Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Socialised Healthcare (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=111335)

Magic187 08-9-2009 09:32 PM

Socialised Healthcare
 
Why hasn't anyone talked about the infamous Democratic Health Care reform bill and the spectacular effects it will have on our daily lives?

Why should my grandfather (who contributed to society for 45 years working as a manager for a Lincoln - Mercury dealership) have to be put under in order to pay for some drug dealer's health care?

Why should my dad, who is a successful businessman, pay taxes AND pay for someone else's health care? I mean, he's already paying for someone else's housing, food, water, and electricity.

Why should our nation's working class pay for the less fortunate when the less fortunate are doing nothing to better their situation?

I think this is the government's way of trying to prove that each person is equal. I think the constitution states that every man is born equal. Whether he uses his liberty to benefit his society and himself should be up to him. I understand there are people who are in dire circumstances and are honest and good people. But I should be able to keep my doctor and my check-ups and he should be able to keep his availability and his business. Is it really necessary that we should pay for everyone's health? Especially since our government is trillions of dollars deep in debt?

Finally, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Obama's proposed reform? Why or why not? Is it good or bad for our nation?

I think I've made my stance pretty clear. Thanks for reading my opinions. By the way, I watch Fox News. Don't hate. xP

Patashu 08-9-2009 09:59 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
it sounds fair to me; pay a bit more tax for when other people are sick or injured and need to be nursed back to health to continue their job in exchange for having other people pay for your healthcare when you can't work yourself. what's the problem? the current situation with healthcare in America is atrocious. even after paying insurance premiums you're still charged insane amounts for proceedures, can be denied care for basically ad hoc reasons (the 'preexisting condition') and if you don't have a job you don't get care, even though that's when you need it most of all so you can get back on your feet and contribute to society once again. when you let healthcare be handled by for-profit ventures, it's suddenly in their best interest to help as little and charge as much as they can get away with it, and no surprise that's what happens in America in the absence of universal health care.
btw, Cuba has universal healthcare. both the USA and Cuba have the same life expectancy but Cuba spends 1/20th of the amount the USA does on healthcare. france, canada, britain etc etc have universal healthcare and they far better than the USA does in issues like this

unfortunately the healthcare reform has been emasculated so much in congress beacuse of attempts to pander to blue dogs and republicans that it basically isn't an improvement at all any more. it's even starting to be referred to as 'health insurance reform' rather than health care reform lmao. sorry America. you still need it though

edit: also, the statement that your grandfather will be killed for some drug dealer is definitely poisoning the well. it's granting a disproportionate amount of weight towards the undesirable elements of society and equating it in the mind of the reader to the tax only going towards the healthcare of these undesirable elements. be careful with statements like that. oh, and even criminals deserve human decency; criminals ARE human beings, no more or less worthy of basic rights than you or I. demonizing any man or woman forever for a crime they've commited is wrong

devonin 08-9-2009 10:49 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
The whole purpose of insurance in general is that you pay a small amount even when you don't need to, in order to ensure that you have a large amount when you do need it.

But as Patashu says, the whole basis of the for-profit american healthcare system is built around trying as hard as possible to deny as many people as much coverage as possible in all cases. There are doctors, as in, people who've sworn an oath to do no harm, who are payed solely to review insurance applications and try to find any justification to deny them. Give 'Sicko' a watch if you aren't the kind of person to just automatically dismiss Michael Moore even when he makes good points, just because he sometimes goes a little over the top.

There's some good perfectly legitimate non-michael-moore-originated footage there of a doctor who worked for a major medical insurance company testifying before congress that she was given bonuses and promotions the more people she could find a way to deny claims for.

Health-care is NOT a system that runs better in the free market, because competition for something like health insurance doesn't result in lower premiums, lower deductables and lower monthly payments to try and lure people to one provider over the other, it results in companies realising that you basically CANNOT choose to simply NOT HAVE insurance and pay for procedures out of pocket, so while there isn't a monopoly as such of providers, there is still the kind of monopoly you get when you have a service that absolutely everybody needs (Except, ironically, the very very wealthy who -can- afford to pay full-price out of pocket for their medical needs, and all of whom have -very- good insurance so they never actually have to) and so there is no real force to cause competition, just driving for greater profit margins, and greater screwing of the poor and disadvantaged.

