 |
|
|
|
Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 05:20 am  To all my US citizens. . . Today has been an emotionally pressing day for me. Not becuase I'm moody, or in need of meds or attention. But for some very simple issues that I think are overlooked everyday in today's world. After watching many news programs and other media sources on the net and such, I am overwhelmed with a tidal wave of emotions for so much BS in this friggin country its reeks to the High Heavens. Most disturbing by unimaginable lengths, Children. A documentary on ABC, directly following my favorite program "WipeOut" featured kids, in detention centers. Man WTH, the $%^% is just a tragic mind boggling cluster *^&$ of Parents giving the STATE Property rights over thier children. These Kids don't need to be in jail, or any kind of detention. My biggest fear is that these kind of cruel punishments for our nations youth only serves to make hardened criminals of them. This kills thier self esteem, confidence and ability to function post detention in the real world. You wouldn't wanna know how I feel about their parents. I see thier baby pictures, and I wonder how in the heck these innocents have evolved into the state of life they now occupy. It is so easy to place the blame on them for their actions. But I must say,If I were on the outside looking in. I would most certainly make assumptions concerning our own society, our own way of life, and the circumstances that allow these tragedies to materialize in the first place. Now onto other things. Another thing that really pisses me off; in chat and forum, yes the real world even - one asks of another, Im "THIS" what are you. You Dem/Publican/Libertarian/Conservative/Liberal/ETC???? Who gives a ^%$# We all know that story. Its stays the same and ends the same. . . WITH ME PUTTIN THEM IN THE WALL. But I AM going to call out some real disrespectful "HOLES" atm. St00pid Publicans. Man wth is going on with you guys? Big St00pid Shout to the disrespectful punk that called Obama a liar, like a 3rd grade child (pissy because he couldn't get his way) during a live presidential address. Tsk Tsk. . . "Poor Form" (Arkh Mori would say). That wasn't brave, it was true st00pidity and lack of judgment on their part. Shame on you, you nameless faceless scumloving Publican fewl. This debate is BS from the outset. I'm not getting into it. I don't even care. I'm just sick of how thie people in charge are turning neighbor against neighbor. Dividing and conquering, destroying unity that once swept the country in times of REAL Peril, like Pearl Harbor and 9-11. You bumbling idiots. All this stage play over peoples lives and well being. ITS BS!!!!! This is just a means to show you the true nature of the beast that threatens us as citizens of a once great country. We don't give a crap about the next man, woman, child. It is all about self. YOU YOU YOU. Your Life, Your Wealth, Your Health, Your Provision. How American of US, How CAPITOLIST of us. NEWS FLASH: CAPITOLISM KILLS. These Republicans, who hold huge ETF's stacked with the only stable stock pillar during this recession "HEALTH AND PHARMA" companies; are more interested in the bottom line than in life. Sweeping Health Care reform will undoubtedly tumble the holy $^%^ out of these stocks. SO; like AMERICAN WORKERS, whose 401Ks and homes and lifes' work and save, Publicans now stand on the brink of having their paper assets destroyed in a wink. While your economy suffers, these guys will never feel it. Do they really give a rats arse about you? NOOOOOO. Nobody cares if we go broke fighting a war against (WHOM?) in IraQ. The Publicans Pushed that budget. Even though The dems didn't approve it, reconciliation rules would have killed a filibuster attempt, so they wiggled it through. We paid for death and destruction. You can't say anything else came of it. (We didn't even take the oil? Who's moron idea was that??) With that said, give me a REAL reason that says we can't approve what will mean life to millions. Health to million. Peace of mind, for our brouthers and sister citizens who aren't as fortunate as us. Become HUMANITARIAN in the real sense of the word. Give me a real reason. Please . . . if you can. And don't come with those Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck "company lines", trust me I'm about to rip him a new Arsehole all over internet media. And please don't come on here fewlin, this is serious stuff to me, I'm asking nicely, don't play around or its gone be Trouble . . . Trouble . . .
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:11 am Americans aren't in control of America, Wendy. These are things nations don't do to themselves. Things like jacking the corp taxes so high that corps leave the country to remain profitable. The evil men doing these things work for the New World Order and they are nothing short of global fascists. They are eugenicists who believe we are cattle and that they are the ruling class being bred to be a superior species. These men, controlled by the darkest of spiritual forces, are responsible for the poisoning the American population with fluorine compounds that were first introduced by Nazi Germany in concentration camps to alter prisoner behavior. Compounds that are derived from metal refining and the production of material used for nuclear weapons. America is going to be sheered like a sheep. These same creeps did it to Soviet Union too, they control the monies of the world. The 1929 sheering of America is why I'm at 35% income tax right now, before I have to pay all the other taxes. It's why I have a social security number. We are one of their wealth generating machines. They plan on devaluing everything in America, taking control for pennies on the dollar and reestablishing the value generating immense profits so that they may grow their god a little larger. They are taking us into a one world government that I believe is going to make the Nazi party look like the Girl Scouts. The attack on us with mind altering chemicals in our food, water and air is demonic in nature. The reality is that I will be dosed as soon as I am finished writing this, I will get ready for work and put deodorant on applying brain damaging chemicals through my skin to my brain. I will be spared the sodium fluoride as I don't brush with fluoride tooth past any more, though I will probably be dosed when I drink a Pepsi product today because it's made with local water supplies. I would just like a moment to thank Jesus Christ for His lack of corruption and for His kingdom which also has no corruption. It will be a strange world indeed. People loving their neighbors as themselves. (imagine that!) The love of money destroyed and fixed as history in the past- forever, put down like a disease. If we find Jesus threatening it's because we don't understand what He said. We aren't in trouble, we stand 'not guilty' because the price He paid and mankind if forgiven, offered as a gift to anyone who will accept it. As with any gift if you reject it you will not receive the gift. I'm not here to preach to you, or anyone. We must all realize that there is a battle for our minds and souls going on and that all of our views have been twisted by lies by evil men through the mass media. Wendy this thing is so big I shouldn't even go on. I Just hope people wake up and realize that there's a war going on and they and their children are under attack.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:14 am I saw a little something on the News last night. An american women saying she was against obamas health reform saying it was like socialism and would take individual freedom away. Me thinks poor woman has been brain washed with anti-socialism propoganda. How providing health care for the poor takes your freedom away is anyones guess! Sure it might cost you a little, but its just like any other tax. We in the UK have the NHS and for those who can afford it we have private hospitals aswell. Now the NHS is not perfect, You wont get the most advanced treatment in the world but who really needs it... a handful of people miss out on the best so the many can access the average. Now you might say what if you are one of those people who need the best... well if you are rich you can go private...if you are not, well lucky you have the NHS to give you the next best thing. If I trip up and bruise my little finger I can go see a doctor for free... if I fall down the stairs and break a leg, I can go see the doctor for free, If I get run over by a car and break lots of bones and lose lots of blood and need replacement organs, you have guessed it I get it for free. If I have a rare heart defect that needs expert treatment well tough, I best win the lottery. When I am rich, I will not bemoan having to pay a little tax so a poor man like I was once can access free medical care. I will not feel oppressed, I will not see commies sneaking around in the the background seeking to control my every thought. I will thank the sim gods for my good fortune and feel privileged that I can help those less fortunate than myself. America the richest, most powerful country in the world, lets its own people lose toes to diabetes as their condition was not an emergency rather than pay a few dollars a month each to pay for their care. Me shakes me head.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:35 am It's not about PROVIDING healthcare, It's about not having to pay for the aging baby boom population which threatens the bottom line of the industry. It's always about the love of money. Don't fool yourself, when it is worded like the laws that seized the health care industry in Nazi Germany, at the SAME TIME they are seizing the largest corporations in America (just like the Nazis did in Germany)... You know? If it walks like a duck... and it talks like a duck... what do you think it is?
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:39 am CT scanners... America = 32 per million people England = 8 per million people Evil people are stupid, they should have degraded the system fist and turned it to crap so it actually did need massive overhaul. WE DON'T NEED (obama)CHANGE!
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 05:05 pm Solomon, apart from your first post, I hope you are bing cynical and jokey, "WE DON'T NEED (obama)CHANGE!" Yes, we do.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 06:54 pm We need change in healthcare, social security, education, etc. but we don't need more government.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 06:54 pm My hope is that the capitalists who put Obama in his place have underestimated Obama as a person. And that when they show him the valley of the shadow of death to scare him into doing what they want him to do, he will not only fear no evil, but also be willing to die/sacrifice for the cause of Jesus Christ, our Lord. If Obama shows us that he is willing to fight capitalist fundamentalisum as well as religious fundamentalisum, we too will make the sacrifices needed to make the change happen. For if our leader can do it then so can the rest of us. But if he does'nt, the change will either not happen, or it will come from the streets. Which will get very messy indead. And if that is the case, we all need to start going back to church. For the Church will show us how to fear no evil, giving us the stength to get through what will be a very hard time.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 08:09 pm You think there were riots for OJ and Rodney King? I'm sure if anything at all happens to Obama, a new precendent will be set. Riot will be a gross understatement. Not to mention how many nukes I have. . . to put up all the would be vigilantes' arses.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:02 pm It's "Yes we can!" not "Yes we do!" lol Wendy I would be interested in some of your reasons why you say we NEED (obama)change. I see one critical issue that isn't even covered. That issue is supply companies deliberately over charging for goods and services simply because they are going to the medical industry. The entire supply chain is corrupt this way and there needs to be laws put into place to force corps to charge the medical field the same as they charge their non-medical field customers. If we only did this it would have a dramatic effect on what's really wrong with health care in America, the cost. Beyond the inflated cost, what else is really wrong? Everyone already gets free health care in America. Break your arm, you'll get a cast. Never pay your bill and break your other arm, you'll get a cast. My aunt had cancer, no insurance, she's cancer free, she was treated. It's already free for the poor and illegal immigrants, everyone for that matter. It's the law, they must treat you. (Which I realize IS part of the cost problem) Oh, and I wish I was being cynical and joking. I also wish I was wrong. The unknown chemicals in my deodorant are speculation, sodium fluoride unfortunately is not speculation. We've known exactly what that does since the 1920's. Oh, and yeah, they really are eugenic fascists. Don't think Obama makes decisions, he's told. Told by the same folks that 'told' bush, clinton, bush, reagan, carter... etc. Last actual president? JFK. All the rest since? Puppets with strings of gold.
