn't that mean that somewhere there is a major leak of monetary funds? 80k maximum? sounds more like someone who knew a guy got a bit of a favor, but at the same time his income got stored in the databases. i somehow doubt that everyone who had the opportunity to get that had a average income up close to 80k.


Reagan a hero? for free-market supporters i can guess he is a good example. not that the free-market idea is having a easy time these days.


yeah, theres very few nations who won't talk shit if something is not going in their direction. its a question if you accept that your nation has to go down to such standards to get their will.


war is a problem. war is always illegal in my opinion, but there was never declared a war in this case, because "that would go against human rights"

but i think that occupation at this moment in time is better than leaving the country to be occupied by new forces. the best the US can hope for is that there will be a new dictatorship supporting them. they can't expect a democracy because then the islamists will automatically win. why would they win? because the middle-east is pissed off at the US, and they are the ones who are against them. kinda ironic though, the western world hoping for a dictatorship rather than a new Iran. life is grand.

[Hostile]

would it bad with a public healthcare system in the US? as Spencer said, you are spending more tax-money on healthcare than canada per capita, but still don't have a public healthcare system. doesn't that mean that somewhere there is a major leak of monetary funds? 80k maximum? sounds more like someone who knew a guy got a bit of a favor, but at the same time his income got stored in the databases. i somehow doubt that everyone who had the opportunity to get that had a average income up close to 80k.

We don't want a public health care system. We already have a system for people who can't afford it, it's called Medicare. See the US has the most advanced medicine in the world for it's general public because of a commercial health care system. One hospitol gets new equipment so they can provide services other hospitols can't, so they can gain patients.

This competition leads to more hospitols having more advanced equiptment. Setting prices for service through a public health care system stifles that.

If I need to get an advanced MRI, I can go to my local hospitol and be sure I know they have the equipment. My insurance pays for it and my company pays for the insurance.

Why would I change that system? Why move the burden of paying for my insurance from corporate america to tax payers. It makes no sense. Corporate is already used to paying for it, let them keep paying for it.

IF there is a gap with people not being able to pay for insurance because of being self employed for example, than have a government plan and let them CHOOSE to use it. Don't force the entire freakin nation to accept it when we don't need it.

[Solinx]

We don't want a public health care system

Who is the "we" if Bush needed to use a veto?

We already have a system for people who can't afford it, it's called Medicare.

The "Medicare Eligibility Tool" page on Medicare.gov states the following:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance program, which covers nearly 40 million Americans. Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people 65 years of age and older, some disabled people under 65 years of age, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

I don't know much about Medicare, and I might overlook something here, but I don't see that including poor people.

See the US has the most advanced medicine in the world for it's general public because of a commercial health care system.

First time I hear that tbh. Technological advanced equipment doesn't equal to a good health system for the general public.

Commercial competition can lead to a decrease of quality. Further, it can cause a stop to finding a cure for illnesses when it becomes apparent there is little chance of getting a return on investment.

If I need to get an advanced MRI, I can go to my local hospitol and be sure I know they have the equiptment.

I can testify the same applies here.

My insurance pays for it and my company pays for the insurance.

And then came the situation where you were unemployed...
Related to this is the patient who has a high chance of costing more than he can or will pay in ensurance fees. (And doesn't fit the Medicare requirement of being disabled under 65 years)

If there is some arrangement for these groups as well, I guess you're right about things being covered pretty well.

Funny it's not mentioned here that the maximum income level to recieve these benefits was $80,000/year. If you consider that poor people than I'd love to have your paycheck.

This was about poor and moderate. $ 80.000 a year is about the top of moderate, is it not?

For a nation which spends significantly more money per capita than Canada on health care ($6,096 vs. $3,173; 15.4% vs. 9.8% of GDP; statistics from the World Health Organization),...

Might be somewhat related to the higher rate of violence or firearm involving accidents.

getting innocent iraqis killed? That would be the insurgents, terrorists, and death squads doing that, not George Bush or the american army.

ie. you believe there is no single person who died from collateral damage done by Americans directly? I take it you also don't consider the American army to have killed innocent iraqis indirectly, simply by being present in Iraq and stirring up a great mess?

Edit: My bad...

