@kramerkov, Ok, yes, this does make sense, still difficult to understand from a 'European' point of view, but it is an explanation. You might be needing multi party system instead of the just two big ones, to get things balanced out.

@Tomvanbern, that could possibly work, but I doubt we'll get anyone to agree on that considering things have always been this way. Our best bet is to encourage the moderate factions of each party and perhaps the minor third parties who could break the division. Honestly, congress relies too much on one party gaining enough power to force their points only to have them overridden the next time the other party gains control. If we had an even split of Republicans and Democrats they would have to agree or they would have no power at all. Of course that may just be wishful thinking.

@Kramerkov - "You talk about a moral decay in America" - I wasn't talking about moral decay, you were busy telling me that the poor want to live on handouts and don't want to work. You said
"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."
If that is truly the case that these people prefer being poor and needy to working then these people were not born like this, it is highly likely that something mat have happened to them along the way to their particular dream in the land of opportunity.
Maybe the reality is not quite as good as the hype. I think people (and nations) that oversell their self-worth will always attract criticism.
Please don't think I'm attacking you ..... it may be surprising but it's not about YOU all the time, the issues we discuss are way bigger than YOU, get over yourself !!

@Nigee, look, this conversation is going no where with you. I prefer talking with people like Tomvanbern who can offer AND take criticism. I respect his opinion even if I don't fully agree with it and I think it's an understandable one. You on the other hand are preferring to go on the offensive. You always get on krellin about that, but are just as guilty yourself. I know the American dream isn't all it's made out to be, but you miss my point entirely. The poor may not be as financially well off, but they are not needy. Vast majority have everything you need to survive and function in society. The difference is, they don't have to pay for most of it. Think of it in terms of cars. If you have the money, or capability to make more money you are going to buy a nice car with all the bells and whistles. On the other hand, if you are short on cash you can get the used junker for a bargain. It may not be as nice, but it's still a car.

Also Nigee, the US is not the richest country in the world. We have the largest economic structure, but in terms of prosperity we aren't even top ten. Scandinavia beats us in the majority of positive economic statistics. So does Hong Kong and I believe Singapore does as well though I am not sure on that one.

Are you seriously comparing healthcare to materialistic objects like cars?
I have to find a way of trying to explain to you they are completely different without making you sound like a fool .... it's a challenge.
There is no comparison between the quality of car you can afford and the quality of healthcare you may require or deserve, this is absolutely mindless, I feel like I'm chatting with an imbecile.
Please give yourself time to reflect on what you have said here, try and think about people who may not be highly paid but do a fabulous service for their community or their country such as nurses or servicemen or women.
Should they get a junker healthcare service after saving many lives themselves. What about any average lowly paid factory worker that gets a long-term life-threatening or terminal illness, what about poor children that get run over and suffer long-term injuries that need countless operations and medical care, what about victims of rape, violence, assaults, do they not deserve the best care if they are poor. What about the people that are poor because they are poorly educated, can't read and write or are just immigrants on or non-white, should they receive poorer care.
You are so happy to settle for low standards, as long as you are not a recipient of those lower standards. I see what you do believe though, that it is not possible to have a good standard of universal health care and that is just not true.
The way you learn to do things well is to find someone who already does that thing well, and then model your actions on theirs, this is not rocket science. You have to stop believing the Tea Party bullshit. Decent healthcare is obtainable.
If you have the technology to send an unmanned spaceship to Mars and then send soil analysis back to Earth, why is it so hard to believe that it is possible to provide universal health care for humans in your local community when you are the richest country in the world .... I'll tell you what it comes down to, GREED.
If there is such thing as moral decay in the US it is amongst the politicians and lobbyists and investment bankers et al, all the people that put profits before people.
Before you can achieve any greatness you have to start with a basic ingredient ....BELIEF.
Can you have have universal healthcare for all .....YES WE CAN

