Obama at it again..
- Thread starter Xpress
- Start date
CMonster
Giga Poster
Both, actually.SnooSnoo said:
I know this isn’t on the topic of the school thing, but it’s about Obama, and I wanted to reply, so…
Seriously, Obama’s health care plan is completely awful. Any national health insurance plan will necessarily result in fewer employer-provided health insurance options, and mandatory health insurance for the masses paid for by you and I, through higher taxes. It will also result in rationed health care — think about waiting three to six months just to be seen about your ear infection, and that’s if you’re young — and poorer health care when you do get in to see a doctor.
Many health care providers will indeed go out of business because they won’t be able to afford to practice under a government fixed-cost system, and/or will leave the industry out of frustration at not being able to provide the kind of care they envisioned when they became doctors in the first place.
You can clearly see that this is not free healthcare, in fact, it will cost more to most people than our current system. The non-partisan Congressional budget office has said the current bill will NOT lower costs, and will SWELL the national debt and the budget deficit over the next decade.
Also, ask yourself this, are you okay with a bureaucrat in DC knowing the most intimate details of your health portfolio? That’s what would happen under this bill.
This plan is like Canada’s health care system, and I’m sure Taylor can tell you all how awful their system is. (If she knows how awful it is.) The fact is, right now we’ve got a good and, while it’s not perfect, nothing is in life.
And before anyone argues with me about the previous paragraph, think of this: Do people in America run to Canada to use their government run health care system, or do Canadians run to America to use our health care system?
Further, under this bill you would be “assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
“The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America’s health-care cost explosion.” –CNN
The idea is that by reducing costs for the government and insurance companies in this area, you would be able to afford money in other areas. However, looking at rationing systems like this in other countries shows how horrible it could be. Effective arthritis and lung cancer drugs, which work just fine, are not being distributed due to the rationing system… in order to cut costs.
Imagine if you are one of the unlucky people with a horrible primary care doctor who won’t let you see a specialist when you need one?
I’m done.
Never mind.
Joey said:
Well, when I finish school next april or may as a freshman, I will have done Geometry, Algebra 2, Economics, American Government, Latin, American Literature, Philosophy, Debate, Public Speaking, Shakespeare, and Physical Science, all in one year, getting at least one credit for all of them.
Tell me how that will not be valuable when I graduate high school.
Now I'm finished.
Error
Strata Poster
CMonster said:Both, actually.SnooSnoo said:
I know this isn’t on the topic of the school thing, but it’s about Obama, and I wanted to reply, so…
Seriously, Obama’s health care plan is completely awful. Any national health insurance plan will necessarily result in fewer employer-provided health insurance options, and mandatory health insurance for the masses paid for by you and I, through higher taxes. It will also result in rationed health care — think about waiting three to six months just to be seen about your ear infection, and that’s if you’re young — and poorer health care when you do get in to see a doctor.
Many health care providers will indeed go out of business because they won’t be able to afford to practice under a government fixed-cost system, and/or will leave the industry out of frustration at not being able to provide the kind of care they envisioned when they became doctors in the first place.
You can clearly see that this is not free healthcare, in fact, it will cost more to most people than our current system. The non-partisan Congressional budget office has said the current bill will NOT lower costs, and will SWELL the national debt and the budget deficit over the next decade.
Also, ask yourself this, are you okay with a bureaucrat in DC knowing the most intimate details of your health portfolio? That’s what would happen under this bill.
This plan is like Canada’s health care system, and I’m sure Taylor can tell you all how awful their system is. (If she knows how awful it is.) The fact is, right now we’ve got a good and, while it’s not perfect, nothing is in life.
And before anyone argues with me about the previous paragraph, think of this: Do people in America run to Canada to use their government run health care system, or do Canadians run to America to use our health care system?
Further, under this bill you would be “assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
“The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America’s health-care cost explosion.” –CNN
The idea is that by reducing costs for the government and insurance companies in this area, you would be able to afford money in other areas. However, looking at rationing systems like this in other countries shows how horrible it could be. Effective arthritis and lung cancer drugs, which work just fine, are not being distributed due to the rationing system… in order to cut costs.