| |
| Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:46 pm Solomon, enough with phrases. Obamacare isn't a relative term in my dictionary. It is a term used by publicans to describe Obama's will to reform healthcare. I will never give you my reasons, becuase other than being proud that your poor grandma made it through our joke of a syste, is not a moral, nor valid reaszoning to NOT want to pass healthcare for anyone. Therefore by saying this, you have dodged my request of "Give me one reason", and without even trying, you throw a company line on the table. It is meaningless hot air. Pointless and nonconstructive. The one half ass point you did make was the supply chain thing. But what does that have to do with passing the legislation itself? Nothing in reality. So you suggest rahter than focus on this serious legislation, all the lawmakers should begin distorting any false progress percieved to have been made, to undertake debating yet another set of bills, which you think would be needed because of the bill we suggested in the first place that hasn't even been passed. Seriously? You are joking right? How long would you have us delay the real issue at hand, so we can iron out details of (?what?)? "Everyone already gets free health care in America." wrong? Why must you be hardheaded? "Break your arm, you'll get a cast. Never pay your bill and break your other arm, you'll get a cast." Right, but if you are in severe pain(like anyone with a broken arm will be) you'll get an immediate dose of pain meds, and discharged following the almighty "cast" you now broadly term as healthcare for all. When they discharge you, they will give you a pretty slip for more of an appropriate medicaation. But guess what, if you haven't got health insurance . . . you'll be surprised that the generic of your needed script, cost almost 200$, and that isn't even the good stuff. "My aunt had cancer, no insurance, she's cancer free, she was treated. It's already free for the poor and illegal immigrants, everyone for that matter." WRONG! Honestly, may your God Bless your Gmom many times over, and I am happy to hear has survived cancer. But first of all, your grandma isn't representative of an entire poor nation without healthcare. Indeed she was a unique case on two different fronts, she not only beat cancer, but she did so with the poor man's level or quality of care. That is indeed fascinating. What you forgot to say when you typed that was," WARNING/DISCLAIMER Solomon's Gmom has experienced unique results. As with all loads of BS results will vary. Solomon Grundy Corp in no way guarantees the well being of YOUR Gmom. Nor does he assume any liability for you assuming your Gmom will have any such of the unique results experienced by his OWN GMOM. " Do you get it. Did you say you were being cynical again? Another and final comment of this post, is that Everyone doesn't have free healthcare. What is free, and what cannot be denied is "services" that can save your life or avoid serious injury. And today this has expanded to "Extreme Pain" In other words, it is easy to see, they will treat broken limbs, it does pose a serious risk to your well being that could result i loss of life. They will treat cancer patients, again, that is a threat to your life. Quality Care is not free to anyone. Most ERs will do the bare minimum to assure themselves they have no liability risk and discharge you as they see fit. Surely you should have known that. I don't think you are very young or naive. Anymore "Comapny Lines or Lies" you wish to spread? Maybe you like working for free? You should let the idiots that are paid to spread that crap do their jobs. Wrong, St00pid or otherwise; at least they get paid to do so. Typical Publican BS . . . more of the same. I know Solomon, lets wait 40 more years, til you finally get touched by not having insurance, or know someone touched in that way. Becasue you know, as long as YOUR Gmom is okay, so must everyone elses be? Nice one. How "American" of you.
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 01:08 am Wipe out's cool. Ours is recorded abroad so it does'nt cost so much in insurance  I saw one guy run across all those red ball things the other day without falling off. Loved it. Did you know that one of the reasons why they say some of the third world is failing? They hav'nt put their women to work# Work force going to waste. This is why our kids are messed up. No quality time with someone who loves them. If a child does'nt feel love it will never know what it means to love. Add on the fact that alot of the time there is no father to take the strain..........and it's not surprising mother's can end up in a state where they give up. Fundamental Capitalisum knows no bounderies. Conquer or be conquered. By whom they do not know. But if they don't do it someone else will. Sad. But not only will they make money from healing, but now they make money from killing. To every one hundred US soilders in Iraq, there's another 136 privately contracted soilders. Iraq was about out flanking Iran.
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 02:46 am You should be a politician Wendy. Obama could use some of that spin right about now. lol
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 04:52 am Obama is doing fine, without me. I haven't found or heard one legit reason yet. I guess I'll stick with Van Jones and agree the republicans are "holes" and Obama isn't. The only spin is on the factor. I do like Bill "O". Despite his political orientation, he remains a half decent reporter, an excelllent entertainer. But Rush, "Beck"istani, and the whole host of looney toon radio show talk host for wink radio, seriously have their heads' securely up their own arses. They spit all the spin in America right now. Come back Grundy with a real reason too, please, im not making an argument, i'm asking for a legit reason, to say no. Your concious will covict you. You can't lie to yourself. It is way to easy to tell others almost anything. Look at what is being repeated in town halls, SPIN^8
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 07:17 am I agree with Wendy: while capitalism is a great system that is dynamic and flexible and creates wealth, "Capitolism kills." The more the government, especially the far-off federal government, mucks around with our lives, from purposelessly starting and extending wars to taxing peoples' incomes to both colluding with some businesses and hampering others, the more we the people tend to get shafted. The proper question is not "Why shouldn't government get further involved in our health care system?", but "Why should it?" It's already heavily involved, and that involvement contributes heavily to the problems the health care system currently faces. Why can employers deduct the cost of employee health care from their taxes as an expense, but individuals can't deduct their health insurance costs from their own taxes? Business bids up the price of insurance policies with their relatively healthy workers and cheap insurance payments. States mandate what conditions and treatments insurance policies cover, many of them seen as frivolous, irrelevant and unwanted by most people--but insurance comps love it, more business for them. Doctors and hospitals are essentially forced to accept below-market payments from Medicare patients, and compensate by charging higher prices to those with insurance and even higher prices to those paying out of pocket. The federal government prohibits people from buying health insurance out of state, thus reducing competition. The result of all this is that government prevents people from purchasing no-frills catastrophic insurance (the main purpose of insurance in other domains) and drastically raises the cost of buying any insurance at all. One of the House versions would impose a fee on businesses that do not provide health insurance to their employees, "pay or play." 8% of their payroll costs. Businesses will deal with this fee in ways that will generally raise prices, lower salaries, and reduce profits to owners and shareholders. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that since businesses currently spend over 11% of their wages and salaries on employee health insurance, many employers will actually drop their coverage--they estimate this will be about 9 million workers, plus their families! All this BS and much more is why I and many other Americans are deadset against the latest health care "reform" proposals. They smell awful. The "solutions" are worse than the existing problems. The 46 million Americans without health care insurance includes 12 million who are eligible for gov't insurance but haven't applied. The process is too complicated and/or they don't know they're eligible...haha, more problems caused by gov't itself. Another 9 mil live in households making $75k and up, but choose not to buy insurance. Of the remaining 28 mil, roughly 5 mil are illegal immigrants, and a large number are healthy young adults who don't need much medical attention. All these uninsured people get some medical care one way or another, an average of $2000 worth per person last year. The biggest crisis in health care is the political crisis for the Democrats in Congress and the White House, hence the propaganda machine in full force. We SHOULD: raise the eligibility age for Medicare gradually, as they've done with social security. Reform medical malpractice law so that doctors don't have to prescribe unneeded tests and treatments simply as CYA practice. Eliminate the stupid existing regulations that profit the insurance companies and business owners at the expense of all the rest of us. Then we'll see affordable insurance against expensive treatment that people can just buy the way they buy other kinds of insurance, and affordable doctor rates that we can just pay the way we buy food, clothing, entertainment, and everything else. The current bills proposed in congress include a few of these measures, but by and large they are filled with more regulations and requirements, perverse incentives that will diminish our range of choices of health care arrangements and cost more in taxes. The big drug and insurance companies are seeing their survival built into the bill. Medical professionals will see lower incomes over time. Over time fewer people, of less quality, will try to enter the profession, as in Britain. My impression is that with the Dem proposals a few low income people will get better health care, the rich will be untouched, and the majority of middle class people will end up paying more, and getting less. From day one we'll start hearing about the huge costs for old people and for things we take for granted now, and it will be slow but sure cutbacks in coverage from then on.
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 07:23 am Has their ever been an 'efficiently' run government program?
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 10:47 am Wendy, the Republican/Democrat thing isn't real. At least listen to what Governor Ventura has to say 4 minutes and 10 seconds in. The Obama Deception
| |
| Friday, September 11, 2009 - 10:29 pm The best quotes I heard about the American healthcare reforms have been in direct comparison the the UK's system. The two most notable being, "The UK government spends $20k per patient per year on healthcare. Go beyond this and They have decided not to pay for anymore. Do you really want to put a price-cap on your healthcare?" OK then. Two things about that. Firstly, where did they get the figure of $20k from? Secondly, even if it was only $20k, wouldn't that be $20k more than the $0 they spend? 40,000,000 Americans without a means to get healthcare vs 60,000,000 Britons who get it all free? Hmmm... Not the best statement to make. Then there was a newspaper article I heard about on a discussion program; "If Steven Hawking had been British then the NHS wouldn't have been able to provide his healthcare and he'd have died long ago." 1. Steven Hawking is British. 2. He owes his life to the NHS, and he openly admits it. The problem, as always with democratic decisions, is the vast majority not fully understanding the issues at hand. Most people likely don't want to understand if it pinches them in the pocket. But to put it another way, I pay less on National Insurance per month than I would on private health insurance. For that I get an excellent medical service whenever I need it without having to worry about either bankruptsy or increased premiums. For those who cannot afford the price of medicine in the US - I know at least one family who falls into this category; a player here, though I won't mention names - it could be all the difference. You just have to do it right.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 12:14 am have you noticed that many suggest the way to get out of recession is for we consumers to buy more. we need to change our priorities from consumerism to developing social capital (education, infrastructure, job creation in areas like environmentally sane industries, etc.) 60% of the fed budget is for things like ss, medicare, medicaid, interest on debt and 20% is for military. hidden in the other 20% is more military. that doesn't leave much to play with. in order to right the ship we're going to have to cut entitlements and military and then raise taxes on the rich. but all us old people don't want the govt to mess with our medicare and social security. that's got to change. and as far as rationing of healthcare, it's a fact and will be more so in the future. i'm 69 and it's stupid to give people 85 new heart valves or do transplants on them. when it's my time i hope my family says, "he's lived a great life, but it's time to give him some peace".
