Health Care Bill Passes Senate

[Alethiometry]

When they turn the pages of history, when these days have passed long ago, will they read of us with sadness for the seeds that we let grow?

[spaceplayer]

When they turn the pages of history, when these days have passed long ago, will they read of us with sadness for the seeds that we let grow?

A Farewell, indeed. Can't we raise our eyes and make a start?

[Black Wolf]

..What about Russia, China, and Japan, and several other countries that are freeing up the markets? Do you think they'll see the importance of privatized health care?

[Maximus]

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.--Ronald Reagan

[D'kian]

Here's what I'm afraid of:

In a few years, when people see the quality and quantity of healthcare are declining, when they confront rationing, higher taxes, complex bureaucracies and endless waits for even simple procedures, when they see loved ones die of things that could be cured had they been diagnosed in time, when they recall not long ago they were diagnosed in time, when all that happens, will people all over America realize they've been had and rebell against the system, or will they accept the altruistic premise that we all most get used to bad healthcare when the alternative is for some to go uninsured?

Thats why this is a philosophical battle. and that's why I get nervous when I hear people say "once socialist policies are exposed for what they really are, people will change their minds." All too often they're afraid to do so.

[Coeus]

The world must wake up and realize the moral and rational contradictions involved in government health care. Everyone talks about how people could be made healthy and longer life expectancy and the like with government funding, but nobody bothers to go deeper. No one asks where that cash will need to come from, and it will have to come from everybody. I will have to pay for another man's health care, a man whom I have never had the chance to judge for myself whether they are worth my savings or not. How is that just? How is that fair, for those that wish to see nothing but fairness between people?

This is the beginnings of the government removing conscious, rational thought from the common man, and I guarantee it will not stop here. The greatest threat to those that seek power is logic, and so they will seek to deny it to the people whom they rule so tyrannically. As Ayn Rand said a number of times, history will support me in this. Wherever there is a tyrant, no matter what guise they choose to hide behind, they provide their subjects, their slaves, with not a single, heavy chain, but rather a thousand weak links, each with its own individual lock. The more they are held down, the less opportunity people are given to think. It is not just an uprising that tyrants fear. It is not just a loss of power. They can pass on that power to whomever they please. A simple rebellion can be quashed. They fear the men of the mind, they fear organized, intelligent and rational people. But these great men and women cannot be destroyed like simple slaves; they must be shackled so that they might be manipulated into serving the tyrant. Without the builders, the thinkers, and the innovators there is nothing to rule. It is not thinking that they seek to annihilate; it is free choice.

This bill, this "universal health care" is an abomination. It stands, and he who dares call himself our president with his lackeys in Congress beside him, hold it like a banner above their heads, proud that they have dealt such a blow to freedom. They grin even as they realize in the shadows of their minds that this banner is made from the flesh of the free man. They laugh and raise their hands in victory, even as his blood stains them. These politicians they call themselves, Congressmen and President alike, are the tyrants of our age. The free man is that which they loathe; choice is that which they cannot comprehend; logic is that which they fear. And from that hatred, that ignorance, and that terror, they realize they must turn to destruction. They claim so righteously that they stand for helping people, and making everyone happy, but they look not at how they will do such things. They must destroy all that makes people free, all that allows people to choose, and all that makes people happy in order for everyone to finally be brought down to the same level. Their goal is not the happiness of others, in truth. It is the destruction of happiness. It is the destruction of love, of logic, of life and liberty. They do not want to bring everyone up to the same level. They want to drag everyone down to the same level. And after that has been done, they will destroy the ladder, and cover the sky. The free man will be shackled to whomever stands next to him, and they will not even be granted the comfort of contempt, for even the tyrants will stand with everyone else, staring, wondering what they have wrought. There will be no key to unlock the chains; there will not even be a leader to unite against. It will be a slavery to existence itself, as nothing more than living every day for nothing but survival in this nightmare. Death and life will become blurred, for there will be no difference between the two. There will be no preference, no choice, no thought. All live together, so the dead do not matter. All die together, so the living do not matter.

The world will not end in fire, nor will it end in ice. Not the machinations of man nor the will of some divine God will destroy us. It will instead be a doomed existence in that dark hell, day after day, until we are no longer human, and the mind no longer exists. This is the way the world ends. On our current path, that sinister plane of existence is exactly where our species is headed. I will not claim an obligation to stop it for anyone. I instead present a choice: freedom, or lack thereof. There exists no middle ground. Decide yourself, of your own volition and rational thought, which existence you would prefer.