Quote:

Why should our nation's working class pay for the less fortunate when the less fortunate are doing nothing to better their situation?
Well, let me just say, as someone who comes from a reasonably well off family taken over time (I'd generally choose to identify as upper-middle-class currently) I've still found myself in the living situation to be going paycheck to paycheck, sharing too many bodies into too few bedrooms and worrying about getting enough food.

We certainly contributed to society, we earned our livings, we payed our taxes, but then businesses close down, and workers get laid off. What if 30 years into that 45 years of working for lincoln your grandfather's plant closed down and he was laid off? He loses his medical insurance, and then heaven forbid, the stress of possibly no longer being able to provide for his family makes him have a heart attack. Well now he's looking at 50, 60 thousand dollars in medical bills, and no insurance.

Many great men and women in the US have found themselves in similar situations, now they are crushed under debt for procedures they couldn't predict or plan for, no longer covered under the insurance that stopped the moment they lost their job and their coverage, and facing the possibility of bankruptcy.

Do you really want to tell those people that they don't deserve medical treatment? That your grandfather after decades of loyal service should be screwed over because the natural course of the company had them put him out of a job?

Who says the "working class" can't -become- "less fortunate" and who says the "less fortunate" aren't trying their damndest to improve their situation? But being unable to even go to the hospital and get potential illnesses looked at before they get worse, thus keeping them out of the workforce even longer because they can't afford it with their no job?

Magic187 08-10-2009 12:35 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
I suddenly feel like my post was very childish and narrow-minded.
Keep the answers coming guys!

Would this post be considered a bump? If so, can someone please tell me so I don't do it again?

Afrobean 08-10-2009 03:57 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Magic187 (Post 3182494)
I think this is the government's way of trying to prove that each person is equal.

I agree, however:

Quote:

I think the constitution states that every man is born equal
This is not true. Equality is not something which is promised by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence mentions it in the sense that "[all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Declaration of Independence is not law, and even that only says we are equal in our rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about health, privacy, or even property.

In fact, the United States is BUILT on the fact that we are NOT all equal. We all enjoy certain unalienable rights, but the things people want the government to provide them are often far outside of that. We are equal as human beings but as members of the economy, we are NOT equal. That is the point of our economic system and to bely that counters the very function of capitalism. Giving money to those who haven't earned it is encouraging sloth and that is exactly the opposite of what Capitalism is about.

I'll also add that I find all insurance systems (including one as encompassing as to be referred to as simply "health care") to be HUGE ****ing scams. These are PROFITABLE, PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. This means that they are NOT going to care about service, but rather just the bottom line. In addition, since they profit from your investment, that to me means that you'd be better off SAVING YOUR MONEY TO USE YOURSELF. Insurance is basically just gambling, except the thing you're betting on is that you'll get injured or sick or something. Stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3182511)
edit: also, the statement that your grandfather will be killed for some drug dealer is definitely poisoning the well. it's granting a disproportionate amount of weight towards the undesirable elements of society and equating it in the mind of the reader to the tax only going towards the healthcare of these undesirable elements. be careful with statements like that. oh, and even criminals deserve human decency; criminals ARE human beings, no more or less worthy of basic rights than you or I. demonizing any man or woman forever for a crime they've commited is wrong

I consider anyone who can't pull their weight in society to be "undesirable elements", even if they're otherwise "good people". If a person cannot do anything to be able to afford technology, they don't deserve it, even if that technology appears to be necessary for survival.

edit: dev: if a person spends their life contributing as you identify, they should know to have money set aside in case something goes wrong. To not have money set aside for such a thing is as irresponsible as never having been prepared in the first place.