Imagine if you are one of the unlucky people with a horrible primary care doctor who won’t let you see a specialist when you need one?
I’m done.
Never mind.
Joey said:
Well, when I finish school next april or may as a freshman, I will have done Geometry, Algebra 2, Economics, American Government, Latin, American Literature, Philosophy, Debate, Public Speaking, Shakespeare, and Physical Science, all in one year, getting at least one credit for all of them.
Tell me how that will not be valuable when I graduate high school.
Now I'm finished.
Where do you watch your news?
Gazza
Giga Poster
But the higher taxes get evened out by not having to pay for health insurance.
Why is it the responsibility of your employer to fund your healthcare? Healthcare is sort of the responsibility of government/individuals, not business right?
Before I go any further, I'll explain the situation as it stands in Australia:
-We have both a public and a private healthcare system
-Everybody is entitled to public healthcare
-If you want, you can get private health cover and get treated at private hospitals
-Once your income exceeds $70,000 you have to pay an extra 1% income tax if you don't have private cover. This acts as an incentive for people who can afford it to get private cover.
-Drugs prescriptions are subsidised.
Time to break out some OECD data: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343, ... _1,00.html
The US spends 15.8% of its GDP on healthcare, Australia spends 8.7%
(And so the rest of our members don't feel left out, 8.5% in the UK, 10% in Canada, 8.6% in Norway.
In dollar terms, the US is spending more than twice the amount as the OECD average.
So this is what gets me, if you are spending so much more then why can't you still get proper coverage for everyone? Every other developed country has it sorted, what's your excuse?
The problem is that healthcare provision is handled by the private sector in the US, and because it's private companies they have a profit motive, so part of the money being spent on healthcare in the US is 'wasted' on company profits and shareholders. But in a public system all the money has to be spent on actually providing healthcare.
Yes, they are going to go through and scrutinise every single person :roll:
I do find it quite strange, and this happens everywhere (even between different states in Australia), is when a government is planning to introduce a new idea/system, and people try and make up all these 'chicken little' arguments against it, even when in many cases the system/idea has already been running elsewhere for many years sucessfully.
A little example is how in NSW and Victoria shop trading hours are completley deregulated, whereas here in Queensland supermarkets have to shut at 5pm on Saturdays, cant trade 24 hours etc etc. Any attempts to change this are met by cries of 'It'll destroy small buisness etc etc' even though this has not occurred in other states.
Seems like the same thing here.
Why cant those against universal healthcare accept that the majority of developed countries that already provide it have it right, and the US has it wrong?
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
In the UK, we get to drop key subjects earlier and don't have to spend as many years at school. So, the assumption that number of days spent at school per year equates to amount learnt is utterly ridiculous.mrclam said:
Everything you learn I think is valuable, and thus the more individuals you gain experience from the better. Not only teachers, but other kids and their views on life are highly important. If you're home schooled, your parents can pick and choose what you learn essentially and bring up a child in a very close minded world. I'm not saying you are, or that for you home schooling isn't the best option. I'm just voicing general concerns about home schooling in general. You're also missing out on things like having to present things to a class and team building and other skills that will benefit you in your working life. AND you're missing out on a part of life that is a common memory and talking point for most people, which instantly makes you distanced.
You have to be at secondary school six years now as well, compulsary education age was raised to 17... for the people who started year 7 last year, they will have to be in school six years, and everyone after them.
I don't quite know what this contributes to the topic but there you go.
I don't quite know what this contributes to the topic but there you go.
mrclam
Giga Poster
Joey said:
The assumption was that canadian kids spend the same time in school as american kids each year.
I was merely posting that to show that american kids spend less time per year in school than other western countries. I didnt say anything about whether or not that made them less educated.
.. Although i did point out the link between more educated germans/japanese (Who are both reknowned for the effort students put in, in those countries).
At no point did i say the English system WASNT sh!te.
CMonster
Giga Poster
^ One day every week I go to a co-op with an actual class where I get my assignments for the week, as well as turning in and presenting previous assignments.
Plus, I'm part of a Speech and Debate club.