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 01:33 am Wow, this is one of the most interesting conversations I've ever seen on SC...and it was started by a sworn enemy who I unfortunately mostly agree with on this one ;) WB's 2 cents: Being the only developed nation in the world that doesn't guarantee healthcare to it's citizens is disgraceful and disgusting. It has been said that capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others and this is true in many ways. One area where capitalism is definitely problematic is healthcare as capitalism essentially requires American corporations to avoid paying for as much as possible in order to turn as large of a profit as possible, this is dangerous and immoral (yes I said it Wendy). What makes this situation even more ridiculous is the amount of money we currently spend on healthcare while providing the worst outcomes in the industrialized world. France has the #1 ranked healthcare system and they spend half of what we do on a per capita basis, but even with all of that money spent, we rank #37, just below such wonderfully rich countries as Dominican Republic, Chile and Costa Rica. Ebby is right about the amount of money spent on the entitlement programs about 55% of the budget is spent on SS, Medicare and Medicaid, then another 20% plus is spent on military and then you have the 8% that goes to interest on debt. However the key to lowering these costs is comprehensive healthcare reform, we should be able to cut our healthcare costs in half, there is no reason we should be spending twice as much as the country with the best system while providing FAR worse results. If we can get those costs in line then all the sudden we could be running a federal surplus to begin paying off the debt that's eating 8% of the budget every year. Everyone is so afraid of any government involvement in healthcare, but I'm far more afraid of the private corporations who have no other goal than profit. Look at the countries that currently have guaranteed healthcare, UK, Canada, France, etc., first, do we call all of those countries socialist countries? That answer is obvious. Second, do you see mass uproar and riot with calls by the people for the government to repeal the 'evil socialized medicine'? No. As for government being able to run a healthcare program, our government currently runs the most endeared healthcare system in the country, Medicare and Medicare would be far cheaper if we could get some low cost people like me into the system. The current system gives the insurance companies the cream 20-40 yr old segment of the population while the government eats the cost on the most expensive part of the population, those 65+.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 04:00 am he said "sworn enemy" LMAOOOO don't tell me that was rude and disrespectful. Thx for your participation on this topic.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 06:05 am Dominican Republic has a better health care system than the US?? Come on, that's ridiculous. Where would you rather get health care...US, or DR? Think about it. I'm quite sure that the poorest Americans get health care at least as good as the middle class in DR. Any ranking system that places the US below DR should be viewed with extreme skepticism by any educated, thinking person.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 10:27 am I don't know what world they live in. Again, it is unlawful not to treat anyone that goes to a hospital in America. People being turned away is much worse than the situation we have now. If you're in America walk into ANY V.A. Hospital and tell me you honestly want the rest of the health care in the country to operate like that, talk to some of the veterans there and find out what they think. LOOK! The friggin economy is collapsing and all the 'leaders' can worry about is another scam to milk more money out of the system and if you think this is anything more than a scam you're fooling yourself. Since when did these men stop loving money? Since when have they stopped screwing us? When have they ever put our interests before those who put them in power and supply their riches? People are looking at the wool that has been pulled over their eyes and believe they see the world, that's troubling. I can not believe so many people are willing trust liars and thieves. I can't believe there are people out there still falling for it. Okay, here's another lesson for you in getting screwed by the ruling class, know what though? I don't expect Americans to learn from this current 'gang rape' situation either. If it's all about you and your wallet, if you're one of those folks that only care about yourself to the detriment of your neighbor, I believe you are about to get what you deserve!
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 11:08 am Whiteboy: "Everyone is so afraid of any government involvement in healthcare, but I'm far more afraid of the private corporations who have no other goal than profit." Dude, private corporations who have no other goal than profit own your government and evil eugenicists own the private corporations. Oh, and we should stop thinking that all of the men who own these conglomerates are even American. OH THE FRUSTRATION!!! Am I the only one who sees them taking control of the largest industries in America? Now they're taking the entire health care industry and destroying the private insurance industry in their wake- and here I see those blindly willing to help them.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 02:49 pm The US medical system is third world standard. Well it is first of the best if you have money to afford it. Otherwise I could well believe that the US health system is worse than the Domenican Republic for ordinary US Citizens. A good standard of health is not a priviledge reserved for the rich - it is a right of the nations citizens. PS I am Australian, we have a system like Jimmy Carter tried to set up, and Barack Obama is trying to introduce. But, we are pulling it down so we will have a shit system - just like the US 
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 03:35 pm As an ordinary citizen of the U.S., I'd suggest you STFU before criticizing something of which you know nothing. This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen in these forums. What is the saying? "Best to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid than to open your mouth and prove them correct"?
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 05:24 pm I don't know BC But I think Kali sort of has a point. Not that I know much about Aussie healthcare.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 07:36 pm U.S. Health care is the best in the world. That is why everyone all over the world comes here when they have a problem that is difficult to solve. Who ever heard of anyone going to the UK or Canada to have an operation? No thanks, keep your broken socialist system. And yes, Odumbo's plan is socialism. Of course, Europeans are so weak minded they are ok with the government running things, which is why the sheeple of Europe will eventually be overrun by Islam. This time America won't be coming to your rescue like we did twice in the last century. Here in the US, we kicked out the stupid Europeans and their stupid governments (back then it was a King instead of Big Brother). Here in the US we still have our guns and our freedom, unlike in the UK where they have BB watching over them 24/7. What a pathetic country the UK has become. Unfortunately, the Brits didn't understand that '1984' was a warning, not a blueprint. Brits, and most Western Europeans, are so brainwashed these days that they really do believe that "Slavery is Freedom". Proud to be an American, even if we have a Bobo for president.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 07:40 pm OK, for us non americans.... If a person with no medical insurance was to walk into an American hospital with problem x. what level of attention would they get? Would they get the full works...diagnosis, treatment, follow up? or would they just get given an asprin?
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 07:54 pm Xenu you dont have a clue! Our 'socialist' system called the NHS gives poor people like myself access to some of the best treatment available in the world for free. Fine if you are rich and can afford the best you may well hop on a plane to the us, still I hear luxumbourg is pretty damn good and a lot closer. You have your guns and your freedom ay! Well I have no gun but I am sure I am as free as any american. If big brother wants to spy on me, then let them waste their time. They will find 60million brits living normal uneventfull lives and a few thousand criminals. In a century I expect the US will be a quiet little has been backwater. Left behind by china, india and the euroasian islamic empire. If you are lucky you may survive with your gun and your freedom. But the smile shall be long gone from your face.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 09:44 pm Okay, non-Americans: it depends. When I was young and had no insurance, I had to pay for my wife's hospital visit. It was the same care as I've seen later, with insurance. When you leave they give you a bill. It took a while to pay it. Some people end up with medical bills they can't pay. Eventually it will go to a collections agency, and they have to decide how far to pursue it, based on how large the bill is and their estimate of your ability to pay it. Eventually it gets resolved. Many bills end up unpaid, and the hospital eats the cost. Some hospitals are for-profit, some are non-profit, but they all have to deal with the same realities. Some hospitals are better than others. Better hospitals tend to be in better neighborhoods. Even the worst hospitals will give competent treatment, similar to your NHS. In general, hospitals will tend to try to move through more quickly those patients who they suspect won't be able to pay. Some won't, but for some it's a matter of institutional survival. Non-emergency conditions they won't treat at hospitals--you have to go to a general practitioner, or a specialist. Doctor's offices expect to be paid. Also, most insurance plans won't pay for everything. Medical bills are a fact of life. Car repairs, house repairs, medical bills. If you're barely getting by you tend to postpone or forgo optional treatment--that sore shoulder, or dental checkups. Most of the horror stories you hear are about people who are irresponsible in taking care of small things that can grow into big things (not paying a couple hundred dollars to take care of some cavities, now you face a few thousand dollars to get half your teeth replaced) or from people not being able to afford very expensive life-saving treatments that just aren't available in the first place from free health care in other countries. There are a lot of decisions that we make as individuals--such as how expensive an insurance plan to buy, which chronic ailments we want to pay to treat and which we'll live with, whether to get a cheap bridge or expensive tooth implants, whether to see a cheaper doctor or one with more experience and a better bedside manner but more expensive. We don't like it when our insurance companies say they'll pay for this and this but not that. We really won't like it when the government says you can get this and this done but not that. If you're not used to having these options it may not seem like such a big deal, but we are used to it and it is a big deal--it's what we're talking about when we say we're concerned with losing freedoms.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 09:56 pm The trouble America faces is that its highly conservative and very resistant to progress. The resentment towards the national health services of the rest of the developed world stems from an acknowledgement that whilst they believe they have the best healthcare in the world, they know that it is ineffective for all except the ones who can afford it - leaving what is essentially the population of a moderately sized country without a means to access healthcare. It is a strange yet intriguing jealousy of sorts. But then the American national psyche has always been based around insecurity and self-delusion. Xenu has kindly provided numerous excellent examples of this inferiority complex.
Here we see an example of an argument from ignorance. The assumption that a centralised healthcare system is inferior to a disorganised one stems simply from the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy, in so far as there is no logical correlation between established fact and the conclusion drawn. Example 1 Example 2
Here we see a bitter resentment of what Xenu clearly sees to be a better system than his own. This demonstrates the deep-seeded mistrust of his own government, and an intense jealousy of the fact that most Europeans enjoy a far wider range of services for their tax money. Argumentum ad Logicam will no doubt be rife from here-on in.
An ignorance of history is also common-place in such arguments. This is not because Xenu actually believes this to be true. Rather, it leads quite neatly back into the insecure national identity issue. It is more than likely that this individual is moderately - though not fully - aware of actual history, and simply joins in the willfull propogation of fallacy and myth in order to try and validate his own nationalisic beliefs. Statistical facts can generally be used to disarm such an argument. As most people reading this will be generally aware of actual historical events it would be a waste of time to single out a source unless actually prompted to do so.
Here we see another deliberate disregard for his own national history. As Xenu is no doubt aware the American Revolution was a success in no small part due to vast degrees of French naval support. However, this fact can be wholly overlooked in order to (yet again) bolster his insecure world view, and any argument derivative of such as a matter of simple convenience.
Noteworthy here is the acknowledgement of governmental failure. Xenu willingly states that the US justice system is a pale shadow of what it once was, in effect agreeing that the only way to protect himself would be with the use of a firearm. Freedom is quite effectively used as a synonym for ineffective policing, emphasising the initial point with vigour. But with one in every hundred Americans being a convicted criminal currently serving a prison sentence, one cannot really blame him for feeling unsafe. Also you will note here the acknowledgement of a comparatively effective policing system in the UK. "BB" in this sense can be quite clearly interpreted as the ability of the British people to rely more heavily upon their police force to serve and protect, especially when taken in comparison to his nation's own. Couple this with a more effective democratic process and a system with a wider array of viable political options and it is no mean feat to understand why he felt he had to voice this jealousy openly and air his dissatisfaction with his homeland.