Patashu 08-10-2009 04:05 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
maybe they can't do anything to be able to afford the stuff they need because they can't get a job because they're sick or injured because they don't have health insurance while they're jobless

kommisar[os] 08-10-2009 07:04 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
obama's plan is creating quite a stir but is a step in the right direction.

taking in example countries like canada and france where you pay more taxes yet have a provincial medicare card which exempts you from paying anything in a hospital. anything health related minus ambulance bills which you can still be covered for with insurance. i dont like the idea of having to "copay" with companies to pay a large sum for health insurance. even that can be expensive.

the healthcare reform plan seems to be trying to get america more towards a socialist country where it has been proven to work in many other countries (communism doesnt count). upsets me to hear that people are complaining about this and refuse change to stay in their debt infested country with poverty due to medical expenses everywhere.

dsliscoo 08-10-2009 07:27 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Health Care has grown out of bounds is all. 2.2 Trillion dollars in 2007.. 713 billion in 1990. Its been two decades and its up three times as much? what the f*ck? Last I checked there isn't 700 million people in the US.Where is all the money being thrown around. The government stepped in on monopolization policies, but backs down on obvious price inflations? I guess that holds true thusfar. Housing markets, Oil markets.. I guess everything will have to come to a crashing stop before they are deemed neccessary to step in. I really don't support the bill proposed by Obama, but there has to be a preventative change in health care now before it really does crash and mess up our whole market. One thing I am afraid of is that if we do accept this new bill, this will be a giant beast that is created. It needs to have adaptability. Leglislation will be almost impossible once it gets up and running. Or you know, maybe there is just too many people let those who die die and the rest just go on.

What I really fear is the adaptability though. 300 million people here. Each one of us has our own cases going on. Can a government bill really support everyone as fully as it should?

I read an obviously right wing summary of the bill where they threw around the words Big Brother and Rationing. (http://www.breakdownofamerica.com/?p=380) Actually reading the bill it is almost nothing like what that website said it was line after line. Odd how I had alway imagined that the republican side was the one who favored big brother... Reversing roles is curious to me.

devonin 08-10-2009 09:00 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
If health care gets nationalized, it wouldn't be overly difficult to assign the actual mechanics of running the system to state organizations under direct federal oversight instead of trying to manage one overarching federal system. And besides, states love getting more control over things.

Afrobean 08-10-2009 09:10 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3182886)
maybe they can't do anything to be able to afford the stuff they need because they can't get a job because they're sick or injured because they don't have health insurance while they're jobless

Then they should have somewhere to turn in the private sector. Personal loan, friends, family, charity, etc.

There is no reason for a disabled person to be a draw on society. Let the people who care about them be the ones to pay the cost. Why should the government be a charity?

And the reason the government doesn't control the prices is because of FREE ****ING MARKET. If people pay it, it's apparently worth that much. The only way huge prices require legislative action is in the case of a monopoly or some other system whereby a person or corporation is able to singularly affect the price without regards to demand (particularly in the case of a necessary good or service... and insurance is anything but necessary; necessary would be like WATER).

Quote:

I read an obviously right wing summary of the bill where they threw around the words Big Brother and Rationing. (http://www.breakdownofamerica.com/?p=380) Actually reading the bill it is almost nothing like what that website said it was line after line. Odd how I had alway imagined that the republican side was the one who favored big brother... Reversing roles is curious to me.
This is the problem that the Bush administration created. People who don't know **** began thinking that the BAD things about government are on the right side when in reality, they're on the far left. The right is SUPPOSED to be in favor of smaller government, less power, less intrusive, and because of all of this, lower taxes are necessary. So Bush comes along with ****ing wiretapping and Big Brother bull****, and is immediately followed by Obama with lower taxes. What the **** are the Republicans thinking? They're sitting there with a finger up their butt thinking people will vote for them when they're completely ass-backwards. These days I'm leaning right, but I couldn't even bring myself to vote for McCain because I knew he would be terrible... I guess it's better to have a leftist President who is actually on the left than a dude who claims to be on the right but is really all over the ****ing board.