That WASN'T a reference to healthcare, I was talking about general prosperity and the "American Dream". You are so busy trying to find something wrong that you aren't reading for context. You jump from one subject to another and then get angry when I try to do the same in order to keep up with the conversation. I also NEVER said universal healthcare was impossible you arrogant prick. I NEVER said everyone deserves low standards and I sure as hell NEVER said those who can't afford healthcare don't deserve it. You are putting in words where there aren't any. I said the IDEA was solid, but the way we were going to implement it was crap. All you can do is criticize and throw radical positions around in an attempt to earn an emotional response. You apply the worst case scenario to everyone and run with it. Those who fall in to those low income groups ARE taken care of by society through the countless number of charities and non profit organizations you like to forget about because they don't fit your argument. You're so caught up in your own damn opinions you've shut yourself off from any position that does not suit your own.
You tell me to stop believing in the Tea party. When the fuck did I ever say anything about them? I don't like the Tea Party, and I sure as hell don't like Obama. You hypocritical left-wing extremists are just as bad as the right-wing extremists and you can't even see it. "Don't believe this bullshit come believe ours, yes we can!" Fuck you. What has Obama done in these past 5 years to earn ANY amount of FAITH? As far as I've seen he has had more scandals and questionable actions than any other President before. He has made a mockery of this nation and his only desire is to serve his own political gains. You could argue that the right does the same. Well they do, but at least they aren't playing the "oh Holier than thou" bullshit card. You don't know the first thing about what's been going on in this country and likely just grab your info off biased media and websites like every other informed "expert" out there. Try living here and seeing how people are really affected by this new medical care. Like the world war 2 veterans who were good friends with one of my old high school teachers who had to close down their furniture business because they couldn't afford the new mandatory payments by Obama Care to pay for all their worker's health insurance. You focus so much on what one end has to deal with you are willing to make another suffer to fix it. That's like shooting yourself in the foot in the hopes that your hand will feel better. THAT is idiotic!

Of course there is a link between health care and material wealth. Why do you want health care, Nigee? To....be healthy. Right? To be made well when you get sick, or better to not get sick in the first place - preventive health care.

Well I hate to tell you this, pal, but our entire life is made up of little more than risks to your health, depending on how you view the world:

1. The care you drive - what are it's safety ratings? The surviviability in a crash? A poor family will not be able to afford a care with the latest safety standards, including structural integrity, air bags, collision avoidance systems that are coming out on the latest vehicles --- so your wealth, your ability to purchase whatever car you want, absolutely has an impact on your health, and that injury and/or death can be prevented with the proper car. It is very much the same as preventive medicine -- we do things with health care to PREVENT illness....and we buy cars that minimize risk of death.
2. Food: If you have the financial ability to buy any food you want, most people will agree that you can buy higher quality food, which is safer and healthier. "Free range" meat, organic foods, etc - all arguably healthier, according to some, but many do not have the financial access to these foods. Thus, finances ipact diet, and directly impact long term health. The assertion of the organic crowd is that non-organic foods, with chemicals, GMO plants, etc, are causing more cancers, more auto-immune diseases, etc. So again, CLEARLY your finacial standing is a direct impact to your health.
3. HOMES - Where you live has a direct impact on your health in a variety of ways. First and most obvious, those that must live in "ghettos", communities where violence is prevalent for whatever reason and are forced to live there because of their financial standing are more likely to die of violence due to finances -- this is obviously a "health" issue, in that gun shot wounds impact health, and occurence of gun shots wounds can be tied to where you live, which is tied to finances. I believe if you look at the CDC and other government agencies, they try to tie gun violence to health -- so, I'm just keepin gin line with the feds. But more than that, low income may mean something like living in a trailer -- much more dangerous in a violent storm....or perhaps living in a home that poorer insulation, thus causing an increase in heating/cooling bills - and less money to spend means again lower quality food/vehicles....there are so many ways your home impacts your health directly and through finanical impact it isn't even funny....so CLEARLY your wealth as it applies to your home is a serous issue...

So there are just three ways in which finances / material goods, etc are a very direct impact on your personal health....and therefore, a properly run government health care system is OBLIGATED to look in to vehicle ownership, food availability, housing, etc in order to guarantee that everyone has *equal access* to a healthy life.

Lets be real, krellin.