Here we see an excellent example of both the "Argumentum ad Novitatem" and "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" fallacies at work. Linking in to the last point made, the deliberate restatement of perpetual non-truth is used to create something of an empty argument. The common belief that, for example, CCTV cameras fall under the control of governmental rather than private ownership and as such an oppressive state exists is deliberately repeated in order to try and back up an empty arguments. Another commonly cited point can be attributed to the "Who will police the police?" argument, or the "Governments make all the laws" point. Yet again this is a reflection of the perception that democratic process has failed within his home nation, as sweeping generalisations effectively cast all factual basis aside in the name of making the point. He realises, of course, that democratic process can be effected in order to alter the legal situation, and one can quite easily forgive him for falling into the trap regarding the ignorance of English Common Law pracices in forming legal precedents Inconsistancies often follow the above fallacies and arguments, with "evidence" altered in order to better serve and support the point - erroneous bifurcation is all but inevitable at this point. Once again, most of the above can be linked quite neatly into a nationalistic sense of inadequacy and insecurity. Generally stemming from the percieved failure of their own national entity, the often empty and logically questionable arguments such as those Xenu kindly provided for this brief document will invariably rear their head. Ultimately it is used as a means of attempting to improve one's own sense of nationalism by trying to pick holes in that of others, specifically in those whom the commentator (Xenu) percieves to be better or more successful in some way than his own. In this rather splendid case it falls down to two basic insecurities. 1. The acknowledgement that other countries are better than his in some way. 2. The likelihood that the occupants of this country are aware of this fact.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 10:23 pm i live in Houston, tx, which supposedly has one of the best medical centers in the world. we have people from all over the world coming here every day to get help. but here are a few things that aren't said about Houston healthcare. Houston has over 30% of its citizens with no healthcare. and no, most of them aren't illegal immigrants. there is only one major trauma center in Houston. it's easier to get free treatment at MD Anderson cancer hospital (a nonprofit hospital) if you're from out of state or out of country status, than if you're an indigent Houstonian. two of the other non-profit hospitals don't have trauma centers and take very few indigent care patients. when questioned about this, and i have as i work with an organization that advocates for the poor, their answer is that they're primarily a teaching and research hospital. if you're indigent and on medicaid or medicare and have to go to the county hospital it may take six months to get a ct or mri. too bad if you've got something that can't wait that long. here are few other facts about US healthcare in general. medical schools have not expanded their enrollments in over forty years resulting in a shortage of docs by 125,000 and 250,000 nurses. we have to import docs/nurses from foreign countries to help keep up with the shortage. wonder why your doc doesn't speak too gooda da english? drug companies spend much more on drug research for maintaining chronic illnesses rather than finding cures for illnesses. there's more money in maintenance of illnesses than curing illnesses. a majority of the people yelling at the recent town meetings are older people who already have medicare and are afraid of it being cut. yet they scream that they don't want socialized medicine, rationing, or cuts in coverage. young people either don't worry about it cuz they're well or they are not organized. i'm amazed at how many who have posted here are for healthcare reform. maybe it's because you're young. if you're from the US and are for healthcare reform, call your senator and rep and tell them what you want. nothing will come out of Washington that will fix the problem but at least let's get things moving in the right direction. and while we're at it, my Lipator comes from Canada and i pay a third of what i would pay at Walgreen's. go figure.
| |
| Saturday, September 12, 2009 - 11:26 pm recently, i was in a conference with the ceo of the Houston medical center and he said that healthcare cost could be dramatically reduced if people would observe the following: 1. eat less and lose weight, if obese 2. drink less 3. stop smoking 4. observe safe sex 5. be less violent 6. not use illicit drugs obesity alone costs the US about 150b a year. add it up the rest and you can see that the Obama plan probably wouldn't have a deficit.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 04:33 am everybody STFU..... Parsifal.....the whole eat less, lose wieght, stop smoking thing is BS....u see in the U.S we have the FREEDOM to do things that don't hurt other people but the flip side is we get to pay for it ourselves. I don't want the fucking government telling me what to fucking do all the time. If I wanna smoke & die from cancer or eat McDonalds 3 meals a day that's on me. I get to pay for it myself and pay the doctor bills. That's the American fucking way. Kali..you dumb son of a bitch....Jimmy Carter was the worst fucking president in my lifetime. If he said anything was good it was probably the most God awful shit pile ever thought of.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 05:35 am "Xenu you dont have a clue! Our 'socialist' system called the NHS gives poor people like myself access to some of the best treatment available in the world for free." I don't want to read the rest of the partisan, ignorant, or just plain anti-American BS that people are throwing out there (not all of you, just some). The important thing to ME as an American is that this is NOT free. The foundations of our country were built on the principles of limited government and expanded personal freedom (and responsibility). Socialized Medicine is a step away from that. We lose a little more of our own freedom, and yes, MOST of us will have to pay for those who don't pay for it. There's nothing free about it. Yes, we need to fix the problems with our system, but to say it's any worse than the British, Canadian, Australian, or Dominican Republic, is just away to mindlessly follow the direction that a bunch of media clowns and partisans want you to believe. But nobody here can say they are any worse than any other countries problems. We have plenty to reform in the U.S. but...... damn it, I need another drink.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 05:37 am Dougie . . . you should settle down. Parsifal . . . 'drug companies spend much more on drug research for maintaining chronic illnesses rather than finding cures for illnesses. there's more money in maintenance of illnesses than curing illnesses.' . . . so true. Now if i were to place a wager (and I am a bettin lady) I'd put the house on the line, that if Healthcare was socialized in america, and the tab was on them, we would have alot of the diseases in the US stamped out immediately. Becuase it would be cheaper to cure rather than maintaining. Well Said. Now the younger people were very organized. They showed that during the primaries and pre election. But with town hall meetings, Im sure most were scheduled for work or class at the time. It is unfortunate that that is proly a fact. I'd have to check, but all town halls I heard of were on weekdays during work or school hours.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 06:41 am Yes Doug...no reason to get all crazy on us. BC...our system is worse than UK, Canada, Australia and 34 others...including the Dominican Republic. These rankings come from the World Health Organization, they are the respected authority in this matter. Look them up.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 07:04 am People keep saying the US health care system is great, but only if you can pay for it. They don't realize that most Americans can pay for it. If only "the rich" can afford it, then we are very rich indeed, because well over 90% of Americans can afford it, and most of the other 10% get by. Parsifal describes how poor people in Houston have to wait 6 months to get an MRI. To most Americans that sounds horrendous...but it's about in line with the wait for the average Canadian or Briton, isn't it? Pars, Wendy, you have a problem with US pharma companies, why don't you just buy those drugs, the ones that will cure instead of just treat conditions, buy them from foreign companies? Or stand up to the man and stop buying Lipitor, just get open heart surgery and cure that condition, that'll show them. US corps spend far more than any other country, and far more per capita, on drug research. Canada, which doesn't spend much at all, threatens to not enforce Pfizer's patents unless they sell it cheap. So Americans pay full price, while Canadians pay for it like it's a generic...then sell it back here at a profit. We are supporting their third-world health care system. Young healthy people don't want Obamacare. They're better off now, just paying out of pocket, than being forced to purchase overpriced health insurance that is required by law to cover every condition in the book.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 08:03 am Okay whiteboy, I did some research on that ranking system by the WHO (not the won't get fooled again Who). First off, they didn't rank the DR above the US. Look it up. But more important--it's a ranking system. If anyone is familiar with the ins and outs of country ranking systems, it's we here at SC. How do they rank the countries? Health Level, basically life expectancy: 25% Responsiveness, respect for patients, including amenities, choice of doctors, and speed of service: 12.5% Financial Fairness, % of household income spent on health care: 25% Health Distribution, how wide a distribution of health care there is in the population: 25% Responsiveness Distribution, how wide a range of "responsiveness" in services: 12.5% They place a huge emphasis on fairness and equity. A country could have no hospitals and no doctors at all, but if it's no doctors for everyone they'll score #1 on 62.5% of the ranking weight. The US doesn't do great on the fairness and equity parts--not bad, just not near the top. Our problem is that we have a range of good to excellent, and that hurts us in the distribution rankings...countries that are just uniformly good, or even just uniformly lousy, do better there. And we pay more. The US does well on responsiveness. #1. The life expectancy stuff is interesting. They use Disability-adjusted life expectancy. The US ranks #24. That's better than if they used straightforward life expectancy...look it up on wikipedia, US is #50. Wow, #50, how could that be? Embarassingly, it's because we have a very high homicide rate, and a very high accident fatality rate, especially car accidents. Both rates are like 5 to 10 x higher than for other industrial countries. Maybe we're a little hotheaded and like to drive fast. Whatever, those things have nothing to do with our health care system. If they are factored out, the US has about the highest life expectancy in the world, and is #1 in disability-adjusted life exp. So, hey, if you can avoid being shot or hit by a car, and you're not racked with jealousy or guilt because it's not all even-steven, you can enjoy the #1 health care system in the world. We pay more, that's for sure. But it's reassuring to see that at least we're getting something for it, and that's with all the problems we have.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 10:26 am As a Briton I've never had to wait for medical treatment much beyond the natural requirement of doctors to organise patients by appointment. This includes corrective dental treatment, appendicectomy as a means of treatment for appendicitis and the removal of a potentially cancerous mole. From diagnosis to treatment for all of the above the wait was decidedly negligable - though the orthodontist did require me to wait until all of my baby teeth fell out. When I was very young I also had to undergo various forms of assessment in relation to speech therapy, with the eventual aims of treatment in one form or another. By the end of it the treatment turned out to be teaching my mother and father BSL. It ended up being a medically funded college course in order that they could become fluent and in turn support my needs as I grew up. Waiting lists are not a reflection of the quality of service, but rather a result of the number of people who use the system. Its the same with any service, private or public. My eye tests are privately arranged, and I've had to wait longer to get an appointment at Vision Expresss or Specsavers than I ever have for basic or even advanced medical care. I doubt I'd be able to walk into a US hospital and not have to make an appointment to see the doctor. Needless to say, all of this treatment would be highly expensive. For my eyes alone I expect to pay in excess of £200 whenever I need to renew my glasses prescription. I also find it highly doubtful that an insurance company would have footed the bill for most of the above treatment - especially the speech therapist. Nor would we have been able to afford it. And our household income has always been fairly modest. These treatments would have cost as much as a house, if not more, and had we not had the benefits of the NHS behind us we would either be bankrupt, we would have struggled to deal with a primary birth defect, or I would simply have died. The argument of "its about freedom" is argumentum ad logicam. You call it your personal freedom. Well, I have the right to free medical care with the freedom to avoid bankruptsy or huge personal debts. As an American you do not. You are obliged to pay for your treatment. Millions of you are clapped in fiscal irons. I have an excellent example for this, but I doubt he would appreciate it. Either way, I'd rather have the right to free healthcare than the freedom to pursue bankruptsy. Alright, its not actually free. But I pay far less in National Insurance than I would for private treatment. Truth be told, you do not have freedom at all in this regard. Not in the same way we do. And there is clearly a desire in the US for healtcare to be provided freely. Obama has never really shied away from the issue. And he would not have been elected on his policies were there not some popular support behind it. I suppose we shall see.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 11:28 am I wake up in the morning feeling ill and call the Dr. If I am very ill I will see the Dr that day. If I am not so ill maybe 3 days later. I go see the Dr, I get my treatment. I am free from worrying if I can afford to go to the drs. I am free from the worry of can I afford the treatment. I am free from the worry of any debt collector knocking on my door. Americans have freedomn from government. Brits have freedom from worry. Our state controlled health service is more than good enough to deal with the day to day and even not so day to day illnesses. Only if you have some rare disease or problem are you likely to run into some trouble. I have the choice to go to the Drs or not. I have the choice to except the treatment or not. I have the choice to request an alternative treatment. I have the choice of a second opinion. In my opionion this is freedom enough.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 12:29 pm Seems like many of you need to be quiet until you know what value medical care really has. Cuts and sprains, sniffles and bruises really mean sweet f*ck all, wait until really important conditions effect your young, fresh, care-free lives, then come bleating about costs and injustices. I have experiences of both the US and the UK systems and so feel marginally more qualified to comment than most of you. The UK NHS wastes fortunes of tax payers money on useless management and needs to be repaired pronto, the UK people don't have a choice, this is tax. This would be the road the current US president would have The States go down. Or the US could stay as is and the populace pay fortunes individually to corporate share holders. Either way the available funds are not being used to the optimum. So take your choice, your government squandering billions or your city financiers doing the same... From my experiences the UK has an unsurpassed level of care, which is basically what you want when you REALLY ARE ILL. The US state system was good to me too, but if money is your master then you're not going to be quite as caring as you might be, are you? Crafty
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 01:28 pm @ DougieBear well, yes I must have sounded dumb -I was half asleep when I posted that. Jimmy Carter indeed - was Bill Clinton I ment (I would tend to agree re Jimmy Carter). But nice to know that you know all about courteous civilized discourse. Of course insults & trash talk make you sound tough & intelligent. I was really impressed & if ever any jobs for clowns come up, I will let you know - get you off the dole queue. Still, nothing I heard here that makes me want to change my opinion. The US has a very good health system - if you are rich. A pathetic system if you arn't. And of course Socialism is so evil, & unbridled unfettered capitalism is so good. That evil Obama, forcing socialism on US citizens, he will be taking away their right to bear arms next
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 01:29 pm Dougie Bear, yes you have the right to do with your life whatever you want, but don't ask us to pay for it. many areas in the country are now charging people for recuing them when they take unnecessary risks, like base jumping etc. why should we pay for healthcare for people blantantly abuse themselves?
