Poor Tomvanbern doesn't understand how governmetn budgets work. sigh...

^Doesn't understand how insurance works...

First, the same number of people are still employed to run the program, that number hasn't changed. Second with a smaller base paying into the system, that means *less* income to pay the claims. Insurance worms by spreading the risk across a large base so when someone gets cancer, it doesn't bankrupt the company. With fewer people *may* come lower claims, but all it takes is a few big claims to bankrupt the system on were 50,000 people.

Cross posted. Sorry about that.

*insurance works. Not worms...

Krellin, you might be right, since I'm not a American citizen. However, the argument against it was that millions would register (which seams anyway a problem since the system seams to have major bugs). I just don't understand this resistance against a general social insurance, any modern country has one, and there is nothing wrong with helping the weakest in your society....

"any modern country has one,"

Really? The country that developed the assembly line. The country that developed the OS you are using on the computer to browse this message board (I feel safe in saying that as odds are you are either Windows or Mac and *both* are American). We aren't modern?

I think what you meant to say was "every socialist country has one,"

And it isn't about a quasi universal healthcare. It's about the specifics of the ACA.

A social insurance has nothing to do with socialism (the idea might come from there), If you think so, the whole of Europe is a bunch of socialists.

...and...

Well no problem if one thinks so, but hey are not :-). The USA was among the industrialized nations the exemption by not having one. As a European it is difficult to understand why this was the case. Don't you think it would be a plus to help your fellow citizens, who might be not so well of, to have access to an insurance?

"I just don't understand this resistance against a general social insurance, any modern country has one, and there is nothing wrong with helping the weakest in your society.... "
I want to know why certain Americans seem hell bent on not helping the poorest members of their community, as if you can just leave them to suffer and die and believe there are no consequences, you can't build a modern democracy on a winner-takes-all mentality, it is just a ridiculous neanderthal concept that has no place in modern day civilizations. How intelligent do you have to be to understand the importance of a social safety net for the weak, the crippled, the sick, the disabled, etc, etc.
There is a sickness in Western society called obesity and it stems from greed, wanting and having more than you need.
This is a philosophy of the weak and ignorant and lazy, the need to consume more than is required and watch others suffer, and then convince yourself that because you are richer and fatter you are somehow superior; is it burgers you guys have been swallowing or complete bullshit, maybe a fair bit of both.

NigeeBaby, thank you for putting the 'modern country' in the right context, 'modern democracy' is the much better term and what I actually meant.

'A social insurance has nothing to do with socialism (the idea might come fromthere), If you think so, the whole of Europe is a bunch of socialists.'

Yes, socialism is a norm across europe, and it works just fine. It is a compromise between Adam Smith (a scot) and Karl Marx (a german) - a compromise which prevents the worst effects of Communism and Free Market Capitalism.

The ACA is also a compromise, attempting to have a market which offers universal health cover. It may not be perfect, but nothing is.

@Nigee, the arguments against this PARTICULAR universal healthcare plan have nothing to do with ignoring poverty. Both parties in this country desire to make life easier for those who have it rough, but they take issue with the means. Tell me, do you think it is fair to take money from one person who worked hard for it (not the extremely wealthy I am talking about the upper middle class) and then give it to someone who did nothing to earn it? The majority (not all) of the poor in this country would rather live on welfare checks and free food thanks to food stamps and soup kitchens than actually work and contribute. They are pushing all of the hard work onto the average citizens and the next generation. I, and I am sure many others, will not pay for someone to sit around and do nothing constructive for society. Honestly, I think the illegals who enter this country work harder and contribute more (which is why I think immigration laws should be a little less rigid on those who would like to enter legally) than many of the "poor." I use that term loosely because your real poor are basically ignored. Those who CANNOT work due to injury or illness or those who are in a dire situation. Your average poor person in America has an apartment, 3 square meals a day thanks to soup kitchens and food stamps, not to mention many are overweight due to the affordable access to cheap fast food, they also have a color television, yes a television, and a warm bed to go along with the rest of their furnished apartment. A lot of the poor have it easy here (not all of course) but liberal ideology is to play off emotion to get what you want (which is why I agree more with republicans, though not on everything) so you ignorantly claim the poor are "dying in the streets." What a load of bullshit! You don't even live in this country and you are make a gross outside judgement on the situation at hand acting as if your concept of what should be is superior to that of so many others. That is absolutely disgusting. Sure America is suffering moral corruption, I will not argue that, but can you honestly say with a straight face that the rest of the world is doing any better?
By the way, socialist Europe is doing quite horribly for a system that "seems to be working out." The EU is a disaster thanks to nearly half of Europe (the southern half), or have you already forgotten about Greece, Italy, and Spain. France isn't doing much better now that their socialist policies have driven the majority of businesses out of the country. In fact I would go as far as to say the ONLY countries that are actually doing well right now are in the north. Namely Germany, Great Britain, Austria and perhaps Finland. Maybe even Sweden and Norway, though I am not very familiar with their recent economic history. If things haven't change since 2010 they are probably doing fine.

