SR4 Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 There are some that tie in the Georgia Guidestones with AIDS, "chemtrails", forced innoculations, etc. Oh and Ted Turner edit: How could I forget the possible "failure" of Fukushima fuel pool 4. Anyone know what happens if that collapses from an earthquake or other act of God (or HAARP)? so you have people that somehow managed to connect a solitary, unmoving object that for all we know could be someone's fucking art project to a viral disease, the alleged poisoning of crops by government planes, and smallpox. Oh and CNN. These sound like enlightened, intelligible "common sense" people. This shit is complete disinformation with 1% truth sprinkled in for good measure. Sorry to shatter your belief systems. Go on what there is actual evidence for, like Northwood, COINtel, etc. etc. before you start pointing your finger at so called "ludicrous ignorant arguments" in this thread. It's ok, you're not shattering anything. Yes I am mixing a lot of varied subject matter together and some will probably take it as I'm trying to lump everything under the same roof. You've really latched onto this Georgia Guidestone thing and to be honest, I am regretting adding it to the list. Is it absurd? Maybe. That is where common sense takes over though. Our government and world leaders are not afraid to kill mass amounts of people. I wasnt calling your arguments ignorant. Was simply stating that they don't matter. You're arguing about stupid shit they use to keep you occupied... fighting for some "cause" .. having an opinion about something meaningless I will help your delusion out. You are an idiot, and I am not going to argue with you about this any further. It is because I am a member of the NWO, and your knowledge has been reported. The army is on its way to sterilize your webzones of truth. kthx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RandySicko Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 My name is Mike actually. Randy is too infowars-ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RandySicko Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 There are some that tie in the Georgia Guidestones with AIDS, "chemtrails", forced innoculations, etc. Oh and Ted Turner edit: How could I forget the possible "failure" of Fukushima fuel pool 4. Anyone know what happens if that collapses from an earthquake or other act of God (or HAARP)? so you have people that somehow managed to connect a solitary, unmoving object that for all we know could be someone's fucking art project to a viral disease, the alleged poisoning of crops by government planes, and smallpox. Oh and CNN. These sound like enlightened, intelligible "common sense" people. This shit is complete disinformation with 1% truth sprinkled in for good measure. Sorry to shatter your belief systems. Go on what there is actual evidence for, like Northwood, COINtel, etc. etc. before you start pointing your finger at so called "ludicrous ignorant arguments" in this thread. It's ok, you're not shattering anything. Yes I am mixing a lot of varied subject matter together and some will probably take it as I'm trying to lump everything under the same roof. You've really latched onto this Georgia Guidestone thing and to be honest, I am regretting adding it to the list. Is it absurd? Maybe. That is where common sense takes over though. Our government and world leaders are not afraid to kill mass amounts of people. I wasnt calling your arguments ignorant. Was simply stating that they don't matter. You're arguing about stupid shit they use to keep you occupied... fighting for some "cause" .. having an opinion about something meaningless I will help your delusion out. You are an idiot, and I am not going to argue with you about this any further. It is because I am a member of the NWO, and your knowledge has been reported. The army is on its way to sterilize your webzones of truth. kthx. Maybe I'll put a few roman numerals after my name in hopes it will my fuel my already pompous charm. You should bump yourself down to a 3 for name calling. And change your pic to a muppet that is better suited for you. I would have thought that the government having its dick so far down your throat would allow you to use your eyes and ears more efficiently, but that does not seem to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 So, uh, Obamacare. Pros and cons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Pretty convincing political argument you got there, randy I'm not sure how this health bill is going to affect me. I'm drastically poor at the moment, and don't have health insurance. I see some gigantic lines and paperwork at a nearby government office in my future, but maybe not. Not looking forward to paying an extra bill, but at least I'll be forced to be covered and won't have to worry about "putting off" heart surgery again if the need arises... hopefully the price is modest on whatever insurance option(s?) they roll out. anybody have links to the actual mechanics of this plan, or just political analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frankie5fingers Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 This topic is really staring to get raise some tension. so im getting outa dodge before something crazy happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 Pretty convincing political argument you got there, randy I'm not sure how this health bill is going to affect me. I'm drastically poor at the moment, and don't have health insurance. I see some gigantic lines and paperwork at a nearby government office in my