[Black Wolf]

I honestly never understood why liberals were against health stamps.

I mean, I am against them because I am a proud laissez-faire capitalist extremist, but think about it. Health stamps would only apply to people who make less than satisfactory income. These are the people that the liberals are most concerned about. But no, instead of doing something cost-effective and supporting only the people that can't afford health insurance, they want a $1 trillion dollar health care plan to be extended to EVERYBODY.

Hey, my name is Johnny Matherson. I'm only 12 years old. My parents make a combined income of $250,000/year, and you're paying for my cough syrup! For a group of people that is known for their contempt for rich people, liberals sure are very concerned for rich people and don't think they can take care of themselves!

Edited January 5, 2010 by Black Wolf

[softwareNerd]

Good question, Wolf. You're right: a desire for control is one factor. The second is egalitarianism.They want everyone to be equal. A universal plan achieves this, and also gives some bureaucrat control: two birds with one stone.

The same is true in education. People have been talking about school vouchers for decades, but modern liberals will never agree. Check out this post "The Soul of an Egalitarian" for some insight.)

Not sure where I saw this snippet, but it's a good meme (transcribing from memory): how is asking me to pay your medical bills any different from asking me to pick your cotton?

Edited January 5, 2010 by softwareNerd

[brian0918]

Not sure where I saw this snippet, but it's a good meme (transcribing from memory): how is asking me to pay your medical bills any different from asking me to pick your cotton?

But but but but healthcare is a right, cotton is not!

I made my arbitrary distinction, and I'm sticking to it!

[Black Wolf]

But but but but healthcare is a right, cotton is not!

I made my arbitrary distinction, and I'm sticking to it!

So does that mean that nobody has a right to clothing?

OOPS!

[Black Wolf]

The Democrats have won. It was inevitable.

But we can still fight back!

Let's fight back with amendments nullifying bills that are too long

Edited March 22, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Maximus]

"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!" -- Senator Palpatine, Star Wars, Episode II

It's the death of the Republic.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

It's the death of the Republic.

Isn't that a little drastic?

[Black Wolf]

Our "Republic" has been dead a long time ago, really.

[rebelconservative]

I knew the new Health Bill passed the House yesterday, but doesn't it still have to go to the Senate?

[Amaroq]

This is an old topic that has been resurrected in light of the new current event. The thread title is probably referring to something else. Not sure though, I haven't been keeping up lately.

[rebelconservative]

This is an old topic that has been resurrected in light of the new current event. The thread title is probably referring to something else. Not sure though, I haven't been keeping up lately.

it looks like the Dems are going to get Obama to sign the Senate bill into law, then the Senate will have to vote to change parts of their bill to th bill passed by the House?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21...care-vote/]"Obama will have to sign the Senate bill into law before any fixes bill goes to the Senate under rules designed to enable Democrats to pass the bill with 51 votes, thus avoiding a Republican filibuster. Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats, one vote shy of the number needed to overcome bill-killing filibusters from a united GOP."

surely it would be easier to make the House and the Senate both vote on the same Bill, essentially having a reconciliation process and a straight up-down vote before the bill is signed into law?

what happens next year when the Dems are routed in Congress?

is there any chance the GOP could retake the House? if so, could the GOP pass a bill to nullify this bill? - would Obama veto it?

Edited March 22, 2010 by rebelconservative

[gags]

What a disaster for America. This will be extremely difficult if not impossible to unwind with the current Leftist in Chief occupying the White House.

[Steven Tucker]

What a disaster for America. This will be extremely difficult if not impossible to unwind with the current Leftist in Chief occupying the White House.

Like with Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation, Health Care Reform will define the political environment for the foreseeable decades to come. If the consequences of this bill become popular, Democrats will hold power for twenty or thirty years, running on the importance of keeping their Heath Care entitlements in place. If the consequences of this bill become unpopular, however; if the Democrats fail to deliver quality health care to all Americans, then the Democrat Party could be sunk and we may see the longest reign of a Republican Majority in the history of the United States Government. 2010 will only be a small step in either direction. If the Republicans don't take both the House and the Senate, the chances are that they will not be able to accomplish enough of their own agenda to run on their own progress in 2012. If HCR is popular by 2012, if we have pulled out of this Recession by then, President Obama could lead another relentless campaign and regain the Congress on his coattails. By 2012, 2010 could look like an ominous overreaction to positive legislation. So we won't know anything until then.

