Health care in America.

[Wio]

So, if a majority of americans think that killing and raping should be decriminalized, that is acting in the best interst of the people?

Wait, does this really need to be asked? If you hypothetically have a majority of citizens who wish that rape and murder not be considered a crime, isn't it OBVIOUS that the government shouldn't criminalize it?

Why should a government, that is supposed to be for the people, arbitrarily force values on its people? That makes no sense. If you really think that everyone is morally backwards, then you should try to persuade the people directly through that thing called "free speech". If you try to get a government to WORK the people into fitting your ideals, then what you have is a body, controlled by a self righteous elite, which attempts to mold the people as the elite desires. It's far different than a body which attempts to represent the people.

[chaotic.rune]

it's perfect now. it shouldn't be like the way communists does it... or the poor's doomed

[Skylar1]

it's perfect now. it shouldn't be like the way communists does it... or the poor's doomed

Communisim, in it's theory, is designed to work best for the poor and lower middle classes. So what you just said didn't make sense.

?

[Forgotten Show]

Wait, does this really need to be asked? If you hypothetically have a majority of citizens who wish that rape and murder not be considered a crime, isn't it OBVIOUS that the government shouldn't criminalize it?

Why should a government, that is supposed to be for the people, arbitrarily force values on its people? That makes no sense. If you really think that everyone is morally backwards, then you should try to persuade the people directly through that thing called "free speech". If you try to get a government to WORK the people into fitting your ideals, then what you have is a body, controlled by a self righteous elite, which attempts to mold the people as the elite desires. It's far different than a body which attempts to represent the people.

Wise beyond your years and are absolutely correct that the government is supposed to be for the people. However, a point of clarification must be made: the duty of OUR government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Gang rape can be justified morally with utilitarianism and legally with democracy, but that does not make it right, ever.

Our government's purpose is not only to represent the peoples of each of its member states/counties/municipalities as accurately as possible, but to always do so with the understanding that we are a nation based upon individual liberties. Potential infringements upon individual liberties absolutely must be weighed and thoroughly understood. Strictly speaking, we handle that by authorizing our government only a limited number of powers, as delineated in our national and state constitutions. If it's not a power defined in said constitutions, it is not a power lawfully possessed by the government body. For better or worse, that is the law of this land. (I am of the opinion that it is for the better; given how poorly our current governing officials understand this, I'd rather not think of how they may behave without such restrictions).


Bad Memory

[Middy]

Wait, does this really need to be asked? If you hypothetically have a majority of citizens who wish that rape and murder not be considered a crime, isn't it OBVIOUS that the government shouldn't criminalize it?

Why should a government, that is supposed to be for the people, arbitrarily force values on its people? That makes no sense. If you really think that everyone is morally backwards, then you should try to persuade the people directly through that thing called "free speech". If you try to get a government to WORK the people into fitting your ideals, then what you have is a body, controlled by a self righteous elite, which attempts to mold the people as the elite desires. It's far different than a body which attempts to represent the people.

Majority Rule
Minority Right.

[Wio]

Wise beyond your years and are absolutely correct that the government is supposed to be for the people. However, a point of clarification must be made: the duty of OUR government is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Gang rape can be justified morally with utilitarianism and legally with democracy, but that does not make it right, ever.

You have to keep in mind that such is OUR value. It's also a popular value amongst known civilized nations. However we're not speaking about us or such nations, we speak of a hypothetical nation which does not share such a value. Are we to force our value upon them through their government, or are we persuade them otherwise and let them decide for themselves? I say that the former is disgusting method, which will lead to a more disgusting end.

I'd also like to note that when a government disregards the "tyranny" of the majority it consequentially is adhering to the tyranny of the minority. There is a dichotomy here. I hate this line because ultimately it justifies a government ignoring its people.

Our government's purpose is not only to represent the peoples of each of its member states/counties/municipalities as accurately as possible, but to always do so with the understanding that we are a nation based upon individual liberties. Potential infringements upon individual liberties absolutely must be weighed and thoroughly understood. Strictly speaking, we handle that by authorizing our government only a limited number of powers, as delineated in our national and state constitutions. If it's not a power defined in said constitutions, it is not a power lawfully possessed by the government body. For better or worse, that is the law of this land. (I am of the opinion that it is for the better; given how poorly our current governing officials understand this, I'd rather not think of how they may behave without such restrictions).