future, but maybe not. Not looking forward to paying an extra bill, but at least I'll be forced to be covered and won't have to worry about "putting off" heart surgery again if the need arises... hopefully the price is modest on whatever insurance option(s?) they roll out. anybody have links to the actual mechanics of this plan, or just political analysis? well the difficulty of the plan is the overspecificity and intentionally vague language...I'd be willing to bet that most of the Justice votes on the plan have nowhere near a complete concept of the plan, nor do I think anyone else in Congress does for that matter (shit, I read a hundred pages or so and have no idea what I had read). The other problem is that since late 2009 the bill has been changed to a ridiculous degree...considering how large the text was before it was introduced on the floor, I have no idea who would have enough time to sift through all of it to note every minor change in the legaleese. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/ heres an okay starter link for it, I just sorta skipped around from there to find addendums or congressional changes Honestly the reason it is being "condensed" is because the Supreme Court voted only voted on the parts that could be under the umbrella of the unconstitutional supposition (i.e. is the penalty considered a federal ability to tax? Does this conflict with the Commerce Clause?, etc.). GoDel might be able to elaborate a little more than I could..he seems to have a better grasp of legal language. The one thing I sorta praised in a very skeptical way in specific would be the Subtitle E section...until you get to the part where it clarifies that only those at a certain income are eligible for the subsidies...everyone else can potentially be penalized. Im also still unclear as to how this affects income bracket transitions between the income tax dates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Uh oh. First thing I read on that was about tax cuts. I don't like tax cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 Uh oh. First thing I read on that was about tax cuts. I don't like tax cuts. I wouldn't jump all over that, tax cuts could mean an incredible amount of differing things in this particular context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Uh oh. First thing I read on that was about tax cuts. I don't like tax cuts. I wouldn't jump all over that, tax cuts could mean an incredible amount of differing things in this particular context. Yeah, going through Act 1, I actually kind of like it. It creates incentives for competition among companies, bringing out the best in capitalism and, hopefully, preventing the downfalls of the extreme spending of government healthcare. Or that's the intention, at any rate. So do you guys think this will raise or lower the price of health care? I'm guessing it'll lower them since everyone will be on healthcare, although drug companies and doctors will probably still be making too much money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Honestly the reason it is being "condensed" is because the Supreme Court voted only voted on the parts that could be under the umbrella of the unconstitutional supposition (i.e. is the penalty considered a federal ability to tax? Does this conflict with the Commerce Clause?, etc.). GoDel might be able to elaborate a little more than I could..he seems to have a better grasp of legal language. The one thing I sorta praised in a very skeptical way in specific would be the Subtitle E section...until you get to the part where it clarifies that only those at a certain income are eligible for the subsidies...everyone else can potentially be penalized. Im also still unclear as to how this affects income bracket transitions between the income tax dates. I'm not a star at legalese myself, but I can relate the things in the texts to the system I know about, and upon parts of the bill are based, the Dutch healthcare system. Perhaps Jhonny can add something as well. He also knows a thing or two. But more on that in the weekend perhaps. My work is hell at the moment. In a good way though, but nevertheless hellish. My first impression though, is that a huge part of the bill is used to try to get a grip on the insurance companies. So on one side the idea is indeed "OK, we make sure you will have lots of people to be insured". But on the other side the insurance companies have to show they're actually working for the people who pay their premiums, instead of just making money off their backs. A couple of points from the wiki: Effective September 23, 2010 Insurers are prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays, in new policies issued. Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19. Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.[48] Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.[48] Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.[48] Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.[48] Effective January 1, 2011 Insurers must spend a certain percent of premium dollars on eligible expenses, subject to various waivers and exemptions; if an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder.[69][70][71] Effective by January 1, 2014 Insurers are prohibited from discriminating against or charging higher rates for any individuals based on pre-existing medical conditions.[85] Insurers are prohibited from establishing annual spending caps.[48] Health insurance companies become subject to a new excise tax based on their market share; the rate gradually rises between 2014 and 2018 and thereafter increases at the rate of inflation. The tax is expected to yield up to $14.3 billion in annual revenue.