Health Care in America

13

Comments

  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    El_Kabong wrote:
    which dr's like ron paul refuses to accept

    Yes, that's why he did medical services for free. :D

    Liberals at their heart are extremely selfish. They look at what others have and want it. That's why they favor utilitarian nonsense programs that are designed to give them what they want.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    blackredyellow wrote:
    To corporatewhore, efficient means that insurance companies will run leaner business and make more money.

    That's really not what I said at all. 12th grade English wasn't good to you, was it?
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Yes, that's why he did medical services for free. :D

    Liberals at their heart are extremely selfish. They look at what others have and want it. That's why they favor utilitarian nonsense programs that are designed to give them what they want.

    ha haaa haaaaaa

    that's some funny shit...

    at the heart if this conversation is the notion that people should take care of themselves...a conservative idea....thus, "don't take my tax dollars to pay for others health care"...which sound pretty selfish to me....

    tell me again how that makes liberal selfish...or was it you that had some trouble in 12 grade English class...
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Liberals at their heart are extremely selfish. They look at what others have and want it. That's why they favor utilitarian nonsense programs that are designed to give them what they want.

    You should submit that to wikipedia under liberalism...it might stick
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    inmytree wrote:
    at the heart if this conversation is the notion that people should take care of themselves...a conservative idea....

    False.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    You should submit that to wikipedia under liberalism...it might stick

    Liberalism is a bullshit ideology anyway so it can't get much worse! Maybe I could put photos of dogshit in that entry and pretty it up. :D
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    That's really not what I said at all. 12th grade English wasn't good to you, was it?

    Then what exactly is our system more efficient at?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    False.

    not false...it's true...
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    inmytree wrote:
    not false...it's true...

    Conservatism is fine with people taking care of eachother, so long as there is no unnatural change from the traditional order of society. The Puritans lived on common lands together and they could be considered a rather conservative society. They certainly took care of one another.

    Conservatives don't believe the government must take care of your fellow man. We believe that we can do it just fine.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Conservatism is fine with people taking care of eachother, so long as there is no unnatural change from the traditional order of society. The Puritans lived on common lands together and they could be considered a rather conservative society. They certainly took care of one another.

    Conservatives don't believe the government must take care of your fellow man. We believe that we can do it just fine.

    right, which means a big ol' screw you to those who need help...which is pretty selfish...

    and this "traditional order of society" you mention...who gets to define that...?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Liberalism is a bullshit ideology anyway so it can't get much worse! Maybe I could put photos of dogshit in that entry and pretty it up. :D

    Why not just show a pic of it coming straight from the dogs ___ with you in the shot right next to it with a huge smile giving the thumbs up?

    That would be worthwhile...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    nathanastin wrote:
    Universal health care is not the answer. Canada and Europe have disastrous systems and those from this country with money come here for care. It is proven every day that the government screws everything up. You want to put your health in their hands? Crazy. I agree that the costs are high, but it draws the best doctors and research. It costs billions to make new medicine and many times the drug companies don't get a cent if their research, patents, etc. go no where. We are the ones that want an easy fix for our problems: a pill. If people would take better care of themselves and not blame others for their ills, the problems would fix themselves.

    Bullshit.....I have money....and I do not need to go pay to see a doctor....once again bullshit.....
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Conservatism is fine with people taking care of eachother, so long as there is no unnatural change from the traditional order of society. The Puritans lived on common lands together and they could be considered a rather conservative society. They certainly took care of one another.

    Conservatives don't believe the government must take care of your fellow man. We believe that we can do it just fine.

    You use the Puritans as a conservative example because they lived on common land and they took care of each other... sounds like a small socialist society.

    You talk about the old days of everyone helping their neighbor, but in the next breath you support private business, only the strong survive, and rich people deserve better healthcare if they can afford it. It's not just the government to blame.

    You can't have it both ways. Our society (especially young people) has moved to a very selfish one... It's not the quaint little towns and settlements that you love so much anymore. I'm not saying the federal gov't helps the situation all that much, but people are selfish these days (especially young people)... it's a dog eat dog world and role models are the rich and famous.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Our society (especially young people) has moved to a very selfish one... It's not the quaint little towns and settlements that you love so much anymore. I'm not saying the federal gov't helps the situation all that much, but people are selfish these days (especially young people)... it's a dog eat dog world and role models are the rich and famous.

