Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on March 22, 2010 By Draginol In Politics

People tend to project their hopes and dreams onto things based on their name.

They hear “health care reform” and they see their ideological allies supporting it and they assume it does all kinds of magical things.

For those of you glad that the bill passed, be aware that what was passed resembles nothing like what is in Europe or Canada. 

Here’s what it does (you can read the details at CBS News):

1. It “provides” insurance to 30 million Americans. How does it do this? They made it illegal not to buy insurance. Voila.  Seriously. That’s how they did it. If you don’t, you’re fined $695 annually.

2. They make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. So the person with basic math skills who figures out that $695 annually is a lot less than $6,000 annually ($500 X 12 months) can wait until they get pregnant, diagnosed with diabetes or gets into an accident and THEN buy insurance.  Thus the cost will go far up.

3. They provide subsidies to make insurance cheaper. In theory.  Since the insurance companies are barely regulated monopolies per state who now know they everyone has to buy insurance, they can raise rates (this is what happened with car insurance when it became mandatory).

The right-wingers are going crazy about it because it socializes health-care.  The left-wingers are currently happy because they don’t realize just how much they got screwed. If/when this program starts to get implemented, I think they’ll start to realize how badly they got screwed.

People on the Internet who are from overseas tend to have no real understanding of America’s healthcare system. They don’t realize that the poor already get medical coverage for free (Medicaid) and that the elderly already get medical coverage (Medicare). 

So in effect, all this bill really does is make it illegal to not have insurance. 

Maybe they should use the same system to eliminate poverty. Just make it illegal to be poor.


Comments (Page 6)
11 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Mar 24, 2010

That is why car insurance was made mandatory because people could not afford or refused to pay for the other persons pain and suffering and were probably sued in order to get something out of them.

So they went to court. That's what they can continue to do.

on Mar 24, 2010

One man's news report is another man's propaganda.

How easily some forget (or never knew) the reason our founders put so much effort into protecting freedom of the press.  Certainly, the sycophantic press is clueless.

on Mar 24, 2010

So they went to court. That's what they can continue to do.

Yea and he with enough money can afford a better lawyer and get away with the crime. The insurance allows for those who get hit to at the least have the car paid for if it's new and a total loss. The car insurance will also pay for medical needs.

Again, so you can finally get it, health insurance is meant to help the person who owns the insrance, car insurance is meant to pay for the person that gets hit.

on Mar 24, 2010

I (and all US citizens) will be required to have health insurance, even if we never leave our homes or private property.

Well, last time I checked, you won't be treated in your private home for cancer.

Nice of you to take my comment out of context in it's comparison with auto insurance. I guess no body will be driving on chemo either (yeah that's how idiotic your comment sounds when you play quote part of a statement, to take a cheap shot).

on Mar 24, 2010

How easily some forget (or never knew) the reason our founders put so much effort into protecting freedom of the press. Certainly, the sycophantic press is clueless.

There is *still* freedom of the press. Up to a point, off course. I mean, except for the government-owned news media (is there any in the USA?), they have to answer to their owners, which might be partisans.

on Mar 24, 2010

It appears you fall into the 'never knew' category, Ciko, but no time for edumication just now.

on Mar 24, 2010

It appears you fall into the 'never knew' category

May I know what you mean by that?

on Mar 25, 2010

Cikomyr,

Perhaps to clear things up...

I am all for forced health insurance for everyone. But I don't think it has anything in common with "forced" car insurance. You really really don't have to drive. And if you do, you do create a risk for others.

But you do have to live.

However, and that's the problem with the healthcare bill, if the fines are much lower than the price of health insurance, people still won't get insurance until they face medical bills. That's against the solidarity principle. It's also a type of fraud. And if insurance companies can only act within state borders, there won't be much competition and hence a legal duty to buy insurance will drive prices up. It will essentially be a government-mandated monopoly. Plus I don't see how the federal government even has authority over health insurers if they don't trade over state borders.

 

on Mar 25, 2010

Cikomyr
Or, you know, be a cranial enema to the republicans (Fox News) or free to be objective (the rest of news media).

YOU claim that Fox News is objective. But it's an opinion far from making unanimity.

How do you establish objectivity beyond a doubt?

YOcannot.  NOr is it even possible.  Everyone has biases, and it shows in how they do their work.  It is especially apparent with media outlets.  As I said, I really do not want anyone to "do" anything about it.  What I would like to see is some honesty however.  Tell us "we are bioased".  Most people can see it anyway, but to pretend impartiality is to just lie.  Which is what most are doing.

As for Fox, their news is very straight forward.  What you contend that is "far from unanimity" is actually about their commentary.  Which is very conservative (I would not even say pro-republican, just a meeting of the minds as they are often the same).  We Expect commentary to be biased, and most commentators are very honest in that regard.  However the news people are some of the most dishonest in that regard.

on Mar 25, 2010

Cikomyr
There is *still* freedom of the press. Up to a point, off course. I mean, except for the government-owned news media (is there any in the USA?), they have to answer to their owners, which might be partisans.

NPR - they "claim" not to be, but when your pay check has uncle sam's signature on it, you are their mouth piece like it or not.

 

on Mar 25, 2010

NPR - they "claim" not to be, but when your pay check has uncle sam's signature on it, you are their mouth piece like it or not.

The BBC somehow managed to have a very left-wing bias in its news and sometimes a right-wing bias in its entertainment.

on Mar 25, 2010

NPR - they "claim" not to be, but when your pay check has uncle sam's signature on it, you are their mouth piece like it or not.

Funny. Here, Radio-Canada is probably one of the most objective news media. Every time the government tries to influence them for X or Y, there is quite a bit of outrage about it, as they are purposed to be independant.

I think trusting the state to have government-funded competition to the private sector makes the public more likely to actually have it be neutral. I don't know.. maybe if the people don't have a cynic mindset about their government, they won't accept any interference on their part. While in the USA, you.. well, I think your commentary speaks for itself.

on Mar 25, 2010

Funny. Here, Radio-Canada is probably one of the most objective news media.

How would you measure that?

 

Every time the government tries to influence them for X or Y, there is quite a bit of outrage about it, as they are purposed to be independant.

Yes, Minister explains that. In Commonwealth countries public networks are loyal to the civil service, not the elected government.

 

on Mar 25, 2010

They made it illegal not to buy insurance. Voila.  Seriously. That’s how they did it. If you don’t, you’re fined $695 annually.

I'm not sure I get this.

Didn't they say that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't (rather than wouldn't) get it?

How will fining those people help?

(Unless of course it was a lie that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't get it.)

 

on Mar 25, 2010

How will fining those people help?

(Unless of course it was a lie that the reason people didn't have health insurance was because they couldn't get it.)

Now you're seeing beyond the mist!

11 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last