Also, your "modern democracy" is not democracy. You are making a command decision to cater to the minority at the expense of the majority. That is the absolute opposite of a democracy. There are better ways to help the poor than to just throw money at them.

I just wish they'd hired me to create an unusable website for $634 million. I'd have done it for half that.

"The majority (not all) of the poor in this country would rather live on welfare checks and free food thanks to food stamps and soup kitchens than actually work and contribute."
You know what, if the 'dream' is not working and has actually become a nightmare in reality. maybe America has to ask themselves the question, "what bullshit are we teaching our kids at school, what bullshit are we telling ourselves", the richest country in the world and many of the citizens survive on free food and eat at soup kitchens, what is going wrong, do you ever ask yourself that question?
Do you ever think that the 'land of the free' is a meaningless platitude that belies a country slipping into financial bankruptcy and moral decay.
If richness was measured in social capital, where would the US be?
If you want real solutions you need to tackle the cause, not the symptoms. Why are there so many people not buying into the 'dream'? Why are they not striving? And why have you condemned them to the scrap-heap of society?

"There are better ways to help the poor than to just throw money at them."
There are much better ways to help the poor, like giving them access to a good quality of healthcare free at the point of need, that is just one of many ways. But if you just want to carry on with capitalism you just give them hand-outs, a bit like what happens now, then they will buy things and give the money back to the haves and they will remain the have-nots..

@Nigee, I'm all for eliminating the poverty trap, but I'm not about to trade one extreme for the other. I HAVE asked myself what is wrong with America and I know there are a lot of things. We value money over everything else, we have poor moral standards, we hold a societal double standard in more things than can be counted. There are many many things wrong with America, but why is it just America? Have you ever bothered to think about how the rest of the world is doing? Stop using the US as your punching bag and go to pazzi every time something isn't working out. Why are you so interested in what is going on here anyway? Our issue is a social matter wrapped up in political hype. This country is more polarized than it has been since the civil war and we are basically fighting one another on a political level rather than compromising. There are plenty of other countries with more pressing concerns that deserve attention and to be heard. Focus your attention on them and let us clean up our own mess. I realize that would seem hypocritical coming from an American, but I don't agree with all the things we've been involved in over the years. That was then and this is now. You see an issue and you immediately want to jump to the worse case scenario. What does that say about you?
Also capitalism doesn't involve handouts, the government has just made it that way. If a business goes under it should be allowed to fail, no matter how big. The idea of "too big to fail" needs to go away. We shouldn't put so much into one source, that is a recipe for disaster. Much like giving a singular source great power (ie. the federal government) is a recipe for disaster.
But to answer your question from before, as I have gotten a little off topic, the major issue with THIS PARTICULAR healthcare law is that it violates a number of laws that govern how democracy works. The recent arguments against Obama Care have been against last minute additions to the bill which the white house added behind Congress's back. Now they want to force them to accept them. How is that right? Furthermore, it does not matter if the Supreme Court decided to make a political move by claiming the bill constitutional, it is not. Nowhere in our constitution does it directly, or even indirectly, give the federal government the right to dictate the healthcare of its citizens. The 10th Amendment says all powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government go to the states. It doesn't matter if you are strict constructionist or lose constructionist, that is a clear violation of the single most important document of our nation and people treat it like it's no big deal. THAT right there is another problem to add to the list.