You would consider Obamacare a failure even if it went off exactly as planned and promised with no hitches whatsoever, right? So it's rather meaningless to say it's a failure for the reasons you've listed, notwithstanding that it's silly to call something a failure when it's not even gone into effect yet.

I'm not saying it's a success, I'm saying there isn't enough info to make a claim one way or the other. Lets give it more than two weeks and see how many people get coverage by the time the open enrollment is over, and weigh that number against the costs, OK?

@YJ, look I know you're being the voice of reason here and I can agree with a wait and see deal, but just please explain to me why the public has seemingly infinite hope for Obama? It seems no matter what he does he is infallible. (not accusing you I just thought you would be a good person ask) Why is that the case?

@YJ - if it went off as *described* to us -- that all Americans would be covered, that it would not impact existing policies AT ALL, that we could keep doctors, that health care costs for all would be lower, etc....in other words, if it was implemented and was in fact the Utopian paradise of health that was described to us, I would have no choice but to call it a success, YJ. I'm not that disingenuous. Obama has been great for the stock market -- I can give the man credit for that because it is benefiting me. So if Obamacare was good for me, I would admit it.

My elderly parents recently got their letter from the government telling that of the 30%+ increase in their out of pocket costs....I'm sure many of our parents have.

So sorry YJ....it's a fuciking disaster. There tales are starting to poor in of people who had individual plans that have been dropped, and the new plans they are being forced in to are outrageously expensive with worse coverage. There isn't a single promise made to the American people that is playing out as promised.

God damn, even teh lapdog press is finding it difficult to praise Obamacare...

,...and let's be clear, OBAMA HIMSELF DOESN'T LIKE OBAMACARE:
1. Obama himself doesn't fall under the law....if he thought it was so good, don't you think he would have asked his pals in the Senate to make sure the bill covered him???
2. He knows how flawed the law is, thus OBAMA HIMSELF issued waivers to corporations so they would not be subject to the law prior to the 2014 elections.

Tell me...what IS working right in this law that you imply it is such a success?

@YJ - sorry, you didn't imply it was a success....but it is not a new law...it was passed *3* fucking year ago, and EVERY step of the way, it's implementaiton has been delayed, or been a disaster. This isn't some new law with the ink still drying...so let's stop trying to pretend if we give it time it will sort itself out. Obama and the Democras have ZERO interest in tweaking the law....their purpose in this law *IS* failure...so they can destroy the current private system through unsustainable costs, drive them out of business as we know it, and push everybody in to single payer government health care.

And....yeah, I'd rather have a rusty knife shoved up my ass (Putin just blushed....he wants that too, but for different reasons....). Our government is incapable of running *anything* successfully....not a single department in our government is well run....so why we would ever want single payer is beyond my comprehension.

@Kamikaze - "You jump from one subject to another and then get angry when I try to do the same in order to keep up with the conversation."
Angry Tiger, I'm not angry at all .... I'm cool man.

Krell - 4) Service personnel - what's their health profile/risk assessment like?

@YJ - but to the point of "too early to be called a failure". If 40 million Americans were chomping at the bit to buy health insurance once the exchanges came on line, don't you think more than 0.1% of them would have responded in a week?

Fuck, if Miley Cyrus announced a concert is a 51,000 sat stadium and they sold the tickets on-line only, she'd sell out in a a matter of hours, to a smaller pool potentials.

Obamacare is a failure already because the stated goal -- insuring the uninsured -- WILL *CLEARLY* NOT HAPPEN because there is NO REAL DEMAND from the uninsured, or no ability.

Believe it or not, pal, individuals WERE able to buy policies *before* Obamacare. Most of the uninsured did not buy policies before Obamacare by *choice*....or because they were financially unable. As of a week ago, when Obamacare was rolled out, that same group of people still do not want to buy health care BY CHOICE, or because they are financially unable. NOTHING IN OBAMACARE CHANGES THIS......therefore, any individual with common sense can realize that it is a failure before the word "go"...

@kramer. I don't. I just think healthcare is an entitlement and it should be part of any civilized society. ACA isn't perfect and won't be perfect, but it's a step towards a universal healthcare system like every other modern country has.