Patashu 08-10-2009 09:35 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
if you're drawing apon your friends and family when you come upon hard times, you're burdening them as well. by spreading such burdens out over the entire population of a country you lessen their effect on any one person and greatly speed their ability to recover and be at their full ability to create useful wealth once again

the free market would only be the ultimate way to run a country if everyone was perfectly rational and had all the facts available to them, but this isn't the case. private enterprises can spend money on something which distinctively does NOT create useful wealth, advertising and lobbying and working out legal loopholes, to be able to set prices higher/sell more products without actually having more of a 'right' to do so. in addition, multiple corporations (sometimes in different sectors) can conspire to collectively jack up prices so that both of them make money; I think the current USA health insurance/medical system does something like this in that, since there isn't any universal-quality health insurance anywhere, they can collectively get away with being expensive, unreliable and ad hoc dropping claims because there's no better alternative and the working class has somehow been conditioned against rallying for change (remember 'reagan speaks out against socialized medicine'?)

and healthcare certainly is a necessity; we could go without a public water system as well, we could technically do it but it would dramatically decrease the ability of anyone to do useful work because they'd need to work harder to get their water. same with healthcare

dore 08-10-2009 02:36 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
There are certain things which are proven to work better when there is no profit incentive. In one town in Florida, I think it was, they tried to privatize the construction of a new sewer system. They had an auction, the lowest bidder won, etc. etc. yay capitalism. And when it was all said and done it was less efficient and more expensive to the people involved then it would've been if they just accepted a slight tax increase to pay for this construction. (I'd cite this but the example came from a rental textbook which I no longer have access to.)

My point is that with a well run bureaucracy a non-profit venture is going to be more efficient and provide better services than a for profit corporation. When you take out the incentive for profit you allow doctors to provide care without worrying about cost. I agree that there should be no reason the free market shouldn't work well with healthcare since competition for customers could provide better options for everyone. The problem is the entire market is run by greedy corporate executives who have more incentive to not provide solid care. The problem is exacerbated by pharmaceutical companies who have no incentive to cure disease but have an incentive to prolong lives and make people dependent on their drugs.

One argument against universal healthcare is that you'd have to wait for the government to approve any procedure you need, but that's just not the way it would work. Since the only incentive is to provide a good service to the citizens, you don't have to be pre-approved for anything; you get the care you need and then the government pays for it afterward. Our country is brainwashed with our current system so we try to rationalize a national healthcare plan through the current system. Of course if the same people were in charge a national healthcare plan would fail miserably. I wouldn't trust the federal government to provide any service for me, because Capitol Hill is so saturated with pharmaceutical and HMO lobbying. If you take that all out, a much simpler bureaucracy would have no problem functioning. It's a basic concept: the street-level bureaucrats (doctors in this case) would be in charge of providing care, and they would have no incentive to not provide care. In Britain, doctors actually get bonuses based on how many people they help live healthier lives (such as helping them quit smoking or lower their blood pressure, etc.). How can a system whose only incentive is to provide the services people need inferior to a system that has people being paid to find any reason to deny someone's claim?

Basically, the free market has already failed at healthcare and we should learn from the example of every other developed nation. Certain things should be about efficiently providing a service instead of efficiently generating profit.

EDIT Thanks devonin, that documentary was a good watch.

hayatewillown 08-23-2009 11:28 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Evidently, this topic seemed to piss me off beyond belief. I had a discussion with a girl in school about this. This is more so about the problem with the health care reform, but addresses more serious problems.

And before someone talks about "resources", the radio, the tv. There you go. Eyewitness statement bitches. The internet is not reliable anymore since google is now checking what you search now.

Here was my reply to what this girl I said, I hope you all read it thoroughly
(This also addresses names given to "crazy republicans", which I take offense to because I am a republican)
-------
Heh... Took me a while but here's my reply:
First - many of the people that are currently protesting at either "tea parties" or town hall meetings do not consider themselves 'republicans" but rather consider themselves "conservatives" There are many independents that consider themselves "conservatives" that are participating in these events.