[86] So basically, insurers can't deny or drop policyholders due to medical conditions. This alone is very important, because this distributes the risk of getting sick from the policyholders to the insurance companies. Which is essentially what insurance companies are supposed to do. But in the old US-system, insurance companies had the freedom to drop coverage. So in the old system, even though you were insured, you were still at risk. And yes, this should sound ridiculous. Another aspect which attempts to cure the insurance industry is that they are forced to show that a maximum % of the premiums people pay are flowing into the insurance company instead of actual healthcare costs. For example, if your premiums are $100 a year, the insurance company has to show that, say $5 or less go to the company to pay for the expenses of being an insurance company. One of the probable effects of this (in combination with not being able to drop coverage) is that the health-insurance market will favor larger health-insurance companies. They're taking more risk because they can't deny coverage, while they (in principle) aren't allowed to make huge profits (to create buffers to cover possible risks). So the most direct way for insurance companies is to have as much policyholders as possible. The small insurance companies will have a hard time creating buffers to cover the risks. And what's nice is that if the insurance company makes more money, they are forced to alleviate their policyholders (for example by lowering their premiums). So, exces money goes back to the policyholder, instead of the regulator/government. This is not what your average Republican will tell you. ;p With regard to screwing the middle class, my educated guess says nobody is going to get screwed. At least, not more than they already are. But the cost-part will be hard to predict. The insurance companies certainly aren't the only reason for the high costs of healthcare. And to a certain extent, it seems to be a blind spot in the bill. As if it's trying to say: "the insurance companies are the ones who will have to force the healthcare market to be more efficient/cost-effective". There's one or two bullets in the wiki aimed at health providers, and that's about it. A new excise tax goes into effect that is applicable to pharmaceutical companies and is based on the market share of the company; it is expected to create $2.5 billion in annual revenue.[86] Most medical devices become subject to a 2.3% excise tax collected at the time of purchase. (Reduced by the reconciliation act to 2.3% from 2.6%) Pharmaceutical companies will be paying more taxes. It's hard to predict the effect, but I expect a rise in the costs of new medicines. Existing medicines shouldn't rise in costs, though. If they do rise, that's a sign the market's still not working properly. Ideally, the insurance companies wouldn't allow rising prices of existing medicines. Especially in the generics market. The best indicator of wether this bill will be a success, will be the wether the total revenue in costs of medicines will grow or decline. In Europe there's typically already a decline. The American market is still growing but certainly less so than it did or has been doing. A decline will be a good sign. The sooner the better. I'm not sure about the numbers, but I expect that roughly 20% of the total healthcare costs come from pharmaceuticals. So this might have a significant impact on how premium prices develop in the coming years. Last point: because the costs of healthcare in the US are so much higher with respect to the rest of the world, there must a lot of air in the market (read: companies making lots of profit). If the insurance companies will be doing the work they're supposed to do, these margins will get smaller and smaller. And because the margin seems to be huge, costs may actually decline in the not so long run (say 2014-2016). In the end costs will rise though, but that has more to do with the average age of the population and healthy lifestyle. So if you think the lower middle class is being screwed, in a way they're being screwed by all the fast-food eating junks. Ehm, so yeah. I might have more thoughts in the coming weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 In the end costs will rise though, but that has more to do with the average age of the population and healthy lifestyle. Healthy lifestyle would definitely decrease the cost of healthcare (or keep it the same at least). Healthy people make insurance companies the most money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I thought the Constitution was only valuable to keep Nicolas Cage working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 haha i was being sarcastic, of course. make that 'healthy' lifestyle. the lifestyle our portuguese brother tends to get all riled up about. on a tangent: a recent BBC-doc is pretty interesting. it's called "the men who made us fat". So if you're interested, be sure to check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmanyo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 ha, yeah, I was wondering if that was the implication. Although maybe we will get healthier with all of that healthcare we'll be getting. Actually, looking at the numbers, Americans might be getting healthier. Everyone's still fat, though. (check here for in depth statistics on health) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergeantk Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 ha, yeah, I