@krellin My mom can now afford health insurance because of it? That's personal and anecdotal, but it's also quite powerful. It's too soon to call it a disaster, fucking or otherwise. Can you point to me some of these "tales pouring in?" Where did you hear this? Does anybody have actual statistics on it yet?

" Our government is incapable of running *anything* successfully....not a single department in our government is well run...."
That's not strictly true ..... the US are great at warfare.
Where focus goes, energy flows.

@YJ, fair enough I guess, but entitlement aside do you not care about the implementation? I mean a step in the wrong direction on something this grand a scale has a plethora of potential problems down the road. I understand benefit of the doubt, but with this much doubt do you think it's really a step in the right direction? Why not break it up into segments and focus on one after the other rather than all at once. If we can agree step by step we could save a lot of time and energy. Politicians can never do things like this whole sale. Even the New Deal had a lot of pitfalls that it had to drop in favor of new ones.

@ora - "But be burdened with debt when they leave - unpayable in most lifetimes "

If you don't know what you are talking about, you really shouldn't speak. If you are under 150% of poverty level and uninsured, there are programs pay for your care. Only people who have reasonable incomes but no insurance have to deal with that situation. If employers were mandated to provide incomes to their employees and themselves in the case of self employment and the government just put reasonable oversight on insurance companies so they couldn't gouge those not on group plans, this would be a non-issue as well. But fucking up the entire country on the way to implementing a socialist agenda is unacceptable.

How can US citizens who have supported govt after govt wage war overseas which has cost and is costing billions and trillions of dollars now moan about a President trying to invest money in the US, for the benefit of the US citizens.
Maybe the Tea Party slogan should be 'Fuck the Poor, let's wage War'.
Maybe this never-ending policy of waging overseas war has not been as successful as planned, maybe it's time to focus a little more on issues closer to home and empower NATO and the UN to deal with overseas conflicts.

kramer, breaking it up into segments and focusing on one after the other sounds reasonable, but it's just an excuse to stall. Given that mindset it would be another 30 years before the steps made with one act were completed. Hell, ACA takes 8 and it's an "all-at-once" kinda thing. If you can view healthcare as an entitlement, it should be easy to convince yourself that any system that extends full coverage is better than the absence of one.

So to answer your question, no I don't care. The implementation is secondary to the reality that everybody now has health care. Plenty of time for tweaking after the fact.

Basically what I'm saying is that the big steps in policy change are necessary when you are convinced of certain truths.

If you strongly agree to the statement, "Everybody needs healthcare," the big step is to give everybody health care, and make the necessary changes to the system as they become apparent.

If you don't strongly agree with that statement, but think it's worth investigating, that's when you might think smaller steps are appropriate

If you wholly disagree with that statement, please die in a fire :)

@Nigee - the short answer is this: TO those that disagree with the ACA and other "socialist" programs (government nanny-state), but agree with wars, the answer is simple:

One of the primary and Constitutionally defined purposes of government is *National Defense*. When a government wages war, presumably it is for the national defense. You may argue whether or not the recent endless wars of the US are for national defense or not, but that is the answer.

ON the other hand, from a Constitutional standpoint, the government is NOT in place to provide for our every need. Purchasing health insurance is not a function of a Constiutional government. THAT is the objection to health care.


It is a complete lie to say Americans do not have health care. As has been pointed out by many ad nauseum is that all Americans have health care -- walk in to a hospital with a gun shot wound, and you *will* be treated, regardless of whether or not you have health insurance.

So what it comes down to is an argument of how "much" health care Americans have with or without health insurance.

I hate to tell you this, but even under Obamacare, some will have more health care and batter health care -- after all, the government web site offers "silver" "gold" and "platinum" plans....in other words, the fix is in...the rich will still have better health care under Obamacare. So if the purpose of the ACA was to give everyone equal access to health care, it is dead on arrival - it failed in its objective in that from day one, it is a tiered plan in which the wealthy have better coverage.

