What the **** has Obama done so far?

[DiebytheSword]

Their old system was just inhuman and not of this time to be frank.
I don't know how they introduced the current system. I don't know how much compromise went into it which might of made it worse then originally intended, but it's a needed change. This will insure a increase of life expectancy, hopefully reduce infant death and increase the over enjoyment of life. At least, that's what it should do in my opinion.

Those numbers on child mortality are never quite correct, socialist nations, especially Maoist or Stalinist ones, often under-report child deaths to make capitalism look bad. Propaganda is a powerful tool. You dont' see dead babies all over the hospitals or anything.

I too agree that our health system needs reform, just in a 180 degree direction from how it was done. Instead of keeping it expensive and forcing everyone to buy it, it should have been made cheaper so that everyone who wants it could buy it. Allow interstate competition, reform tort laws, tax breaks, all of these things can reduce the costs of care. None of that was in the health care bill.

As for fighting the bill, Republicans plan to defund it, as repeal and replace will never work with Democrats in charge of the Senate and White House. It would be a murderously uphill and pointless battle at this point. The other option is then fighting the law in the supreme court, which is almost garaunteed to happen. It has already passed the lower state supreme court with a whopping 22 states lined up behind it, meaning that 22 states are suing to have the bill overturned as uncostitutional.

 

[-Origin]

Yes you goaded me back into it, lol.

[video=youtube;UPw-3e_pzqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU[/video]

Had to be done. I'm sorry.

EDIT: On topic, didn't I hear something about the Republicans taking back the .. Senate, I think it was? Starting January 1st? Something about the House of Representatives?

I know I must seem clueless but the way the American goverment is divided is very confusing for a guy like me.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Most profit bearing corporations hit 39% with no options. This forces them to spend money on the government or in charity.

Claims coverage does not equal substandard care, that means that the insurance company won't pay them, or pay you to pay them. You get stuck with the bill. You cannot be denied care, for any reason, in the US. The idea that people don't get emergency medical care is a myth. I know, my wife recived such care multiple times. The huge bill was payed by charities. Exactly how it should work in a captalist system.

 

[Grega]

It has already passed the lower state supreme court with a whopping 22 states lined up behind it, meaning that 22 states are suing to have the bill overturned as uncostitutional.

I wish you guys luck with that. And though im used to it, im amazed how ignorant masses can be. When people start saying "Someone else needs to think for me" its time to slap some sense into them. As its no different than the dark ages in europe, when the church was burning books and stuff (not one thing im proud of in my own religion).

EDIT:

The huge bill was payed by charities. Exactly how it should work in a captalist system.

There is a funny part in that really. Charities are a socialist invention ^^;

 

[Prozac]

Most profit bearing corporations hit 39% with no options. This forces them to spend money on the government or in charity.

Claims coverage does not equal substandard care, that means that the insurance company won't pay them, or pay you to pay them. You get stuck with the bill. You cannot be denied care, for any reason, in the US. The idea that people don't get emergency medical care is a myth. I know, my wife recived such care multiple times. The huge bill was payed by charities. Exactly how it should work in a captalist system.

Ofcourse you get emergency care. Doctors have to do that, it's in their oath! However when you might have a certain form of cancer and you need a CAT scan, which has a sub-optimal chances of finding this type of cancer, or locating it specifically, the last resort treatment might get denied. Because it costs a lot of money and might not yield any results. That's what I one of the things I was aiming at. Not the actual work your doctors and nurses (When ever I type "nurses" I'm thinking of Karrde in a sexy leather nurse suit.. I've got issues ) do, which is without a doubt topnotch. Faults are not permitted.

And though im used to it, im amazed how ignorant masses can be. When people start saying "Someone else needs to think for me" its time to slap some sense into them.

That's another interesting human perk, we -want- to follow, and preferably blindly. Intelligence doesn't actively factor into this, it's part of our evolutionary growth as a species. This is even part (note, a part, not soul) of the reason why we as species are susceptible to religion. But this really is taking everything offtopic and a statement that possibly might rub people the wrong way, so please understand how it's my own opinion on the matter, and not written to intentionally hurt someone.
Point is, the bigger a similar minded group is, the lower the individual threshold becomes to except certain things. An simple example of this is shown with hooligans, they tend to lose their own individuality and go up in the group. Doing things they would never do on their own.

 

[DiebytheSword]

[video=youtube;UPw-3e_pzqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU[/video]

Had to be done. I'm sorry.

EDIT: On topic, didn't I hear something about the Republicans taking back the .. Senate, I think it was? Starting January 1st? Something about the House of Representatives?