was wondering if that was the implication. Although maybe we will get healthier with all of that healthcare we'll be getting. Actually, looking at the numbers, Americans might be getting healthier. Everyone's still fat, though. (check here for in depth statistics on health) Weird... getting fatter, living longer, and death rates down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 on a tangent: a recent BBC-doc is pretty interesting. it's called "the men who made us fat". So if you're interested, be sure to check it out. *looks in mirror, shakes fist impotently* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marf Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 good luck actually getting lower income people to pay this thing. good luck. most people aren't eligible enough for medicaid, but definitely poor enough and i doubt its going to be easy to get them to pay for this thing. Myself included. what a mess this thing is... and we are so arrogant to not look to other countries as clear examples that work. get money out of politics obviously. but the fucking teabagger and or ron paul loving cattle defending insurance companies. * slaps head How many people have died cause they didnt catch things early. Didnt get preventative care? It's murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 preventative care is impossible to regularly get in the united states if you don't have insurance. a goddamn doctor's visit costs seventy bucks. this does not include all the tests that you need for a routine physical, so if there isn't something obviously wrong with you that can be revealed with a listen to the heart/lung, visually, or palpation, you're gonna have to spend some more money. say the doctor does find something wrong during your preventative care visit. if you have some type of malady that isn't easily treatable by antibiotics, get ready to be referred to specialists, who will drain even more money out of you with a series of tests that may end up being entirely pointless. they'll pat you on the back and say, "watch your cholesterol and exercise more," as you fork over a couple of thousand bucks for that sage wisdom. oh, and this doesn't even take into consideration the extreme bureaucracy of the doctor's office that conveniently does not mention the price of tests or treatment until after you've received them. then even after you've paid, they still might try to suck you dry. example: i went to get a vaccine for meningitis at some private clinic, paid like $100 for it at the desk, and then a couple of weeks later i get a bill for a blood test that i didn't even receive. yeah, they wanted eighty dollars for care they didn't provide (and it was certainly not on the bill that my mom paid in full at the office) and they hassled me for months until the bill was paid. my mom called them multiple times to explain what happened, but of course those condescending "health professionals" working the front desk never gave her the time of day. the same ones that practically roll their eyes when you say you don't have insurance. bitch, you are a glorified secretary, so where are you getting that attitude from? yeah, it's a wonder people don't go to doctors for preventative care. most of the healthcare industry looks like a big bullshit scam to the working class and, in my experience, a lot of it is. i don't even wanna get into what happens when you're REALLY sick. bankruptcy. by the way, i volunteer at a free clinic that treats people who don't qualify for medicaid and can't afford insurance. some of the stories i've heard from my boss (a case manager there) are awful. she has the great job of telling people that the clinic can't provide the treatment they need and that they'll need to be referred to another provider, where they'd have to pay a couple of hundred to even see a specialist (obviously not going to happen). even if those patients are feeling ill, we can't do anything for them anymore. what's worse is that they can't just go to the ER because you basically have to be on the brink of death to be admitted. those people are going to be waiting to die and she gets to break the news to them. what kind of society is this that we let this happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 ha, yeah, I was wondering if that was the implication. Although maybe we will get healthier with all of that healthcare we'll be getting. Actually, looking at the numbers, Americans might be getting healthier. Everyone's still fat, though. (check here for in depth statistics on health) Weird... getting fatter, living longer, and death rates down. It is, but the explanation is actually pretty simple: diseases that used to kill us are turned into chronic diseases. So people live longer despite being sick. And yes, this has a huge impact on the total healthcare costs. Roughly 80% of the total costs come from the chronic/elderly patients. An interesting statistic might be how long people live nowadays without having certain illnesses. That statistic might be more useful when comparing with historical data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 what a mess this thing is... and we are so arrogant to not look to other countries as clear examples that work. With this bill they actually did, right? It was a mess, and it will be less so. There is no perfect system, but the current bill should at least give you some sense of hope that things could and will be better. And in some cases already are (like being insured until your 26th, and the prohibition to drop coverage). preventative care is impossible to regularly get in the united