House passes Senate health care bill

[Vulcan]

For me sometimes being selfish is contributing to the common good, so children get the health care, so they get a decent education, so they get a reasonable life style, so they aren't a burden as adults and as adults if they hit a rough spot, they get the care so that they can return to contributing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For me sometimes being selfish is contributing to the common good, so children get the health care, so they get a decent education, so they get a reasonable life style, so they aren't a burden as adults and as adults if they hit a rough spot, they get the care so that they can return to contributing.

But you have to admit doing that in Canada is a whole lot easier given that our social programs aren't going bankrupt.

Sure, our healthcare spending is rising, but we can still fix those problems.

The US is at the point where their social programs are going bankrupt, and they have a lot of people taking advantage of welfare. People start getting pissed off when their own money is being put into those defunct programs.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you have to admit doing that in Canada is a whole lot easier given that our social programs aren't going bankrupt.

Sure, our healthcare spending is rising, but we can still fix those problems.

The US is at the point where their social programs are going bankrupt, and they have a lot of people taking advantage of welfare. People start getting pissed off when their own money is being put into those defunct programs.

they should be more pissed off that much more of their money was spent to fund an unnecessary war in Iraq, but for some reason Americans only seem to protest when their money is being spent on their own common good

[Rockin' Flames]

Seems that Congress doesn't like big companies disagreeing with how the health care bill will impact them.

"Energy & Commerce Subcommittee Chairman Henry Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak announced that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on April 21, 2010 requesting the testimonies from Chief Executive Officers of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and AT&T.
The subcommittee expressed concern regarding these companies announcing to their shareholders that provisions in the new health care reform bill that was just signed into law by the President could adversely affect their finances."

Link

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you have to admit doing that in Canada is a whole lot easier given that our social programs aren't going bankrupt.

Sure, our healthcare spending is rising, but we can still fix those problems.

The US is at the point where their social programs are going bankrupt, and they have a lot of people taking advantage of welfare. People start getting pissed off when their own money is being put into those defunct programs.

I was reading a quote by a participant in the Liberal strategy meeting this weekend that said that our Health Care costs were almost unsubstainable and we were either going to have to look at increased taxation, decreased basic services and increased wait time.

Sorry I can't remember who it was, but while we're not talking bankruptsy here, we are talking a spiralling cost that will only increase as our population ages.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I was reading a quote by a participant in the Liberal strategy meeting this weekend that said that our Health Care costs were almost unsubstainable and we were either going to have to look at increased taxation, decreased basic services and increased wait time.

Sorry I can't remember who it was, but while we're not talking bankruptsy here, we are talking a spiralling cost that will only increase as our population ages.

This is nothing new. I point you to this recent presentation that outlines pretty clearly the predicted fiscal future of Canada due largely to demographics:

http://www.cabe.ca/jmv1/index.php?op...=658&Itemid=38

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Seems that Congress doesn't like big companies disagreeing with how the health care bill will impact them.

"Energy & Commerce Subcommittee Chairman Henry Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak announced that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on April 21, 2010 requesting the testimonies from Chief Executive Officers of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and AT&T.
The subcommittee expressed concern regarding these companies announcing to their shareholders that provisions in the new health care reform bill that was just signed into law by the President could adversely affect their finances."

Link

Well, duh.

Is the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee that stupid?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, duh.

Is the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee that stupid?

What's stupid about this? It's no different than any other agency investigation into questionable public statements by corporations. It's not a trial, it's an inquiry to determine the basis of the statements.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

What's stupid about this? It's no different than any other agency investigation into questionable public statements by corporations. It's not a trial, it's an inquiry to determine the basis of the statements.

You seriously think the committee is going to sit down and LISTEN to what these companies have to say and their concerns with their finances?

Or will they act like any other stupid, arrogant politician and tell the companies to quit complaining?

A lot of the big companies in the US voiced their concerns about all this stuff before the bill was passed. I'd think if the US government gave a crap about anything they said they would have sat down with them beforehand and explained everything.

But then again this bill is so screwed up that its not surprising they didn't.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

You seriously think the committee is going to sit down and LISTEN to what these companies have to say and their concerns with their finances?

Or will they act like any other stupid, arrogant politician and tell the companies to quit complaining?