I'm am under the belief that those individual liberties were created by the majority out of fear, at the very least, of the GOVERNMENT (a minority) though perhaps in addition to a fear of a potential tyrannical majority.

[Forgotten Show]

Yes, I did address our values, specifically.

Bear in mind that protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority does not necessarily means ignoring the majority in favor of the minority. It simply means that no group of people, however large or small in number, have the right to infringe unjustly upon the rights of others, no matter how large or small in number. Our government (and justice system) are set up to protect the rights of everyone, no matter how many people might want to infringe upon the rights of one or several individuals. Doesn't always work, but that's how it was designed.

The government is supposed to be that entity which protects the rights of individuals, but yes, people did fear it when they made it. That's why they put limits on what it can do. "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."


Bad Memor

[Wio]

Yes, I did address our values, specifically.

Bear in mind that protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority does not necessarily means ignoring the majority in favor of the minority. It simply means that no group of people, however large or small in number, have the right to infringe unjustly upon the rights of others, no matter how large or small in number. Our government (and justice system) are set up to protect the rights of everyone, no matter how many people might want to infringe upon the rights of one or several individuals. Doesn't always work, but that's how it was designed.

The government is supposed to be that entity which protects the rights of individuals, but yes, people did fear it when they made it. That's why they put limits on what it can do. "Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."


Bad Memor

I think we're getting off track here. All I was originally saying is that a government should be accountable to its people, even to the point of decriminalizing rape and murder if that was in the interest of the majority.

In reality, that's very unlikely. Why? Because majorities tend to be reasonable. It is not as easy to convince a huge group of people into believing a radical ideology.

On the other hand, minorities absolutely tyrannize the majority and do it often. People then try to justify it by preaching of the tyranny of the majority.

[Simon Phoenix]

in the 1800's i guarantee 90 percent of americans were against ending slavery but it was done anyway because there are freedoms guaranteed no matter what, i find it funny that the republicans who scream to much govt and don't take my freedom try to get gay marriage banned,isn't that to much govt power and freedom infringement?now the republicans are fighting to stop regulation, the very thing that if implemented probably would have stopped the financial collapse.republicans believe in trickle down, give more money to rich people and every one will be ok, i cannot find and instance in which that worked though,and if your a good god fearing bible toting christian conservitive,when it comes to the universial health care question all you have to ask yourself is What Would Jesus Do.....rmember the same people who do not want universial healthcare are the same people who love there christianity so much, wouldn't jesus be in favor of universial health care?but people only use religion to there advantage, Gay marriage is the biggest sin to the christian conservative even though it's not in the 10 commandments or 7 deadly sins but gluttony and envy are....

[BurntHouse]

Being an "non-american" and not one for reading the news all that often...

Can someone send a link, or please explain what sort of healthcare bill was passed? I'm getting mixed stories by reading this thread.

PS: explain the bill... don't mix your opinions into it or else I probably won't take the explanation seriously.

[Cobra Commander]

Long post

I think a solution to a lot of that is simple, but since Congress makes their own salary, it'll never happen. I'm talking about the two faced politicians, the pandering to extreme bases, the general slacking off....Democrats and Republicans both sat on the committees charged with oversight of the housing markets, and no one made a sound.

The solution is to make it so that being a politician isn't a lucrative career. They shouldn't get infinite terms. They shouldn't get to vote their own pay increases. Their pay should be capped, in fact it should be reduced because it's a burden on the tax payers. No elected official should make more than $75000 a year. That's what a San Francisco cop starts out at. It's cheaper to live in DC than in SF, so that's plenty. They don't need to live opulent jet setter lifestyles [Here's looking at you, Plastic Face Pelosi, flying home on a whim because you can't bear to have your family live in Washington]. If they want to be rich, they're really in the wrong business.

And of course, they should all be under scrutiny to ensure they're not lining their pockets in the back room.

[Kaitou Ace]

Actually most politicians are already rich when they get elected. The reason for that is that it takes a lot of personal money to start a campaign, and to get rich donors, well the first donors are your friends, and to get into that circle, you have to come from money yourself.