states if you don't have insurance. ... what kind of society is this that we let this happen? I don't think I fully understand your point, but if having an insurance could be a solution for many people, shouldn't you embrace this bill instead of getting on the "the middle class are getting screwed" boat? Yes, the idea is that everyone has to pay a little something, even though they might be healthy. But everyone benefits as well by not having to worry about the financial risk of getting sick (or preventing getting sick). A healthcare system will only function properly if everyone pays their taxes. That's not different in the most liberal system possible (within the current economic system...bread, where are you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 what kind of society is this that we let this happen? A FREE society, with the FREEDOM to die of an easily preventable disease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 on a tangent: a recent BBC-doc is pretty interesting. it's called "the men who made us fat". So if you're interested, be sure to check it out. *looks in mirror, shakes fist impotently* haha no, the idea actually is that consumers certainly aren't the only ones to blame. so you are allowed to look at this docu and shake your fist furiously. edit: shaking your fists at those other men, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest disparaissant Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 preventative care is impossible to regularly get in the united states if you don't have insurance. a goddamn doctor's visit costs seventy bucks. this does not include all the tests that you need for a routine physical, so if there isn't something obviously wrong with you that can be revealed with a listen to the heart/lung, visually, or palpation, you're gonna have to spend some more money. say the doctor does find something wrong during your preventative care visit. if you have some type of malady that isn't easily treatable by antibiotics, get ready to be referred to specialists, who will drain even more money out of you with a series of tests that may end up being entirely pointless. they'll pat you on the back and say, "watch your cholesterol and exercise more," as you fork over a couple of thousand bucks for that sage wisdom. oh, and this doesn't even take into consideration the extreme bureaucracy of the doctor's office that conveniently does not mention the price of tests or treatment until after you've received them. then even after you've paid, they still might try to suck you dry. example: i went to get a vaccine for meningitis at some private clinic, paid like $100 for it at the desk, and then a couple of weeks later i get a bill for a blood test that i didn't even receive. yeah, they wanted eighty dollars for care they didn't provide (and it was certainly not on the bill that my mom paid in full at the office) and they hassled me for months until the bill was paid. my mom called them multiple times to explain what happened, but of course those condescending "health professionals" working the front desk never gave her the time of day. the same ones that practically roll their eyes when you say you don't have insurance. bitch, you are a glorified secretary, so where are you getting that attitude from? yeah, it's a wonder people don't go to doctors for preventative care. most of the healthcare industry looks like a big bullshit scam to the working class and, in my experience, a lot of it is. i don't even wanna get into what happens when you're REALLY sick. bankruptcy. by the way, i volunteer at a free clinic that treats people who don't qualify for medicaid and can't afford insurance. some of the stories i've heard from my boss (a case manager there) are awful. she has the great job of telling people that the clinic can't provide the treatment they need and that they'll need to be referred to another provider, where they'd have to pay a couple of hundred to even see a specialist (obviously not going to happen). even if those patients are feeling ill, we can't do anything for them anymore. what's worse is that they can't just go to the ER because you basically have to be on the brink of death to be admitted. those people are going to be waiting to die and she gets to break the news to them. what kind of society is this that we let this happen? right? i haven't had insurance for a couple years now, because i was (and still am, until 2014) uninsurable thanks to a chronic illness. i am, thanks to a hospitalisation, about 2k from the minimum limit for declaring bankruptcy. i'm thinking about just racking that up in urgent care bills so i can wake up in the morning and maybe not be sore all over and then declaring bankruptcy. that is the state of our healthcare system. don't get me wrong, i think obamacare could be a lot better. it could actually be a healthcare bill. but as a stepping stone to thigns greater, it's fine with me. because it means i might be able to get some fucking healthcare in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Yes, the world will look like lot more favorable for people with chronic medical conditions from 2014 and on. Because of this, one could argue that a vote for Obama in the next elections will be a moral vote. That is, if we can believe the Repubs are actually able to repeal the current bill. And when it comes to Washington, i can't tell which is up or down anymore. So please think of people like disp. the next time you're in a voting boot. I know I sound like a horrible salesman...but I actually mean this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.