Keep in mind the rhetorhic of Barrack Obama and the Democrats - millions of Americans without health care that want it, blah blah blah....save money, keep your doctors, everything better, etc.

.1% signed up in the first week -- obviously this unmet need for health care was a lie -- those without health care did not have health care BY CHOICE and therefore did not rush out to get it, or the more likely reason is that the health care being offered on the exchanged is *insanely* expensive. In short, pretty much every claim of the ACA turned out to be a lie.

Here are some other lies: Americans without health insurance are dying in the street, and do not get medical care. This is a LIE - walk in to a hospital without health insurance, and you will be cared for.

If you are going to say they won't get the same care as someone else, I will answer, "And you point?" Not everyone has access to the same food. Not everyone has access to the same safe, modern vehicles. Not everyone's housing is the same or as safe as others. Not everyone has access to teh same safe neighborhoods.

America was never intended to be the land of equal outcome, where we all put on our grey uniforms in the morning, and worked our equal work and ate our equal mush.

This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where we have equal access to success, which in large part in dependent upon how much you want to work for reward.

Obamacare is a lie and a pending disaster, and the early returns indicate that those "victims" it was intended to provide coverage for are either too stupid to figure out how to sign up, or just don't give a damn...because with or without, the hospital treat them anyway.

I got a D+ on my first ever college homework assignment.

Good thing I immediately wrote the whole thing off as a failure and dropped out right then and there. Who knows where I'd be today if I'd stuck with that waste of time.

In deep debt with no future because a degree in basket weaving, the only thing you could probably do with any acceptable degree of skill, would never pay for itself.

But seriously, the poor had access to free to them healthcare before Obamacare. Don't let the liberals fool you. Hospitals had government mandated and provided funds to cover the costs of those under 150% of the poverty level. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

@kramer, yes, all of Scandinavia is doing fine (Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark). All of those have a extensive social safety net in place, just wanted to say that. Germany, the biggest economic power in Europe, has also the most extensive social system (after Sweden I think). Yes, there is people taking advantage of those systems (ask any German), but in general they work fine.

To southern Europe, well yes, they are not doing great, but they always had troubles. The reason, especially for Greece, is that the are in the 'Euro zone' now (sharing the same currency with 12 other countries or so, the Euro), so they cant depreciate any longer, as they used to do in the past (including France, Spain, Italy etc.). Norway, for example, is in the EU, but not in the 'Euro zone'.

Yes some of those southern countries had lefty governments. Then again the president of France before Hollande was from the right and he did not better then the current one, so the problems must lie somewhere else.

It's maybe notable that most of those countries with a large social safety net doing better then the others :-)).

I see that this ACA is a very hot issue in the US and I did find some answers to why that is, mostly, so it seams to me, its a money issue, but in the end it costs anyway, kerlin writes above that anyone walking in a hospital will be treated, which is as it should be, but who pays that? Someone sure does, maybe they calculate their prices accordingly that they can finance this, meaning the one middle class American being treated in the same hospital pays for the one without insurance anyway.

"Here are some other lies: Americans without health insurance are dying in the street, and do not get medical care. This is a LIE - walk in to a hospital without health insurance, and you will be cared for."

But be burdened with debt when they leave - unpayable in most lifetimes - and to avoid getting into such situations often times individuals will avoid going to hospital until it is too late. This has two effects, it increases health care costs, and it decreases life expectancy. Which Contributes to the preception that health care in the US is shite.

'This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, where we have equal access to success'

But there is no equql opportunity, as you can see when parent's income can be used to predict a child's educational attainment - when life expectancy at 10 is likewise determined by wealth percentile.

Howard zimm tells a great story of the lie of The American Dream. If you want to learn more, he explains it better than I do (and knew what he was talking about, as he was American for one)

right, correction, Norway is not in the EU, but Sweden is, and they retained their own currency, as the UK did as well.

@Yellow - cute...except this is the implementation of a law that was passed *3* years ago. This is a law that is now being implemented by the supposed experts, who are going to save us all.