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 02:19 pm the whole issue of entitlements is not just a US issue. developed nations are getting older and this is effecting social security and healthcare. unfortunately, no one is willing to belly up and see that dramatic changes are going to take place. when ss in US was passed after wwii, life expectancy was about 60. no problem, the gov't won't have to pay that long for ss. now it's different. we're living to be close to 80 and people spend an average of 10 days in icu in the last year of their life. can you guess what a day in icu costs. hard choices are going to have to be made. and if we don't take responsibility for at least living a healthy life, then the gov't will decide who/how/and what will be prescribed. why should we all have to pay for people's healthcare who are grossly obese? whether you are on a private plan or a gov't plan, we all pay for that. as said before the same goes for the other five catagories of self help. i have seen numerous friends and relatives either bankrupted or nearly bankrupted due to medical bills. my son who has had cancer and two heart valve replacements now pays nearly $1000. a month for meds. he's 47 and has led a healthy life style as best he can. fortunately he has some health insurance. but it will break him in the future if cost continue to escallate. in the future there will be hard questions for us all to answer wheather we are US, Brit, German, etc. the world is getting older. much older.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 02:37 pm OMG, most of you are a bunch of socialists, lol. History has shown and will show again that because of the competiveness of human nature some amount of Capitalism forming a base, in combination with a lesser amount of Socialism ,desired because of the compassion in that same human nature, must be the best system. Period. All other forms are merely pipe dreams, doomed for failure(many have failed in just recent times), at this point in human evolution, at least until the aggressive/competitive gene in us is bred out. It appears here in U.S. we are well on our way to do just that. Scary stuff.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 04:41 pm Wow, I have to give it to the propaganda masters on this one. We'll never be on the same page, they have us all thinking we live in different worlds. They sure did learn a lot by studying the evil men and systems their fathers put down in the last century. They are friggin masters at it. So subtle, so effective. Can evil eugenicists offer your children another fluoride rinse, since the vast majority of you are still asleep? Watch this to prevent brain decay.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 04:53 pm Well said JoJo.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 05:41 pm [Solomon turns the spot light he's holding 45 degrees. The spot becomes a larger and larger circle as it shines into the darkness allowing those willing to look to see this.] There really are monsters, they just don't live under my bed.
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 09:24 pm Umma had a problem with sharing with the other kids when a youngster. This is another overlooked part of the problem, over emphasis on the "self". I guess this is called selfishness. Do you have a problem with sharing Umma?
| |
| Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 09:27 pm Solookmon, you seem to be straying off topic. I do get the subject matter is related in how you display it in this argument, but what relevance does this really have to healthcare, or better yet, the reform of it.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 12:28 am nanna... actually I'm not, lets look at what the topic is titled: General: What are we doing!? I'm clearly telling you what we are doing. You're original post had NOTHING to do with health care what so ever beyond an example of "poor form" but you decide to pick and choose who you're going to force topic upon? -does't work that way. Especially when my post more directly answers why people might be behaving in the manner in which you describe. I guess we should have all been strictly glued to "Children. A documentary on ABC"? You should have been bitchin' and moaning long before I got to tell you what "We are doing!" in regards to swaying topics. On free speech: I'm going to tell you what I'll tell any new world order creep out there. My free speech? It's given to me by God as an inalienable right and no government and certainly not you are going to take it from me without the shedding of blood. Now knowing this you can assume that there's no way in hell I'm going to let you bully me to conform to YOUR world view, or to promote it through me by silencing me or restricting what I can or cannot speak about. Have a nice day!
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 01:21 am Damn straight I do Inanna. Why should I share my hard earned capitalist (I'm going to work hard for it) dollars with socialists (I'm entitled to it). There are always some exceptions, like providing for those who are not capable to provide for themselves(i.e. mental/physical handicaps). But since these are exceptions rather than the rule this is why any successful form of society must have capitalism as it main focus, with underpinnings of socialism.. not the other way around. History has and will prove me right.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 02:24 am "nanna... actually I'm not, lets look at what the topic is titled: General: What are we doing!? I'm clearly telling you what we are doing." No you aren't. Who is this "We" you speak of. The We I was speaking of was "Lawmakers" and "HealthCare". You think "TheBig Flouride Deception" has anything to do with the Topic I started? LMAO gimmie a break. I haven't bullied anyone here. I pointed out that you are getting off topic. I enjoyed the video, and its content, but still the fact remains, that it is off topic. But the real question is this, sense you seem to be so touchy . . . "Solomon, would you like a nuke up your ARSE!!"
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 02:31 am Of course it all depends what people mean by "socialist" here? Nazi Germany, Austria (pre Nazi) Yugoslavia (when it existed) gee even Australia (pre Vietnam) it all depends on how Socialism is defined
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 03:00 am Thats what I was thinking. So I had a look at the definition of each system in my Collins English Dictionary. So Capitalisum is an economic system based on the private ownership of industry. Communisum is the belief that private ownership should be abolished and all work and property should be shared by the community. Socialism is a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. Then I started thinking.............. How about implementing all 3 into one system? We could implement the theory of socialism to deal with our social issue's like giving the unemployed something to do, jobs for the prisoners and criminals. Even social service for volunteer's who want to help make money for their community. The theory of Communisum for the public sector like hospitals, roads, police. Where any profit made gets re-invested into the community. And the theory of Capitalisum for the private sector. Where business's would be free to manufacture and trade all those things that you can see around you for a personal profit. Money from the profits made from the Socialist sector and tax's from the personal profits from the capitalist sector would help pay for the Communist sector, which would help anyone thats needs it.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 03:50 am Interesting thoughts, nix. I think that it's easier to embed communistic entities in capitalist societies than to embed capitalistic entities in communist societies. Couples and families can be very communistic. A legal partnership owning say a law firm or a factory can be as communistic amongst themselves as they choose. In the US there are still a few communes scattered around--they usually produce some sort of product to sell in order to buy from the outside the things they can't make themselves. A capitalistic entity inside a communist country? Don't know of any.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 03:56 am Sigh... Wendy, This forum has a "public option" lol
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 04:50 am Good point Nix and good follow up Jojo. When you think about it there are many entities currently in the U.S. that are already 'socialized'. The largest of which are the army and elderly care (Medicare) as well as the postal service. The conservatives will be quick to point out that the postal service is running in deficits at this point, but I would counter that if UPS or Fedex were required to deliver to every American household for less than $0.50 per letter, there is no way that they could do it either. The private sector gets involved in these things with the ability to pick and choose what will be profitable while having the ability to exclude the pieces of the market that will not be profitable. This is exactly what is happening with healthcare today. The private sector picks and chooses the most profitable people to cover, excludes those that are considered too high of a risk and then the government (or those of us who do have insurance) end up picking up the bill. Did you know that on average each American family pays about $1000 per year in additional insurance premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured already? This cost is excessively high because the uninsured wait until they are so sick or injured before they get care and they go directly to the most expensive place to receive care, the emergency room. Anyway, I would personally prefer a single payer system similar to the systems that exist in those crazy communist countries like Canada, the UK and France (there is actually one European country that I can't remember at the moment that has a system where all healthcare is private but non profit and there are multiple choices for each consumer but the government is the 'single payer' to the non profit insurance companies). Since that is not going to happen a public option seems to be a completely reasonable compromise. Oh...now I am le tired...