And take it a step further...if you believe tha the government should be providing equal access to health care, but health is a basic right, than you better hold on your wallets, because FOOD and SHELTER are also basic rights under this philosophy, and it is blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes to see that food distribution is in no way equal, and that housing is not avialable to all. So whhy are you not arguing that government should be providing ALL these things.....you *must* argue for this is you have the intellectual integrity to insist the reason for government provided health care is moral, just, Constitutional, etc.



But again...to the basic point, we argue against government providing these services...but fighting wars...because government has a defined purpose. Many believe that it's purpose does NOT include providing for every need, but national defense is a defined purpose.

@YJ, "The implementation is secondary to the reality that everybody now has health care. Plenty of time for tweaking after the fact."

See I just can't agree with that. I get where you're coming from and don't disagree entirely, but the implementation needs to be sound if it is to be effective. Making a quick jump here followed by a long tweaking process would take just as long, if not longer, than a series of short quick jumps which could be quickly settled. Granted the policies of congress would have to change a little so they could do this at a faster pace and not cause unnecessary stalling. The point being when we just throw ourselves at something without thinking it through we consistently end up in trouble. Like that series of wars Nigee is bitching about.
I understand this is a bit of an exaggeration, but look at the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. They were absolutely necessary and good amendments, but it took society a hundred years to finally accept them as a whole. Yes the ideas of ending slavery and segregation seem a bit extreme when compared to universal healthcare, but keep in mind that people are as polarized now as they were back then, if not more so. The reactions to major political moves now a days are often extreme. I just think we would be better off thinking this through, but making progress while we do it. That is where the common ground needs to be. Confidence, but not recklessness, and caution, but not resistance.

See this is what I don't get. You say, "would take just as long, if not longer..."

Take just as long for what? For us to arrive at our final, perfect, best solution? I think such a thing doesn't exist. The "arrival point" should be universal healthcare. We can and are doing that right now. I don't really give a good damn how long it takes to tweak to wherever it is going to end up, because people are now covered, end of story.

Don't you get that? People. Have. Health. Insurance. Perhaps you aren't in a position to realize what a big deal that is.

Who says the "arrival point" should be universal health care. I reject, outright, the idea that the culmination of American health care perfection is government-supplied Universal healthcare.

I'm certain you are getting tired of hearing it, but why do you not also push for universal government employment, universal government housing, universal government food supply, etc.

It is sheer lunacy to say that a just, moral government is supposed to provide one "basic human right" and not all of them.

And Yellowjacket....under Obamacare People DO NOT have health insruance. The individual mandate was struck down as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If "people have health care" under Obamacare, we wouldn't be talking about how many people signed up for insurance.

So you simply have the fact wrong, my friend. I don't know if you are truly ignorant of the facts or how the program works, if you are just buying the crap from the media or what - but your dream of total coverage of all Americans under the ACA is simply a **lie**.

What will happen is that people that continue to CHOOSE NOT to purchase health care or who continue to be UNABLE TO AFFORD health insurance under Obamacare will suffer a tax penalty...but they still will NOT have health insurance.

They WILL have health care....just as everyone had health care before Obamacare. Anyone waling in to an emergency room was cared for. People without insurance could also opt to pay by alternate means, up to and including negotiating with health service providers.

SO I'm sorry to say, but your understanding of the medical industry is sadly deficient. You understanding of Obamacare is such a perversion from realityI'd be laughing at you if it didn't make me so sad that I find myself tearing up.

Honestly, YJ, you are too intelligent to be this misinformed.

Well I've gotten what I can out of this conversation so thank you for indulging me Yellow Jacket. I still don't fully agree with you, but it is nice to hear what the other side thinks. At the very least it gives me a little perspective.

The individual mandate was struck down as unconstitutional? Not according to the supreme court.....

Actually, it only remains as a tax if you don't have it. They no longer can "punish" someone for not buying it. They can just give those who *do* a tax break. Sounds the same, but it isn't. The administration knew it would lose if it kept calling it a mandate so they changed it around.

Actually it was Chief Justice Roberts that ruled it constitutional as a tax, that was his interpretation not the administrations.