And the problem isn't even the law...it's the facts the the supposed millions that were craving health insurance....are not craving health insurance, and either don't care about getting it, or still can't afford it...and thus they will continue as they always have...stopping in to the emergency room when the kid has the sniffles, and being cared for regardless of their state of insurance, because that how things work. Doctors in the US have ethics, and they treat the sick, period.

So you analogy is terrible and does not apply AT ALL.

@orathaic - Wahh wahh wahh...yes, everyone in the US is buried under a terrible debt of medical costs, etc. blah blah blah Doom Doom Doom! The Sky is Falling!!!

And then there is reality, in which MOST people have coverage that WANT to have coverage.

There are some that don't have coverage BY CHOICE...and if they get buried under a pile of debt, to fucking bad - they are there by choice.

Then there were the poor that couldn't afford it to whom the debt is meaningless anyway, because they are already living off the government dole.

And then there are those that catch a bad break in life...and I'm sorry, that's just life, pal. Some people catch a bad break, and EVEN WITH HEALTH INSURANCE you can go broke because insurance only covers so much.

And that is when you do fund rasing campaings, and (if people are not being taxed to death by their government) you might raise to cash to cover Johhny's brain surgery.

Or maybe you file for bankrupcy...because that's what it's there for.

The bottom line it, nobody is dying on the streets because they lack health care.

You can do whatever you want to come up with the tiny niche scenario where the system isn't perfect, to which I will say: "SO WHAT?"

You morons actually think that there are state in Europr with these "perfect" health care systems where people don't die because they are DENIED COVERAGE...too old...not enough available care....etc....

Give me a break...you pie-in-the-sky fools that think perfection exists, and that it is free and easy if ONLY we could see the light....you are just uneducated morons, pure and simple, and for you, there is simply no hope, because you do not live in reality, and have no honest understanding of how health care *really* works, either here, or in your Utopian socialized systems.

I also note that you fail to answer my comments regarding how we can tolerate to live in a country wherer:
1. Some people have access to healthier food
2. Some people have access to healthier homes
3. Some people have access to safer vehicle
4. Some people have access to safer communities
5. Some people have access to safer jobs
etc...

So if you good libtards are all so fired up that everyone must have equal access to health care, because that is right and fair, then why are you are you not screaming at the toop of your lungs and marching in the streets to make sure we all have equal access to a safe and healthier life in ALL aspects of living?

Food and housing -- easy to do...everyone should have equal food and housing - and government could crack down and implement that easy enough - mayeb even easier than health care. Would create a bunch of jobs and we tore down mansions (like Al Gore's) in order to build equivalent housing for the under-housed.

SO come on man, where is your compassion?

@ORath -- " there is no equql opportunity, as you can see when parent's income can be used to predict a child's educational attainment " Bullshit....the government with the force of arms can correct this condition for us, I have no doubt. A powerful central government that had sufficient compassion wouldn't allow a child to fail in school...unless you are suggesting that poor kids are genetically inferior and physically unable to learn, then a powerful government can overcome this problem.

We just need to get past this notion of "personal freedom" and enforce and equal structure. Eliminate housing for the rich, elminate choice in food and vehicle...eliminate all these things by which wealth is given meaning, and we will no longer have these problems you speak of.

So...join me in this great fight!

@Krakerkov - I would be only too interested in discussing the problems in Europe, I just feel it may not capture your interest, are you European? Have you been?
If we can find some Common (Market) ground I'll happily discuss European woes with you :-)

@Tomvanbern, that is a fair point, but let me also point out that Hong Kong has no safety nets and it is one of the wealthiest places on the planet. I agree that Scandinavia and Germany got it mostly right, but you must also take into consideration that they were smaller countries with drastically smaller populations making it a little easier to manage. Also these countries are not extreme in intent. They have the proper balance of regulation and economic freedom. America, in an effort to fix the system are jumping to extremes and quick fixes like we always do. It doesn't matter which party has what point both are causing more harm than good. Think of it in terms of a broken leg and physical therapy. It takes time to heal and gentle changes in tempo are required to get the leg full operational again. Trying to run early on or not moving it at all will only hurt and prolong the healing process. I hope that makes sense and don't get me wrong. I'm not against the idea of universal healthcare, but to go about it in such an extreme manner for no reason other than political sentiment is just foolish and wrong.