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 06:14 am I have read this thread with interest. I like to apply philosophical categories to debates because it helps see what the argument is really about. It seems to me that this is a debate over the extent of the Social Contract. When a society forms a government, the individuals must surrender a portion of the individual sovereignty to the state. At the bare minimum, it requires us to give the state enough power to defend us from one another (crime) and from outside power (foreign policy). However, the Social Contract extends to providing for more and more services, including transport, education, etc. The debate over health care in the US is really a debate over the extent of the Social Contract. Should it extend into health care or not? A statist has difficulty in seeing alternatives to a socialized medicine, while the individualist has difficulty with the individual not being personally responsible for themselves. Personally, I fear a society where the government becomes the arbiter of doling out limited healthcare resources to people in need of care. No doubt as budgetary constraints force the rationing of healthcare, classes of people will find themselves without healthcare because treatment is not determined to be cost effective. This lack of care is the very thing that socialized medicine is supposed to fix. I also fear a society, where classes of people are priced out of healthcare because of economic status. A society divided into have and have nots. Both systems ultimately will lead to the rationing of health care and placing a value on human life. It merely become a question of what device will be used in that rationing. Thinking in terms of the social contract, we arrive at what are the 2 main questions. First, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the individual to the society? Second, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the society to the individual?
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 09:27 am I think it has been said already "FROM each according to their ABILITY TO each according to their NEED" You are part of a nation state you have both rights & responsibilities.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 08:06 pm edit
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 09:17 pm Thinking in terms of the social contract, we arrive at what are the 2 main questions. First, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the individual to the society? Second, what is the extent of the responsibilty of the society to the individual? Great Point Plato, and I agree that simplifies this debate. I have to say that as an individual, who is submitting to Govt rule over myself, paying taxes, not commiting crimes, etc, the Govt should in fact be responsible for what I cannot afford or do. The reason being, that if i am doing all that can be done to contribute to society and its progression, the same society should be doing all it can to help me even moreso beyond just healthcare. But I'll stick to this realm for the sake of subject. Some will probably counter that most aren't doing all they can to "contribute, like work or pay taxes. Well, the lazy factor is out of the window. In this economy things are so arse backwards, there are two classes of unemployed. Those who won't work, and those cannot by way of disability or economic conditions not creating the jobs necessary. I am sure most will agree that there is striking evidence to support that the lazy vs hopeless ratio is now in favor of the hopeless class(Those who only wish they could get a decent job). I have to say that given the state of the economy, we are even being lied to about the true need for reform on this level for healthcare. Republicans overestimate true unemployment at 14 -/+ percent. Wow, that is alot of unemployed people. Now if we took all the truly lazy ones out of that number, we will proly find that they weren't included to begin with. And in fact, that number, is still yet a gross underestimation of the REAL unemployment factor. Now, lets see. Unemployment, from what I understand(Lord knows i don't understand much) is calculated by new applicants to unemployment benefits, coupled with those receiving current benefits. If this is true, then what about the millions more, who have depleted their allowance of these unemployment benefits. They aren't counted. With this in mind, the number that is official, is underestimated at just about 10%. Republicans, to spite about Obama with talking points, (According to Rush 'The Gush' Limbaugh) underestimate to less of an extreme that true unemployment to be at about 14% -/+. They are both wrong and politicians on both sides openly admit on media programs that these numbers are in no way reflective of the actual unemployment. They use the figures and formula to guage whats going on. Kinda like alot of simC indexes reflect 'trends' by wieghted charts, rather than real time 'actual numbers' Now I could be wrong about this whole thing. I am void of actual reasoning as to why this could be a bad idea, except to someones bottom line. But lets face it. Those who have money and pay for health insurance are getting the shitty end of the stick as well. Yet they are so openly against the Govt paying for health care. So, why the 'haves' get taken for what little they have amassed, the poor get given the little they get. With YOUR money. So why not have it free for all. Now you nor the poor person would pay for any healthcare. This would create an environment of what the poor man gets, so shall I(if you aren't the poor man). This should not anger you, it should soften your heart to know that now, many tragedies will be averted in this matter. And if it does shame on you. Your heart is evil and jealous wishing unecessary harm upon your neighbor. Who here, would see a man dying of thirst in a desert while having means of quenching that thirst, and would not give him a drink of water. Don't even answer that, that is between you and you know who.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 09:26 pm Wendy, what gives you the right to tell Doug to settle down? He felt passionate in his response just as you did in your initial post and those following. I don't use game forums to state my political or religious views. On such topics you should expect heated and/or passionate responses, and heaven help us all,,,,,it has brought Nix back from the dead...... YIKES!
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 09:44 pm Kiss try minding your business. I don't care what you think about what my rights are. What gives you the right to question me? I don't think we need to have a problem here. Is that heated enuff for you? Moving right along, Next Customer!!
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 09:59 pm From this side of the pond it looks like the 'christian' vote or the bible belt as I have heard it called carries a certain weight in US elections. However US health care seems very unchristian.
| |
| Monday, September 14, 2009 - 10:36 pm Source? If the above is to be used as a source (as it was) - and longevity is to be used as a means to quantify the quality of healthcare rahter than the quality of lifestyle - it is worth noting the number of highly-ranked nations which possess socialised healthcare in comparison to the ones that do not.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 04:44 am Tyr, the American political system is a farce, it isn't real. "Politics in America today is identical to pro wrestling, and what I mean by that is in front of the cameras and the public we all hate each other... Yet behind the scenes we all are friends, going out to dinner together and It's all a work, it's show bizz and that's what you have today in politics. The Democrats and Republicans aren't really opposed to each other." Jesse Ventura Former Minnesota Governor
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 07:55 am Look at the false left-right dichotomy generate 70 posts of division and hate in a couple days on an inactive forum. Wow, just wow. No wonder the elites get away with anything. Bread and circuses for all! As too the debate itself, since the insurance companies back obama and his plan, you can be sure that's not a good sign. Solomon, do you listen to alex jones' show because it sounds like it. I can tell you are above the banal theatre that is american politics. All folks like us care about is liberty from corrupt bankers and rouge governments, and that liberty has been slipping away ever since the 1913 fed takeover, and before that even. BTW it's toker420 from chat, I've changed handles and countries.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 11:46 am Alex Jones is a great American. I don't listen to him or his radio show out of Texas like I should, nevertheless I revere him as a great American. The Jesse Ventura thing gives me a little hope, he's not NWO and he was able to take Minnesota. That means that they don't have total control (yet) and at the community level we can start to take America back. As he's proven, states are achievable. As soon as we're officially in the North American Union I will consider Michigan an independent and foreign occupied nation and encourage the same line of thinking in my friends, family and neighbors. Detroit was French, not British. Michigan joined the United States of America, not the New World Order. America, the land of the free and home of the brave, we wont have one without the other.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 01:41 pm just reading back Ummagumma: "Damn straight I do Inanna. Why should I share my hard earned capitalist (I'm going to work hard for it) dollars with socialists (I'm entitled to it)." Did you mind them using your hard earned $ to bail out merchant banks & investment houses whose egregious behaviour are probably the cause of the current US financial meltdown? No socialists involved there. US Government does not quickly wake up to itself, down the track - say 10-15 years the Chinese will be telling us all what to do
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 02:21 pm Wait, why didn't anyone tell me "Solomon" was Jesse Ventura!?!?! Famous People play SC hmmmmmm. . . . JkJk Solomon. LooooL
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 02:48 pm Yes I did mind Kali. Sure there were socialism involved. Bush acted like a damn socialist with bailouts. In fact it all started with socialst policies in the first place compounded by capitalist greed. Sure, I recognize the inherent greed in capitalism but YOU took my quote out of context. I also said a successful society must have along with its free market SOME socialism. Just not the dominating force as is what is happening slowly today. And may I remind you that the meltdown was mostly started with Freddie and Fannie giving loans to anything with 2 legs ("Aren't I entitled to it?"), as a result of being forced by the ilk of Barney Frank,SEIU,Acorn, etc... facilitated by policies of a "compassionate conservative" in office , not just the "egregious behavior" by banks . I would have let the meltdown happen. Shake it up, survival of the fittest. Didn't want no damn bailouts. I pay all my medical expenses out of pocket (except for catatrophic coverage I buy), growing more and more of my own food,have my own businesses, my child goes to private school, have no debts (except for small mortgage). I am getting sick of this entitlement atmosphere rising in this country, and .... you're right China will own us soon, and socialist policies will only get us there quicker.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 06:27 pm When capitalism falls down - as any system does from time to time - the "hardliners" always blame "socialism." It would be amusing were it not so entirely misguided. The current meltdown was caused in part by banks giving people mortgages they couldn't afford. Not out of any misguided desire to help them, but with the thought of intrest-incurred profits well and truly in mind; the more they loan, the more money they make. Greed got them into this mess, not any attempt at offering a handout. And the governments of the world, learning from history and realising that the "survival of the most fit" protectionist attitude of past recessions has been entirely bogus, stepped in and supported the system as best they could in order to minimise the problem. Its also amazing how many people synonymise "capitalism" with the free market concept.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 06:36 pm I heard yesterday that the USA will impose a tariff on all tyres coming from China (45% I think it was). What free market? It's all Bananas.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 06:46 pm Go look up the term "Free Market Economy" nix. That'll put it into context for you.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 08:21 pm I have always thought that NAFTA was the perfect example of what is wrong with Free Trade/Market. Why would it take over 20k pages to say - you don't monkey with prices of goods and services over and above how we already stick our own citizens, and we won't either?