Just take a look at all the politicians, almost without exception they already had personal wealth before running for office. Changing the salaries won't really do all that much.

The NY Mayor, Bloomberg is actually refusing to draw a salary, and is only taking $1/year, but again, he can afford it. Nancy Pelosi is personally rich herself, and one of the richest members of Congress, she can easily pay for those flights out of pocket, and her salary doesn't affect it much one way or another.

So they aren't in the political business to be rich, they are in the political business because they are rich.

[Kaitou Ace]

And a separate post, because I want to address the HCR bill that was signed earlier, this is what the bill actually does:

things that happen now:

• Other then fraud, insurance companies are prohibited from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits are prohibited, and yearly limits are to be highly regulated.
  
• Insurers are prohibited from excluding children from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
  
• Children will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are 26 (current plans drop them either ate 19 or at graduation from college)
  
• A temporary program is set up to handle Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions. This program will expire in 2014 when insurance exchanges start operating.
  
• A temporary reinsurance program is set up to help companies insure early retirees between 55 and 64 years of age. This also expires in 2014.
  
• Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" get a $250 rebate (a gap in Medicare coverage that stops payments after $2,700 is spent, and starts it again at $6,154, created by the Bush Medicare part D bill). The gap itself is also closed by the bill.
  
• A tax credit for some small businesses is created to help pay for health insurance.
  
• A 10% tax on indoor tanning services that use UV lamps is created.

things that happen in 2011:

• Medicare provides 10% bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
  
• Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services at little to no patient cost.
  
• A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that would otherwise require institutional care.
  
• Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage is frozen at 2010 levels. These are to be gradually reduced to bring them in line with traditional Medicare.
  
• Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on W-2 forms.
  
• An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee doesn't apply to companies with sales of under $5 million.
  

things that happen in 2012:

• Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
  
• An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
  
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.
  

things that happen in 2013:

• A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.
• The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.
  
• The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.
  
• A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.
  

things that happen in 2014:

• State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open. These give individuals larger buying power, and access to plans with lower costs.
  
• Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a tax if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400% of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.
  
• Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
  
• Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
  
• Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

things that happen in 2015:

• Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

things that happen in 2018:

• An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.

[Skylar1]

Actually most politicians are already rich when they get elected. The reason for that is that it takes a lot of personal money to start a campaign, and to get rich donors, well the first donors are your friends, and to get into that circle, you have to come from money yourself.

Just take a look at all the politicians, almost without exception they already had personal wealth before running for office. Changing the salaries won't really do all that much.

The NY Mayor, Bloomberg is actually refusing to draw a salary, and is only taking $1/year, but again, he can afford it. Nancy Pelosi is personally rich herself, and one of the richest members of Congress, she can easily pay for those flights out of pocket, and her salary doesn't affect it much one way or another.

So they aren't in the political business to be rich, they are in the political business because they are rich.

To which, is only a reinforcement to my rhetoric that Democracy is nothing more than a glorified Plutocracy.

[Cobra Commander]

So they aren't in the political business to be rich, they are in the political business because they are rich.

I have a problem with that as well, but no solutions to propose, other than to make me dictator.

[Kaitou Ace]

I don't think there is an easy solution unless we switch from elected lawmakers to drafted ones, like jury members, or forbid all campaign donations and split a city/state/federal fund between everyone running for a seat with x amount of signatures. Neither of which is overly workable, and both of which present significant hurdles anyway.

Decreasing the salary too far will only increase the hurdles for someone of middle class, and to the point made earlier, you -want- your representatives to stay local, not move to DC completely, so holding two residences is to be encouraged, again something not possible unless you already have a significant cash flow.

[Cobra Commander]

That's a good point about two residences, I hadn't thought of that. Remaining close to home keeps one in touch with their constituency. I suppose that could be how Perry, who kind of looks like a mafia boss and says inflammatory things, managed to win the primary against our Senator. Maybe she was just out of touch with what the people in this state want? The only real difference between the two is their stance on abortion, but only a fool would take a positive stance on it before a general election...speaking for Texas only here.

[Acnologia]

Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

I like this one the most. Too often people rush and abuse patients just for money.