IF there is a gap with people not being able to pay for insurance because of being self employed for example, than have a government plan and let them CHOOSE to use it. Don't force the entire freakin nation to accept it when we don't need it.

That would cover things.

Solinx

[Hostile]

There is a version of Medicare that covers poor people, I don't know the program name is and don't have time to research it at the moment.

And if you get an MRI great. I'm not trying to change YOUR healthcare system.

And also yes civilian casualties did occur.

[Solinx]

There is a version of Medicare that covers poor people

We both missed it in MSpencers initial post: The service you meant is Medicaid.

However, the new bill is ...

... aimed at providing people who are "too rich" to qualify for Medicaid, and too poor to get health insurance through one of the major companies, some measure of protection against the corporatized American system.

Which funnily enough pretty much means you agree with, or at least won't mind, the goal of the bill:

IF there is a gap with people not being able to pay for insurance because of being self employed for example, than have a government plan and let them CHOOSE to use it. Don't force the entire freakin nation to accept it when we don't need it.

I'm not trying to change YOUR healthcare system.

Neither am I trying to change yours. Heh, it would be near impossible for me to do anyway, so why bother? You didn't answer my first question tho...

We don't want a public health care system

Who is the "we" if Bush needed to use a veto?

If the American people wouldn't have wanted the bill, the veto wouldn't be needed. Or am I expecting too much from democracy there?

And I do support you in retaining the choice to have insurance arranged through the corporation you work for.

Solinx

[Hostile]

American people cannot directly vote on a consensus basis. If they vote for Hillary Clinton, than I suppose that's a consensus. While I agree for poor people, I don't consider the people included poor by any means.

[Mastermind]

I'm not trying to change YOUR healthcare system.

Neither am I trying to change yours. Heh, it would be near impossible for me to do anyway, so why bother? You didn't answer my first question tho...

We don't want a public health care system

Who is the "we" if Bush needed to use a veto?

If the American people wouldn't have wanted the bill, the veto wouldn't be needed. Or am I expecting too much from democracy there?

And I do support you in retaining the choice to have insurance arranged through the corporation you work for.

Solinx

See, you're assuming that the people who we elect actually care about the people that they're supposed to be serving. As things like the DMCA, the PRO-IP act, and all sorts of other things that serve only to harm consumers, it's rather obvious who's doing the driving, and it isn't the people who do the voting.

[Solinx]

Indeed.

Solinx

[CIL]

Funny it's not mentioned here that the maximum income level to recieve these benefits was $80,000/year. If you consider that poor people than I'd love to have your paycheck. This wasn't denying poor people healthcare. Poor people get healthcare for free in the US. This was denying the first step towards a national health care system.

I'm sorry, but if you really lack the ability to see how someone who makes $80,000 a year, or MORE in my mom's case, and can hardly afford health insurance, LET ALONE nice luxuries, then you need to rethink your life.

My mom makes at least $110k a year and is up to her neck in debt because of a divorce, foul landlords (as we had to sell our house and put all the $1.5 MILLION into settling debts [which still aren't paid off]), a manipulative husband and in-laws, and an overpriced attorney. When I'm at her house, I have to disable the fax machine to make a phone call because bill collectors call every 2 minutes, literally, every 2 minutes. My mom works 15 HOUR SHIFTS and can hardly afford groceries. My cell phone is years old. I need a new cello as someone decided to go up and scratch it when I was playing for tips that woud FEED MY FAMILY. My desk is old and dented and cheap. We eat dinner at a picknick table that we have had for 9 years and that was by my basketball court at my old house as our dining set was reposessed. We had to sell our boat for waterskiing. Our car is a 2002 Nissan X-Tera because our Range Rover was repoed. I need a new back pack for school. I've had to use the same binder 2 years in a row. I had to quit my private school for the talented and go back into a public school (those schools aren't cheap, you know). And, a reminder, my mom is in the $80k+/yr range. The typical Republican response would probably be this: ,"It's her fault." You all say that until it happens to you. My mom was hardcore right-wing until I came along and opened her eyes to her former party's dirty politics. At least the liberals like myself try to get healthcare for those in need it. Her job offers healthcare and insurance and what not. But when my mom broke her wrist, got cancer, needed her gallbladder removed, and had a kidney infection at the same time, do you think they covered her? No. And there's my medical bills. Her insurance refuses to cover my medical bills and I'm under 18, so the plan Bush vetoed would have helped that. My medical bills right now are totaled around $75k. My mom's are around $100k. She has to pay child support to my father who only gets half time visitation with my siblings and myself, just because he has a slightly lower income than her (around $40k). My medical bills would have been covered by this bill and a large amout of my mom's current debt would have been erased if it weren't for you pathetic, self-centered, egotistical, right-wing, evil nutjobs. I hope you feel great about yourselves for letting yet another American family get clobbered by healthcare and insurance.