    Couldn't agree more. But I do think we can have it both ways. Get rid of ever-present government first and then address these issues.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    LOL

    There is not one shred of truth to that statement. Efficient in what way? Shorter lines? That is not the economic measure of efficiency, Norway.
    Money spent on service received. You pay a lot, and receive comparatively little. (although your top-end people get super service, of course)
    You measure efficiency by looking at the number of dollars that are wasted on healthcare that could be spent on other things. Naturally, when government runs a program, it will waste more than private industry would because government is required to provide services to you. Private industry can turn you away.
    So since the government by definition wastes, it doesn't matter whether it wastes 1 of your dollars or 100.000 of them? That government must waste more than private is not accurate either, although it would depend heavily on your definition of what waste (and efficiency) is. I would say putting aside entire floors in hospitals to manage payment from all the insurance schemes is a waste of time and money if the purpose is the health of the people.
    I like how you frequently trot out this "efficiency" argument as though it's actually true. Economically speaking, there is no efficiency in anything government does. Anything government does would be done more efficiently by a private company. The fact is, there are some activities that are public goods and government would not be best for those activities.
    You aren't refuting as much as just throwing ideology at me here. My "efficiency" argument holds, and is based from the most recent reports from the World Health Organization. You pay the most, have a ridiculous amount of uninsured people, and lag behind on measures like infant mortality. As a nation, you do get outperformed by almost all other industrial on simple measures for public health. And you are the ones with the private sector involved in the healthcare the most. I'm talking factual data here, not economic liberalism 101 talking points.
    Universal Healthcare is not a public good. It can be divided and used up by individuals. Individuals who can afford better healthcare should be able to pay for such.
    Oh, but if the health of the people is not in the interest of the people, then what is? And universal healthcare by itself does not actually in itself bar that some people can buy "better" at private clinics. That depends on how you set it up. It's fundamentally about having decent care for all the people, instead of spectacular care for some of them.

    By the way: To you, what are public goods that cannot be privatized anyway?

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    To you, what are public goods that cannot be privatized anyway?

    Peace
    Dan

    National defense, police, roads. They can't be divided up individually or bought in units. Everyone uses them or no one.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Yes, that's why he did medical services for free. :D

    Liberals at their heart are extremely selfish. They look at what others have and want it. That's why they favor utilitarian nonsense programs that are designed to give them what they want.


    hm, i wonder why when he was asked he just says flatly no instead of sometimes free, sometimes a payment plan, sometimes a discount?

    still, i would like to see the number of free surgeries or births he gave, especially compared to how many could've used medicare/aid

    it was good of him to do, tho
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • g under p
    g under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,237
    TODAY'S DEMOCRACY NOW!:

    * Children's Defense Fund's Marian Wright Edelman Calls on Congress & Bush
    Administration to Help the Country's Nine Million Children Without Health
    Insurance *

    As President Bush vows to veto a bill expanding the Children's Health
    Insurance Program, Marian Wright Edelman says Washington must do far more to
    help the nation's children and to truly leave no child behind.

    Listen/Watch/Read
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/1431211

    In this country we neglect even our most prescious OUR CHILDREN!

    Peace
    Earle
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    g under p wrote:
    TODAY'S DEMOCRACY NOW!:

    * Children's Defense Fund's Marian Wright Edelman Calls on Congress & Bush
    Administration to Help the Country's Nine Million Children Without Health
    Insurance *

    As President Bush vows to veto a bill expanding the Children's Health
    Insurance Program, Marian Wright Edelman says Washington must do far more to
    help the nation's children and to truly leave no child behind.

    Listen/Watch/Read
    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/24/1431211

    In this country we neglect even our most prescious OUR CHILDREN!

    Peace
    Earle

    "A new poll released Monday from Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families shows 91% of Americans support expanding SCHIP to cover more children. It even has bipartisan support in Congress and approval, if tepid, from major drug insurance companies. It sounds like a no-brainer, but there's an obstacle. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill. Speaking last week at a healthcare forum in Maryland, he explained why."

    "He made a comment a few weeks ago about -- just everybody can get healthcare; just take them to the emergency room. Well, you can go to the emergency room, but that means you're going to spend thousands and thousands more taxpayer dollars to have people go to an emergency room, when we could have prevented that through primary care.That same asthma, if it gets more serious and the parents have to take their children to the emergency room, is going to cost about $11,000 "

    AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, who is President Bush listening to? Who are the forces arrayed against children, poor children, getting health insurance and the increase on the cigarette tax?

    MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, that’s a good question. I think it must be the insurance industry that wants to protect their profits, because he certainly is not listening to the American people, who -- you know, 90% of whom want to have healthcare for all children and provide comprehensive healthcare
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    National defense, police, roads. They can't be divided up individually or bought in units. Everyone uses them or no one.
    Sure they can. Private security, walled in neighbourhoods, roads you have to pay per kilometre to the company that built it. It's not that it can't be done. But why is socialized protection something you must have, while socialized healthcare is such an impossibility and abomination? They are both concerned with the individuals health, are they not? It's really about ideology and values. I say include healthcare in those values, as they are in most other comparable countries, and to most of the american public as well.

    Or, if you're gonna be consistent principally, also denounce military, police and free roads.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965

Categories