The so called "birthers" do not believe that the possibility of Obama not being a naturalized citizen as some part of a preconceived conspiracy or Manchurian Candidate situation. That is more of the leftist perception. What they do contest is that the possiblity that Obama was born in Kenya is very possible given different eye witness statements on bothsides of the argument. The evidence thus far has not proven that he is in fact a naturalized citizen which could easily be refuted if the President were to hold true to his promise of transparency (to which he has not on many accounts). The evidence thus far produced by the State of Hawaii officals have only confirmed that there was a certificate of live birth. If you actually research the statutes in Hawai you will find that the actual witness of a live birth is not required and that the certificate application need simply be requested and then submitted. This is a fact that has not been divulged (and frankly will not be due to a biased media that has failed on many accounts to vette issues as had been entrusted to them to do). Due to this the question has not been answered and many speculate that this is a tactic utilized by the White House to create the perception of "crazies" on the right in order to discount protest to other issues/policies that would be considered controversial (marxist/socialistic agendas). What is the reasoning behind the millions of dollars and 100's of attorney's to prevent this information from being released to the public as has been performed by every other candidate that has run for office. The true concern is the Constitution. Unfortunately many of the concerns of the "average" man revolve around maintaining the Constitution and that it is not perverted. The criteria of the Constitution is why many conservatives are upset. Not that he is black. The race card has been played long enough and unfortunately the left will continue to enslave the socioecomically challenged populace in order to provide the guise of help in exchange for votes. Hand outs help no one but a hand up helps all.

Next issue - tea baggers. Again, the constitutionality of taxation is what these conservative constituents are concerned with. The 10th amendment is very clear as to what the federal powers are. Why the term tax "reform". Raising taxes does not equal reform. Raising taxes to pay for special pork projects where the end result for example is a new bridge is a state 2000 miles away from your home state is not representative government and is abusive taxation. The Boston Tea Party was action against unfair taxation and specifically without representation. People are upset because the representatives are not representing the wishes of their constutients. This is on both sides of the aisle in congress. It has now expanded to many of the progressive issues that the house is trying to push through. It is very evident in the response (or non response) to the voices of "the people" that are showing up to the town halls. The stimulus plan which has not slowed the progression of unemployment as promised by the President was one of the largest driving forces behind this movement. For the President, his administration, and a largely democrat congress to come out with dialogue that basically tells the "people" to shut up and get out of the way is regrettable.

Deathers - In fact is a true issue and you need to go deeper in your research. First off the VA has not been a well run system for many years. President Bush made large attempts to improve the VA system with the largest increase of funding up to his Presidency. Apparently Obama has dropped more money which is not surprising as he has dropped more money into everything government. Also, there are some insiders that see a possible plan for the VA Hospital infrastructire as a possible first step in a national hospital system. The "deathers" as you have termed it actually refers to a book that was published just prior to Bush's administration (Clinton era) called "The Death Book" to be utilized for veterans's in the VA system. It specifically dealt with guidance and recommendations for steering veteran's toward Hospice care which ultimately reduced care to the patient and most likely a premature death if the normal medical interventions were with held. When Bush became aware of this he protested and had this stopped. Now it has reappeared with the new administration. Again, another non vetted issue. You really have to go below the surface to find the facts these days as investigative journalism is all but dead. Veteran's health care has always been less than desired. They have difficulty operating at the standard of care for services rendered. Furthermore, the beuracracy often henders the delivery of those services leading to lengthy wait times inorder to receive those services especially in comparison to the private sector.