I know I must seem clueless but the way the American goverment is divided is very confusing for a guy like me.

Can't see it, I'm at work and Youtube is blocked because of the soft pron you can find in it. The US House of Representatives, the lower house that is comprised of relative population rather than equal state representation, has been swept by Republicans to the tune of 65+ seats (not all elections were settled), this is the largest sweep since the progressives were tossed out after World War II.

The Senate sits at 57-41 2 Ind. After January it will be 51-47 2 Ind. Dems still in control and have enough for fillibuster.

 

[-Origin]

I posted a video comparing you to Al Pacino and you can't watch it? I'm insulted.

So how is the entire government set up, then? I mean, as far as I know there's the House of Representatives, the Senate, and then the actual administration. It seems unneccesarily complicated when compared to other governments. What's the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate? I mean, doesn't the Senate... represent states? Or am I just being an idiot here?

 

[DiebytheSword]

There are three branches, Legislative (US House of Representatives creates laws and has oversight on the executive branch, US Senate has oversight of judicial branch, approves of cabinet members for Executive branch, cannot create laws, but drafts their own version of the bill, both bills are then melded together and passed on to the . . .), Executive (cheif law enforcement, signs bills into laws, weilds veto, commander and chief of millitary, head of state and face of nation), and
Judicial which interprets the meaning of the consitition and applies it to laws passed by the Legislative branch.

Grossly simplified, but mostly accurate.

The Senate is representative of each state, each state gets two Senators. This was done so mob rule cannot change the law of the land. The House is based on the population of each state, so populous states like California, New York and Illinois are better represented here.

 

[-Origin]

Doesn't that make the House terribly... unfair? Less populous states need enough representation too, right?

 

[DiebytheSword]

Doesn't that make the House terribly... unfair? Less populous states need enough representation too, right?

Indeed it does, that's why the Senate was created in fact. It is also why you will hear most conservatives waiting patiently for California to fall into the sea with a 10 magnitude earthquake.

 

[Prozac]

Doesn't that make the House terribly... unfair? Less populous states need enough representation too, right?

Why? Should the votes in less populated areas count for more?

The only way this seems unfair to me is that when a state like California votes, as an example, for republicans with 51%. They get a 100% representation in the house.
Or am I confused with voting for a new president.. ANYWAY, each vote should count individually.

 

[-Origin]

No, they should count for the same. Less populous areas being less represented seem unfair to me. Every state should be equally represented.

 

[Prozac]

No, they should count for the same. Less populous areas being less represented seem unfair to me. Every state should be equally represented.

California has 10 people living in the state.
Michigan has 2 people living in the state.

Votes have happened, and the house is filled in.
Now when everyone was equally represented in the house, it would mean that each individual Michigan voters vote would count for 5 times as much as a single persons vote from California. That's not fair.

 

[-Origin]

It creates the notion that laws in less populated states are less important. I reckon if there's 50 states and 50 spots on the House, every State should get one spot. Giving more populated states 2 spots is what made me think of it as unfair.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Why? Should the votes in less populated areas count for more?

The only way this seems unfair to me is that when a state like California votes, as an example, for republicans with 51%. They get a 100% representation in the house.
Or am I confused with voting for a new president.. ANYWAY, each vote should count individually.

The Electoral College. You vote for electors, those electors in turn "promise" to vote for a candidate. Thus, if majority of the state elects republicans, the electoral college value of the state goes towards the promised candidate. Don't worry your prettty little head, the Democrats have voted California every time. (See what I did there?) California is worth 54 points, NY is #2 with 37, IRRC. This means that republican presidents need to win almost all of the less populous states.

I don't remember correctly, lol

http://www.zogby.com/50state/

There are all the votes for the electoral college. Texas is #2, NY #3. Texas usually offsets NY.

 

[-Origin]

So in theory, you could win the entire thing just by winning, say, the top 3 populated states?

That is unfair.

 

[Prozac]

It just seems like such a clunky system from our perspective.
Anyway, bed time. Let all this stuff sink in!

 

[-Origin]

We're not a republic with states who have individual laws, so.. it really does seem strange.

 

[DiebytheSword]

So in theory, you could win the entire thing just by winning, say, the top 3 populated states?

That is unfair.

Not quite that bad.

California, NY, Illinois always go blue

Texas, Ohio, Florida and Indiana usually go red

They almost even out, but swing states can and do decide elections like Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes.

 

[-Origin]

Alright, thanks a lot man. This has been uncharacteristically informative for an ESF thread.