[gags]

Like with Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation, Health Care Reform will define the political environment for the foreseeable decades to come. If the consequences of this bill become popular, Democrats will hold power for twenty or thirty years, running on the importance of keeping their Heath Care entitlements in place. If the consequences of this bill become unpopular, however; if the Democrats fail to deliver quality health care to all Americans, then the Democrat Party could be sunk and we may see the longest reign of a Republican Majority in the history of the United States Government. 2010 will only be a small step in either direction. If the Republicans don't take both the House and the Senate, the chances are that they will not be able to accomplish enough of their own agenda to run on their own progress in 2012. If HCR is popular by 2012, if we have pulled out of this Recession by then, President Obama could lead another relentless campaign and regain the Congress on his coattails. By 2012, 2010 could look like an ominous overreaction to positive legislation. So we won't know anything until then.

The world isn't going to an end tomorrow, however 10 years from now we are certain to have a worse healthcare system than we would have had if this package of controls, taxes, and other "reforms" wasn't passed. This legislation virtually guarantees fewer doctors, the rationing of care, continued increases in HC expenditures, and another fiscal disaster for the country that will make Social Security and Medicare look small by comparison.

I don't know whether the American people will favor the Republicans in sufficient numbers during future elections. After all, there were actually some Objectivists who advocated voting for Obama in 2008. If Objectivists can't understand the danger presented by Obama and his followers, then I doubt the average American victim of our public education system will have that ability.

[Jake_Ellison]

After all, there were actually some Objectivists who advocated voting for Obama in 2008. If Objectivists can't understand the danger presented by Obama and his followers, then I doubt the average American victim of our public education system will have that ability.

Like who? (unless not voting for McCain counts, then I'm guilty as charged.)

[aequalsa]

Isn't that a little drastic?

No.

In a word.

This bill requires insurance companies to cover all preexisting conditions by 2014. That, in connection with the 40% excise tax on high end plans will put all insurers out of business unless they prop them up with exceptions and subsidies purchased by lobbyists. This will leave only government care which will start murdering people who are no longer of value to the state through the use of waiting lists rather than "death panel."

By 2014 everyone will be required by law to purchase insurance or face a $695 fine. This effectively means that insurance will cost no more than $695/year since it would become the logical choice to pay the fine instead of getting the insurance. When enough people choose the fine then the price of the fine(a legal punishment for not buying a product) will go up without the reality based restrictions a market would apply.

Effectively, we no longer possess self-ownership as of today. So, no, I would not agree that the statement is a little drastic.

[rebelconservative]

By 2014 everyone will be required by law to purchase insurance or face a $695 fine. This effectively means that insurance will cost no more than $695/year since it would become the logical choice to pay the fine instead of getting the insurance. When enough people choose the fine then the price of the fine(a legal punishment for not buying a product) will go up without the reality based restrictions a market would apply.

not really... paying $695 for no insurance is not the logical choice in that scenario. if insurance cost say, $2000, you'd still be better off getting the benefit of insurance for, essentially, $1305 than paying the $695 fine and having no insurance.

insurance costs would not necessarily fall to that price - with the ban on exempting pre-existing conditions, costs are going to rise, not fall.

what I don't understand is how they can claim that the bill will cover 31million Americans, what are the changes that they believe will ensure that those people have insurance?

[TheEgoist]

brbguiz, gonna go demand penis enlargement surgery at the local government health facility. With any luck, I'll probably end up a woman.

[brian0918]

not really... paying $695 for no insurance is not the logical choice in that scenario. if insurance cost say, $2000, you'd still be better off getting the benefit of insurance for, essentially, $1305 than paying the $695 fine and having no insurance.

I'm not sure you understand. If insurance companies can't deny pre-existing conditions, then you can wait until you are sick to get insurance. In the meantime, just pay the cheap fine. That is what everyone is saying. It is much easier to pay $695 until you happen to get sick, then buy insurance, and the insurance will cover you.

There is absolutely no reason to pay the $1305 extra for insurance you don't need (because you are not sick).

Edited March 22, 2010 by brian0918