Much offense meant to people who opposed bills that would help people pay for their children's medical bills if they can't afford it. Stuff like this bears testamony that Canada has a better health care system than here in the U.S. It's only the best if you can afford it. Even then, France and Canada still have a better health care system.

My concusion is that people with higher incomes still need this. The government should take care while analyzing who it gives the benefits to. If this bill had passed, most of my family's remaining debt would have been taken care of. But now, my mom has sold all of her jewelry (given to her by my great grandmother), my traveling viola (for vacations), my brother's Wii and TV screen, sacrafice my sister's pre-k class, my family's baby grand piano, and now, I may have to give up harp lessons. And to think all of that could have been spared had Bush signed the bill into debt. That shows how a middle-upper class family can go from living the good life to near dirt poor and giving the paychecks out the moment you get them.

P.S. Bush bears testamony as to how a retarded man can make it big in the U.S. as well as how badly we follow stuff such as the Geneva Convention

Edited by Crazy Intellectual Liberal, 17 June 2008 - 04:23 AM.

[Soul]

Wow, I seriously feel sorry for you .

[CIL]

I am only trying to show what the Bush presidency could have done to help my family. Losses on this scale are somewhat uncommon. They do happen though. My life was great. And my car? My mom is having to pay for loans she had to take out for our medical care and can't get AC put in it. And it's expected to be 107 degrees Farenheit tomorrow. Bush's denial of healthcare for people like me really hurts families. I also heard of a family that was like mine but without all the legal crap. Well, they had twins, one of them died early due to a severe heart defect and had medical bills of over $700k. The parents live on the street now.

[Soul]

The US is in serious need of change.

[Vortigern]

There is no perfect system, it seems. In the UK we have the National Health Service, which covers everything, pretty much, but has a number of serious shortcomings, added to which the it relies solely on government funding, which is often not forthcoming, at least not in the necessary quantities. I can't remember the exact figure, but about three hours ago Gordon Brown got a new bill passed which states that terror suspects can be held for 42 days without charge. In order to wangle this around popular opinion, he has said that suspects held beyond the old limit of 28 days and not charged will be paid £3000 compensation for each day beyond 28. This is £3000 per day that the government does not have, and, should it find it from somewhere, needs to spend on something that's actually worth having. Such as healthcare.

My grandfather had to wait nearly 3 years for a hip replacement, and for nearly 2 of those years was almost confined to a wheelchair. He had the option to use private healthcare, which would have significantly shortened his waiting time, but he could not afford it, as he is a pensioner and has no serious income. When you consider that the NHS also spends money on ridiculous, pointless things this seems even more poignant. For example, there is currently a patient in an NHS hospital who will very likely die within six months, but will for that time live in crippling agony, so is being kept unconscious and constantly sedated until he dies, at the cost of around £50k per day. Smooth, huh?

The USA hasn't got it all wrong, you know. But they ought to provide for those who cannot afford it. Crazy Intellectual Liberal, I really do feel sorry for you. Your country has let you down.

[CIL]

Which is why we need to raise taxes for those that make over $1000k a year, maybe to 50% of their income being taxed (but make it so that jobs that are supposed to have less of an income stay that way). Why should the common American be afraid of having to go to the hospital and get their kids treatment they need it? Universal healthcare would be a great step forward for the U.S. but... With all the nutsy conservatives that ruin this country with their very presence (no, it was not founded on "Christian values," it was founded on Freemason values), there is no way that it will ever happen.
No offense meant to moderates who at least want some form of healthcare reform.

Edited by Crazy Intellectual Liberal, 17 June 2008 - 04:26 AM.