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 10:44 pm LOL Nanna! That's a compliment Oh, and by the way, that's Jesse 'THE BODY' to you! I thought about it a little and I can't come up with a single style of government that is in itself bad, or evil. Even despotism, if run by beings that don't have greed and corruption, would work beautifully. Communism, the same thing, fascism is only bad because of what it was used for. I don't think fascism teaches racial hatred but rather strict control I may be wrong, I don't study it. Fascism can be used to advance racial hate, so can a republic as we have witnessed in recent history. It's the men who are evil, not the systems they use to enslave their people with. Just some systems are easier to do it with. We would like to keep the one that makes it more difficult and that's not socialism. Socialism seems to lead to fascism and we all already know we can't trust the ruling class with fascism.
| |
| Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 11:54 pm interesting comments from you all wake up zombies
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 05:41 am Tyr, why do you say that US healthcare seems very unchristian? Everyone seems to agree that it's the best in the world if you can afford it. No one seems to disagree that the great majority of Americans can afford it, one way or another. Poor people and the elderly have basic care paid for them by the rest of the citizens. The basic research that is done here benefits people around the world. Sure it costs more...but then again, compared to other nations we are relatively well off. What do you find unchristian about it? Are you accusing the politicians and insurance companies that shield insurance companies from competition? Are you referring to the politicians and their constituents who demand that a basic insurance policy cover extravagant and unneeded services, making it impossible in many states to buy a cheap catastrophic health insurance policy? Are you talking about the fact that American consumers subsidize the cost of prescription drugs to consumers in many other countries? Some of these practices may be stupid, wasteful, and shortsighted, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them or the people behind them "unchristian." Do you know so much more than the rest of us, that you can look into these peoples' hearts and judge them from afar?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 12:26 pm I'm not judging anyone! Simple observation that there is much money in the health business and many people without care. Basic care is not enough. America can afford to provide better than basic care to all its people. The use of money around the world, not just in America is very wasteful. People are basically selfish to varing degrees. People will buy a $1000 bottle of wine and walk past a homeless person in the street without taking any notice. An extreme example maybe but it illustrates the wasteful use of money.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 02:30 pm And how exactly does one define Christianness?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 03:19 pm Love your neighbor? Who's health is failing. SiI agree with Tyr, his observation is completely accurate.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 03:19 pm "People are basically selfish to varing degrees. People will buy a $1000 bottle of wine and walk past a homeless person in the street without taking any notice. An extreme example maybe but it illustrates the wasteful use of money." So what if they are? It might not be "right" but it's their choice. And what does America policy and legislation have to do with Christianity? You know, there a many many many rich people saying we ought to do this or ought to do that. Why the hell don't they do it? Why can't they set up a non-profit type of insurance as an insurer of last resort and use minimal premiums and charitable donations to keep it running? Hell, I wouldn't mind donating. What I don't like is the government getting larger and more intrusive. We're becoming a nation that's reliant on the government. American pride has always before been our independence and liberty. Every year we lose more and more of it thanks to Republicans and Democrats alike. I don't know that one nation's healthcare is better than anothers, but I agree with JoJo that most people DO get the healthcare they need. We only hear the stories about the ones that don't, because, as Klarina will recognize, it is a rhetorical tool used as an appeal to emotion. We get the same horror stories in the US about Britain's and Canada's systems. Which is why we have American's saying British system SUXORZZ and Brits saying that American's PHAILZ, when it's likely that neither are the case. BC
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 03:43 pm "So what if they are? It might not be "right" but it's their choice." This is a fascinating observation by you BC. I personally find it disturbing that it is way to easy to point that out, with stunning accuracy I might add. Let's not forget that Liberty was a gift to man from the Devil himself. Did we learn anything of the examples in the garden of eden? Poor Eve had a choice, too bad it supposedly cost us all our immortality. Sad to see if she hadn't made those choices, we wouldn't need healthcare, nor this conversation. "And what does America policy and legislation have to do with Christianity?" That is easy. Easy enuff to proly not have even asked. Lets see. . . Does any of this ring bells? "In God We Trust" "One Nation, under God, Indivisable" Clearly, these are core statements from which our Nation has been founded. Yet it strikingly highlights how far we have deviated from the "Founding Fathers' vision.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 04:05 pm Also, there are many charites available. For example. On a National Level, "Catholic Charites" does more than just healthcare. They extend into housing assistance, rental assistance, food banks, and more. In Florida, there is "Charity Care". Our Private sector for charitable organizations remains the largest on a global scale. This is a fact. The Govt has been large, there isn't anything new. They have also been intrusive. Do you recall the "Patriot Act"? The Bill that has the US spying on all its citizens in the name of terrorism. The same bill that has hundreds of Americans getting rectal searches for being on terror watchlists hap hazardly at our nations airports. Is that not intrusive? How aboiut yes, in the worse way. Gimme a break. Those points are rediculous excuses to mask retarded opposition to clearly needed change on so many levels that have been neglected by past elected officials. What is becoming clearly evident is now that Obama has actually put his political ass on the line to do some of these things, the Republicans have demonized him for things they even Initiated bills for in the past. Except they failed. Now Armed with knowledge of what the MAJORITY of american people want, they aim to thwart his effort in preparation to the 2012 election so they can use his not passing healthcare intiatives as ammo. Hoping to deliver the goods themselves. Almost a blanket statement of "How dare he do what we have not. If we(Publicans) didn't get it done, we sure as hell aren't going to let him do it." The story remains the same with the Publicans. . . more of the same. To undertake Healthcare reform is political suicide. I liken it to throwing yourself in the mess that is going on in the middle east. To Attempt solutions at peace, is like chasing the wind. Give the man the respect he deserves, and 2 points for doing what seems impossible. As this natiopn grows larger and larger this issue will only become more and more difficult to adress. I think there is a verse in Ecclesiastes of the Old Testament, "Do what needs to be done, while it is still easy" Or something along those lines. BC, you wouldn't be repeating rediculous propaganda you hear on news programs would you? I don't think you are that naive. Then again, could be wrong. Thinking comes from not knowing.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 04:14 pm And since we are on foolish talking point about opposition to HealthCare Reform along lines of cost, Lets take a quick looksee at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax A great alternative to our current system of taxation with more potential for economic growth and personal advancement for the citizen. Along with a projected multi triilion dollar budget surplus if implemented. Why isn't anyone emailing their congressman about this?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 04:22 pm "Why isn't anyone emailing their congressman about this?" Ohhhh I got it!! We wouldn't want everyone getting by in America. We wouldn't want you to retain 30+/- % of your income. Think of what you would do with all that. Maybe quit living paycheck to paycheck. Or maybe start a business. Or get out of debt. Maybe quit owing the govt. at the end of the year. (Lord Forbid that!!) Ohh I got another One!!!! We wouldn't want consumer prices to fall. Well that would unravel everything. We wouldn't Americans trying to live the "Dream thingy" competing with big business. No way. That would just be stinky. What is going on here?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 05:55 pm I'm not against a Fair Tax, per se, but it could be argues that the people hit hardest will be the poor, who, at the moment, pay nothing in taxes. Further, there are sufficient grounds to point out that an Income Tax is unconstitutional. I definitely believe there should be a change in our tax codes.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:08 pm Not entirely true BC. What is uncommon in fair tax discussions or debates is that the current corp tax is priced into goods as they cost today. If corp tax is 30% or so. US being the highest tax for corps in the world. They price goods accordingly to offset tax expenditures. Moving to a fair tax system will obviously lower the overall price of goods, And I would even go as far as to say that new competition in a pro growth environment would allow goods to drop below prices that we already pay today. The trick here being that the money spent is being taxed, not the income anyone earns. So when subsidy comes in the form of welfare for example, even it is taxed and a protion will be recouped by the govt that issues it. At present, I believe unemployment and welfare payments are non taxable. Thats lost revenue and a downward investment on the govt's part. It is likely that the poor individuals buying power will be the same if not expanded as fair tax takes a full effect on competition and pricing adjusts to reflect corp taxes not being priced into the cost of any given product. Also, I assume that levels issued to the unemployed or indigent are based on cost of living and food costs. So regardless, they will be adequately supplied with the Governments revenues, not your tax dollars. This Fair Tax thing has to be a dream.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:12 pm We are in a recession, correct? We "DO" want to come out of it, correct? We "ARE" trying to reduce the Deficit, Encourage economic growth, get consumer spending and retail sales up again, correct? Why isn't this being voted on right now? Anyone?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:13 pm It wold be nice if we could try it out on some state that doesn't matter..... like Montana or something ( ) to see if it ACTUALLY works out the way we speculate. One thing is for sure, Economics is a bitch.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:15 pm People are resistent to the kind of change we REALLY need. For instance, I've mentioned a while ago that consolidating states would save a boatload of money. Why do we need so many small states with their invidual governments, programs, costs, etc? That's probably an "unpatriotic" thing to say. I'm definitely for a more centralized government.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:47 pm Just read your response abuot healthcare. Overlooked it earlier. So, This discussion is about legislation, so it seems to me that you would argue that you would have your own "wrongs" and "rights" pushed onto others through this legislation. If that's the case, there are a lot of Christians who would also like to ban abortions, same sex marriages, drinking, smoking, etc. You for all of that too? Those would be based on Christian principles, or at least the way the advocates define them. I wonder how many of you "ought tos" out there give to every bum you see, mow old ladies lawns, consistently give to charities, or would be willing to pay (or contribute) to your unemployed neighbors healthcare costs? Don't answer. The simple truth is that very few of the proponents of this particular healthcare people want to be responsible for it themselves. We all know how much the government wastes. Why do people think that public control is something innovative or fresh? How abuot we ACTUALLY think of something new, innovative and fresh adn NOT rely on people who are, for the most part, career liars and hypocrites? "The Govt has been large, there isn't anything new. They have also been intrusive. Do you recall the "Patriot Act"? The Bill that has the US spying on all its citizens in the name of terrorism. The same bill that has hundreds of Americans getting rectal searches for being on terror watchlists hap hazardly at our nations airports. Is that not intrusive? How aboiut yes, in the worse way." I pointed out that Republicans and Democrats are to blame. And Wendy, don't act as if you are unpartisan in this. You are riding that Obamaboat as hard as anyone. Where do you see that the majority of people back Obama's healthcare plan? Most recent poll I see regarding the issue is here http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform and shows a 55% majority against such a plan. That's a Rasmussen poll, not FoxNews, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc... Only poll I found (admitedly didn't look at more than 5 or 6 of the top hits on Google) that favored the Obama plan was back in June. Maybe you should be running for office.