Tricare is truly less than perfect. The military has been the longest running HMO in the history of our country. Tricare has many issues of its own and does restrict services based on cost. The biggest problem is availabilty of providers that actually accept Tricare payments. For example, Tricare currently sets the standard that a referral has to be booked (ie appointment) within 30 days of a primary care manager making the referral. In the Camp Lejeune area the average referral takes 45-60 days to book. Some 2.5-3 months (i.e endocrinology). This occurs due to lack of available Tricare network providers in the local Lejeune market. Now imagine this happening on a Nationwide scale. It will exponentially equate to greater wait times. Is is very simple to see if you understand the system. The current healthcare bills are overly aggressive and do not address the problem but infact transfer the problem under the umbrella of the government which is the only entity in our nation that can operate at a deficit. Add the layering of beuracracy to this and you have a recipe for disasterous outcomes. Because of the administrative cost to run a so called "national healthcare system" the overhead cost becomes much greater than what could occur in a free market system. If the attempt to be fiscally responsible arises this will lead to reduction in services. It is basic ecomonics and basic healthcare adminstration. This is why the language of the current bills is very frightening to many as it provides for the requirement to steer toward hospice care and end of life plans (aka "The Death Book"). The current savings with this proposed HR bill is only 2% to address a small percentage of the population. This is the backroom handshack deal (not transparent) between the President and the Pharmaceutical industry which ultmitaly benefits the pharmaceutical industry. 80 billion dollars in savings is minisucal in light of the 3.75 Trillion estimated cost (2%). Also, the abortion issue is of concern. The reform requires increases in taxes (which is not provided for under the constitution as this is a federal program). Many feel that they should not be paying for abortions via their tax dollars. For some, paying for someone's abortion goes against their religious beliefs, which is a right in this country. Then again it seems that if your a Christian these days you have no rights.

There is also a perception that this program will be free. It will not be as it does have a cost on top of taxation.

Recall the 10th Amendment below which is were most conservatives have issue with the current administration:

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The federal gov't does not have the power vested to it by the constitution to erect a national healthcare system.

Also recall that this is not a democratic government. This is a republic. A republic based on the laws established by the Constution. This is what "we the people" are upset about.

Everyone wants reform to healthcare but the government is not the solution. If we want to be honest than lets reform the insurance industry. Provide protabilty across state lines and utilize the term life insurance model and address the issue of pre-existing conditions. let's honestly look at the pharmaceutical industry and research funding. Let us address the points instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare and infringement of rights.

Yes it is true that we pay for it now in cost transferred from indigent care in ERs to the hospital consumer but the big difference is that my rights are not violated. Why would I allow the transfer of the cost to become the form of a tax that will be misutilized and at the same time have my rights violated?

devonin 08-23-2009 01:09 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

The so called "birthers" do not believe that the possibility of Obama not being a naturalized citizen as some part of a preconceived conspiracy or Manchurian Candidate situation.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and I am more than positive that as soon as President Obama announced his intention to run for the office of the President, that his credentials in terms of being legally allowed to retain that office were thoroughly checked. Trying to say after the fact, that the fact that he has legally valid proof of his being born in the United States, is some sort of scam or conspiracy is exactly that, crazy conspiracy theorizing. Enough people had a vested interest in making it do he could never even have attempted to run for president that if there were such proof that he wasn't eligable it would have been found.

Quote:

Raising taxes to pay for special pork projects where the end result for example is a new bridge is a state 2000 miles away from your home state is not representative government and is abusive taxation.
Raising a state tax in only your state in order to pay for a project in another state entirley would be abusive taxation. Raising federal taxes in order to pay for a project anywhere in the united states is not abusive taxation. Additionally, every single person who has ever tried to point to the apparant illegality of having to pay taxes has been found at all levels of the legal system, to be dead wrong. Most of them are in prison right now.

Quote:

People are upset because the representatives are not representing the wishes of their constutients.
People elected them by a majority vote. If a majority voted candidate is not representing the interests of the majority of their constituents, then those constituents need to express their dissatisfaction by NOT REELECTING THEM and making it clear that any candidate who -doesn't- represent their interests will suffer the same fate. WHat is REALLY happening is the huge numbers of people who simply don't bother voting are now upset that THEIR interests are not being represented, but too bad so sad. If you don't vote, you lose all right to complain about what elected officials do.