A lot of the big companies in the US voiced their concerns about all this stuff before the bill was passed. I'd think if the US government gave a crap about anything they said they would have sat down with them beforehand and explained everything.

But then again this bill is so screwed up that its not surprising they didn't.

Do you understand the basis of these hearings? It's about the legitimacy of the statement. It's not about telling them to stop complaining, it's about ensuring that the complaints are grounded in fact.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you understand the basis of these hearings? It's about the legitimacy of the statement. It's not about telling them to stop complaining, it's about ensuring that the complaints are grounded in fact.

The point is that the complaints were voiced before the bill was passed or signed.

I don't know about you, but if some of the richest and most powerful countries in my country had a concern about a bill I was going to sign, I'd probably be sitting down and explaining stuff to them and listening to what they have to say before I sign a bill.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

The point is that the complaints were voiced before the bill was passed or signed.

I don't know about you, but if some of the richest and most powerful countries in my country had a concern about a bill I was going to sign, I'd probably be sitting down and explaining stuff to them and listening to what they have to say before I sign a bill.

You're still not getting the point of the hearing. You keep talking about an unrelated issue, which is consultation with the business sector about the impact of the bill, which is something I agree should happen as a means of gauging the overall strategy. I don't think you should have to sit down and explain things to them and hope they're happy, most bills piss off a good portion of the business sector, they're never fond of regulation and having to actually comply with things.

However, this hearing isn't about that. It's about a communication to shareholders indicating that the bill will have a negative economic impact and whether or not that communication can be substantiated by factual information.

[Azure]

And again I ask, those SAME concerns were voiced before the bill was signed. If they're so worried about 'factual information'....you don't think it might have been a good idea to sit down and figure it out before they passed the bill?

I think we're both avoiding the actual truth. The government does what the government wants regardless of who complains. Which is why its rather funny that they're suddenly sitting down now.

I wonder if they're going to have a 'factual information' finding meeting with the HIRE bill Obama just signed after people start complaining about it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

And again I ask, those SAME concerns were voiced before the bill was signed. If they're so worried about 'factual information'....you don't think it might have been a good idea to sit down and figure it out before they passed the bill?

I think we're both avoiding the actual truth. The government does what the government wants regardless of who complains. Which is why its rather funny that they're suddenly sitting down now.

I wonder if they're going to have a 'factual information' finding meeting with the HIRE bill Obama just signed after people start complaining about it.

Ugh, are you being intentionally dense to my point? This isn't an information finding meeting, it's about ensuring compliance with federal disclosure laws.

I addressed your first paragraph in my previous post, either you aren't reading or you're just bored.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Ugh, are you being intentionally dense to my point? This isn't an information finding meeting, it's about ensuring compliance with federal disclosure laws.

I addressed your first paragraph in my previous post, either you aren't reading or you're just bored.

You said...

However, this hearing isn't about that. It's about a communication to shareholders indicating that the bill will have a negative economic impact and whether or not that communication can be substantiated by factual information.

Which would be right considering all these companies are concerned with the millions more it will cost.

Is that considered compliance with federal disclosure laws?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is that considered compliance with federal disclosure laws?

Yes.

[OilersBaby]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

How did you feel about your tax dollars going to 2 ridiculous wars? Were you cool with that?

Nope..not cool with the wars.

I just feel that one of the reasons I moved to the USA was to control my own future/destiny. Work hard = free healthcare for me. Ive been laid off before, and have struggled, but because Im educated/lucky, Ive been able to get a job (even in retail for a while in uni) that paid my health insurance.

So I dont want to be told where/how to spend my money......and I dont want to pay for others. I know that might sound selfish, but I think it encourages laziness. I feel bad for people when they try and still cant find a job, but there are too many people that ride the coattails of others and its impossible to pay for so many lazy people in a country that has so much population............especially when a LOT of people are here ILLEGALLY!!!!!!! I believe that the health care reform will not cover people who are here illegally but with so many people of the same name (do you know how many people have the last name Lopez or Nguyen in California?), it is hard to keep track of and so many people get away with being here illegally.

So yeah, call me selfish, but I work hard for me, save hard for me, and if I wanted others to take care of me, I would just move to Canada (which I love, heck, Im Canadian!).

[CaptainCrunch]

damn thats the sexiest post that I've seen in a while