| |
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 06:55 pm
Somebody gets it at least. When we come right down to the base of this whole issue you will find that it isn't actually healthcare that is the problem here. Its percieved government intervention in the day to day lives of the citizen. In order to understand the reason for the American distaste for socialised healthcare and the European advocation thereof, one must first place both arguments into an appropriate social context. In order to do this one should not only look at current economic and sociopolitical factors, but also the history behind them. And in order to do this, we need two examples of the "opposing" systems. The United Kingdom and the United States are both excellent examples. So, lets start by analysing a little history. Firstly, lets look at the UK. The National Health Service (NHS) is, in my opinion, an excellent example of a nationalised healthcare system. Comparatively speaking, it is a world renownd service. As a statement of fact, it is the third largest employer in the world. It provides excellent "front-line" services to every citizen of the United Kingdom at a comparatively small cost to the individual, and manages to meet an excellent minimum standard of care for any first world nation. Whilst it may not boast technologies equally advanced as the privatised US system it does offer excellent specialist care for anything ranging from a broken toe to major neurosurgery. Being funded almost exclusively by the British taxpayer, however, the budget constraints placed upon the NHS have been known to cause a few problems in the past. Coupled with the known beaurocratic inefficiencies of most government-run organisations, this can seem almost crippling at times, and can have some detrimental effects on the service provided - limited funding when it comes to comparatively rare disorders, for example. The US, on the other hand, boasts one of the most well equipped healthcare systems in the world, with medical practitioners trained to a level surpassed by only a mere few. These hospitals tend to be very well funded in the form of private contributions and payments, and attract some of the most skilled doctors in the world as a result. Unfortunately, for all of its advancement and advantages, the system does not provide full coverage of the US population beyond what would be considered basic healthcare. 40 million is the statistic offered in terms of people who have more advanced forms of healthcare cut off from access simply because it is beyond their financial means. Only 87% of the population has access to more than basic healthcare. Or, put another way, one in ten Americans is potentially held back from advanced medical treatment. As we can see, both of these systems has both advantages and disadvantages. Quality versus coverage/accessibility seems to be the primary comparison. We have one system of high quality with restricted access, and one system with open access, but a lower high-end quality. All Britons recieve higher quality healthcare. Most Americans recieve the best healthcare in the world. Both systems are a compromise. But for the reasons behind the existance for each system we have to place these two methods of administering healthcare into their wider social and historical contexts. So let's start with the UK. At the end of the Second World War the UK was essentially bankrupt. The average Briton was living on rations in a country with an infrastructure in tatters and an economy on the verge of collapse and very few real prospects. And this was a situation that, by the time the NHS was created in 1948, they had endured for just short of a decade. Wider social reasoning for a national healthcare service can be seen by looking back further still. Expanding our view back to the Victorian era we can see issues pertaining to the restrictive access of basic public services - such as healthcare - and the poverty line of the UK's population. By the end of the war, with the country in tatters, nationalisation of several national services was a necessity in order to maintain them - healthcare, railways, energy. In essence, nationalisation was the only way forwards to ensure essential services were fully provided to all. Socialism, for the UK, was a step in the right direction - though we've actually seen moves away from socialism in recent years, with the reprivatisation of both public transport and the utility providers. But the NHS remains. Possibilities as to why will be examined in full later on. As for the US - here we have the world's foremost industrial nation. A well-paid, well fed nation with decent public services provided for by the private sector. At the same time that the UK - and much of rebuilding Europe - was seeking out socialism as a means to get back on its feet, the USA was prospering. A proseperous nation and a prosperous people have no need for nationalised services, as long as the private ones continue to provide excellent value for money. The US has never had need of a national health service in the eyes of its people - until now. But, as far as I can tell, the US's "fear" of socialism stems from a few key factors. Firstly, there is the frequently used euphamism of "personal freedom." I am not here to debate the nature of this percieved freedom, or its place within society. What I will say, however, is that this comment alone tells you a great deal about the Americans' self-image. It is worth noting that democracy is a very mess, very expensive business. Especially when you apply it to a federal form of government in which eash subnational entity is, to a certain degree, an independant nation with certain soverign rights and a functional government acting, in turn, under the supervision of a federal government. The eventual result of this government within a government is, unquestionably, beaurocracy and inefficiency. In the mind of any voter, thes to concepts manifest themselves in the form of percieved corruption. In short, people do not trust the government to do their job effectively and with minimal cost to the taxpayer. These failures in the system, in combination with government intervention in an ever increasingly personal way, would make most Americans apprehensive in regards to further government intervention at the cost to the individual. Especially when it comes to something as personal as how they spend their hard-earned money and matters of healthcare. The national psyche of the USA, it must also be remembered, has spent the better half of a century developing in opposition to a threatening opponent in which the government exercised total control - a form of dictatorial socialism. All in all, opposition is to be expected. Having seen their enemy fall due to "sociaist" intervention on a massive scale, they have no wish to see the same happen in their own country. Nationalised healtcare runs contrary to the American concept of self in development from 1945 onwards. And, much as the benefits of nationalised healthcare blind the people of the UK (and many other states of the world) to the advantages of privatised healthcare, we find the same occuring when Americans accustomed to a private system view the apparent failures of the socialist mechanisms. From the American point of view, this does of course beg the question, "Why would they keep such an apparently inefficient, flawed system in place?" Most Britons ask the same questions of the American system. Arguments for and against both systems are typically either logically flawed, biased by opinion or based upon unfounded presumptions. Simply put, the system in place is the result of the needs versus the desires of the populace - not only in the present-day, but tracing back along historical lines within the relative social context. Britons have the National Health Service because they feel they want it. They feel it is a fair system, open to all and paid for by all. Government control doesn't even factor into it. We want our high quality healthcare service, and we want it for practically peanuts. Americans do not have a nationalised health service because, in their virw, it is not needed. It would be an additional form of taxation and it would apparently reduce the quality of their service. At present there is considerable political will - with so many Americans unable to afford a decent standard of healthcare provisions - to implement some form of national system. Those going without see what they could have, and they quite naturally want it. Its the way the market works. And as the current system fails to provide for them, they seek ways to alter the system to work in their favour. I can think of no concept more American than the desire to change their world in order to make it better. They can either do this by lifting more Americans out of povery by providint more opportunity to progress, making the current system more affordable. Or they can implement a system in which healthcare is paid for by all, and available to all. For as long as they cannot see the former happening, they will opt for the latter. I hope that made a little sense, and I apologise for any typos or logical errors within.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 07:54 pm BC LoL, why would I act when I am clearly, openly, and admittedly partisan. I've said it b4 and i'll say it again. If i have to choose between bad and evil, I'll choose bad. I am so against republicans, what they represent and stand for, publicly and privately; that I wonder why you made such a comment. No secret here, Publicans Blo chunks.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 08:00 pm Because I thought we were going for "Intellectual Discussion", not meaningless propaganda and slurs. My mistake.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 08:10 pm We are going for that kind of discussion, but by no means would that imply that I am claiming bi-partisan opinion in the process. It is unfortunate that at the heart of this issue is the clear party line vote that threatens to derail the entire healthcare bill. It is undeniable that every comment you or I make can be viewed as partisan. But your comments seem to be sound bites replayed by "Fox Noise" compared to my heartfelt opinion. Wouldn't you agree? Where in the discussion should "Big Government" dominate objections to insuring otherwise uninsured citizens of America? It shouldn't even be viewed as a valid point honestly. No one is going to do it privately, govt. regulates everything, so it is obvious who has to undertake this task.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 08:18 pm Fox News? It's American History, dear. This debate (big government, etc.) goes back to Hamilton vs. Jefferson and even beyond. A little before Fox News' time. And didn't you just unabashedly claim your own partisan behavior? Wouldn't that mean your own points are worthless?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 08:27 pm Also, I don't have much problem with government acting as an insurer of last resort AS a last resort. We know government is wasteful, government is bureaucratic, and government is costly. Why aren't we exploring other options without government control? President Obama says he would be willing to but so far has not been. I'm not arguing AGAINST healthcare reform (as I said earlier, we need a lot more reform than just this) I'm arguing against government running it. "Big Government" issues aside, what makes anybody think that government healthcare will turn out any differently than medicare, social security, and a host of other government failures?
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 08:36 pm In the UK we do have private health care. How good is it? I have no idea... I cant afford it ;-( I presume it is pretty good. Point being the government can provide good health care to the masses and the rich can pay for their own special care. I do have private dental care which does provide a better service than the NHS but...it comes at a cost. for a 1/3 of what I pay via National insurance for Health care I get my teeth cleaned a few times a year... So value for money goes to the NHS everytime.
| |
| Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 11:06 pm Oh, my peers... are all so many sheep... led astray. Mynanna says: "I've said it b4 and i'll say it again. If i have to choose between bad and evil, I'll choose bad." Solomon replies: That was me 3 years ago, the lesser of 2 evils. The problem is that the bad is actually more evil than the evil. A wolf in sheep's clothing is always worse than a wolf.
| |
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 01:01 am Solomon. . . Stay on topic!!!!!
| |
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 04:16 am Don't tell anyone I said this, cuz I aint one to gossip, so... I'm pretty sure Wendy's has an issue with sheep... wearing white after Labor Day!
| |
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 04:58 am Ok, back on subjet, lets debate this some more
| |
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 06:39 am @Tyr:
Isn't basic care by definition "enough"? @Zodiac: I actually read your whole essay. Without quibbling, you do a decent job of describing how two countries come to have such different systems. But you missed a solution at the end. Paraphrasing, you mentioned helping improve people's incomes so they can pay for more/better care, and also changing the whole system so that everyone pays for everyone. What about changing some of the laws that add artificial costs? In principle this should be the easiest solution, and certainly imo the smartest and fairest. @ BorderC, I think your idea is great:
Even better, set up two of these funds, one for those who claim that those against socialized health care are uncaring ignorant racists, and one for those who think that we should all be as responsible as possible for our health care. The results might be interesting. too funny
| |
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 10:58 am Basic by definition is basic. Would you want your child to have basic health care, or a basic education, or a basic life? Of course not. You want the best of everything that your country can provide. America can provide much more than basic. There is no point arguing over the definition of basic...I am sure everyone has their own idea of what basic covers. I will just say America should like every country provide the best level of service to its people as it can afford.
| |
Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 05:13 pm
Actually, my suggestion was supposed to be either/or rather than and. Your solution also works, and I'll admit that I hadn't thought of it. But it is worth noting that whilst the means we suggest are all different, they ultimately strive to have the same effect; making adequate to advanced levels of healthcare affordable and accesible to all, rather than a luxury of some.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 03:48 am you guys are sounding like this isn't really a tool of control and that they are really interested in prolonging your life so that you can tear up the planet some more. lol "History will record, with the greatest of astonishment, that those with the most to lose did the least to prevent it's happening" Ronald Reagan _________________________________________
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 04:48 am Its all a conspiracy, maaaan...
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 06:51 am Think of all the dead people.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 05:38 pm Dam. I had only just stopped thinking about them.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 10:17 pm ahh, head in the sand folks. I even have them in my family lol I guess it's just too ugly of a thing for people to look at. You sure can tell who didn't spend any time clicking on any of the video links I've posted.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 11:34 pm "For instance, I've mentioned a while ago that consolidating states would save a boatload of money. Why do we need so many small states with their invidual governments, programs, costs, etc? That's probably an "unpatriotic" thing to say. I'm definitely for a more centralized government." I'm so sorry you actually believe this. If you prefer centralized government, China and North Korea are always options for you. There is no such thing as an open and free centralized government. Has never and will never happen. Although I won't argue it can be efficient. 1940's german technology was quite impressive. Some people just like being told what to believe without thinking about it.
| |
Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 02:55 pm
That sure does seem to be the way it works.
| |
| Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 02:55 pm Jo Jo, after looking closer at the article you posted I'd almost go for it if they actually DID set up 2 different funds! 
|