And, while some homeschoolers might have poor social skills, not all of them do. As I said before, I go to a co-op with a class size of around 10 people or so, I go to the speech and debate club which has around 100-150 people in it, and I'm on a swim team, as well as doing other extra carricular activities.
So, no, I don't spend all of my time shut up inside my house, I do have friends, and a life.
Plus, I'm part of a Speech and Debate club.
And, while some homeschoolers might have poor social skills, not all of them do. As I said before, I go to a co-op with a class size of around 10 people or so, I go to the speech and debate club which has around 100-150 people in it, and I'm on a swim team, as well as doing other extra carricular activities.
So, no, I don't spend all of my time shut up inside my house, I do have friends, and a life.
mrclam
Giga Poster
CMonster said:
I appologise if i implied that. But it was a funny image which came into my head.
You sound intelligent, and unlike most people your age you can actually spell and use punctuation much better than i can! So in your case home schooling has obviously worked! Whoever you have teaching you has done themselves proud.
Can I ask what the intention was behind homeschooling? I've read that 80% of Americans who are home schooled were taken out due to religious reasons, etc?
Im sorry if i pry. I am genuinely interested in this!
CMonster
Giga Poster
^ No, you're not prying, and that quote was more of proving a point than answering what you said. Which was funny.
Ya, the main reason is not so much religious (although that's a big part of it), but just so my parents can teach me what they think would be best for me, e.g. not evolutionary science, ect. There are other reasons, but that's the biggest.
Ya, the main reason is not so much religious (although that's a big part of it), but just so my parents can teach me what they think would be best for me, e.g. not evolutionary science, ect. There are other reasons, but that's the biggest.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
^ If they're concerned about religion, why don't you just go to a public school where they don't make you take religion? And they also don't make you take evolutionary science either, unless Florida does for some reason.
But obviously home schooling has done you good because I was shocked to see you are fourteen.. You're well spoken and your grammar is top notch, which is more than can be said for quite a few people on here .
But obviously home schooling has done you good because I was shocked to see you are fourteen.. You're well spoken and your grammar is top notch, which is more than can be said for quite a few people on here
.
Nicky
Hyper Poster
I went to a secondary school that was Church of England supported and everything and they saw no problem with teaching us creationism in Religious Studies and then teaching us evolutionary in Science lessons. They never told us which one we had to believe, they were just showing us different viewpoints and we were left to make our own decisions.
I can only really see evolutionary science as being something that they wouldn't want you to be taught but is there anything else?
From a honestly interested individual.
I can only really see evolutionary science as being something that they wouldn't want you to be taught but is there anything else?
From a honestly interested individual.
CMonster
Giga Poster
LiveForTheLaunch said:^ If they're concerned about religion, why don't you just go to a public school where they don't make you take religion? And they also don't make you take evolutionary science either, unless Florida does for some reason.
But obviously home schooling has done you good because I was shocked to see you are fourteen.. You're well spoken and your grammar is top notch, which is more than can be said for quite a few people on here
Yeah, I'm pretty sure all public schools teach that, as they sure don't teach Intelligent Design, which isn't even religious.
And I really am 14, I promise. Well, 14 and 1/2.
:wink:
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
It's not a requirement to take religion in a public school I don't think, because the point of it being public is for people to be free of any religious things in their education. Well, that's how it works over here anyway.
Funny, we were actually talking about Obama in law today and the whole health care thing is ridiculous, haha, but I won't say much.. They're probably throwing the idea in his face because, we can't deny that humans are resistant to change, so I kind of understand it, but just because taxes are going up doesn't mean people shouldn't look at the big picture.. Most of us WILL need some kind of major health care in our lives and in the end, paying more taxes will probably be cheaper than paying thousands for a hospital room/medical procedures.
Thinking about it, it's ridiculous how I heard someone else had to pay like, $800 or something for three hours in a hospital room that wasn't private.. And I was in the hospital for four/five days after a big surgery, private room, everything.. And didn't pay a dime. Why wouldn't Americans want that?
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
I want to cry.CMonster said:
If you're void of the knowledge to start with you have no way of judging what is true or not.