Quote:

President Bush made large attempts to improve the VA system with the largest increase of funding up to his Presidency. Apparently Obama has dropped more money which is not surprising as he has dropped more money into everything government.
So wait, Bush put in more money, and this is an 'attempt to improve' the system, but when Obama puts in more money, he's just 'dropping more money into the government' with a pronounced negative connotation? Come on now. At least pretend you aren't biased.

Quote:

Veteran's health care has always been less than desired. They have difficulty operating at the standard of care for services rendered. Furthermore, the beuracracy often henders the delivery of those services leading to lengthy wait times inorder to receive those services especially in comparison to the private sector.
By standardizing and nationalizing all healthcare, this would actually resolve the majority of the issues you seem to have for the VA healthcare system. It exists as an attempt to provide socialised healthcare to a certain small segment of the population while everyone else goes through the private sector. If -EVERYBODY- were part of a nationalised healthcare system, there would be no need for a seperate bureaucracy just to try and manage one small segment of the system.

Quote:

Tricare currently sets the standard that a referral has to be booked (ie appointment) within 30 days of a primary care manager making the referral. In the Camp Lejeune area the average referral takes 45-60 days to book. Some 2.5-3 months (i.e endocrinology). This occurs due to lack of available Tricare network providers in the local Lejeune market. Now imagine this happening on a Nationwide scale.
Under a nationalised healthcare system, everywhere would accept everything at all times. You woudln't need to shop around for a facility that will accept the specific kind of coverage you have (And this is currently true of private healthcare for many people, in that many insurance companies will only pay for your procedures if you go to specifc hospitals [usually ones with whom they've made arrangements]) because all hospitals would all support all procedures for all people. It would actually decrease wait times because there would be -more- possible places for each patient to go and be sure of being covered.

Quote:

For some, paying for someone's abortion goes against their religious beliefs, which is a right in this country. Then again it seems that if your a Christian these days you have no rights.
Well it's too bad that church and state are seperate and distinct entities. Once again: You can't elect your political figures by a majority vote and then insist that they aren't representing the majority interest. The constitution allows for mechanisms to remove political representatives whose constitutants believe are not representing them. Avail yourselves of those options, or acknowledge that perhaps the majority view isn't the one you personally think it is.

Quote:

Recall the 10th Amendment below which is were most conservatives have issue with the current administration:

Amendment X: Powers retained by the states and the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal gov't does not have the power vested to it by the constitution to erect a national healthcare system.
The line you quoted is in fact only article 12 of the tenth amendment among many other articles, but anyway.

Article one of the US Constitution, section 8 lays out the powers and responsibilities of congress (which is a federal entity) AMong those powers is, direct quote: "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So though we haven't necessarily established that the US federally has the power to make a healthcare system, it -absolutely- has the power to tax the nation in order to pay for things for the "general welfare of the United States" As well, the supreme court has often interpreted that clause to allow the establishment of national social programs. "for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause."

Pretty sure there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about a national healthcare system or taxation to pay for it.

Quote:

Why would I allow the transfer of the cost to become the form of a tax that will be misutilized and at the same time have my rights violated?
YOu have no actual evidence, lacking a functioning national heathcare system in the United States to point to supporting your claim that the funds will be misutilized. You do however, have a whole host of countries in which a nationalised healthcare system is already operational, and doing quite well, with populations who have no problem at all with the idea of marginally higher taxes in exchange for nationally guarenteed medical coverage at all times.

Additionally, the government appears to me and my research (Please quote me some text from the constituion that disproves the text I already quoted from the constitution that shows otherwise) to be perfectly legally allowed to engage in this project, and if the various bills and motions required to bring it into existance -pass- their majority votes in the majority democratically elected political bodies containing representatives who were democratically elected by the majority of voters in their ridings, a claim that a majority of people are -opposed- to this system shows either a) That you're simply incorrect about what the majority believe, or b) that the majority does not actually include a majority of people who voted, which is the only majority that is relevant in this case.

hayatewillown 08-23-2009 02:36 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

his has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and I am more than positive that as soon as President Obama announced his intention to run for the office of the President, that his credentials in terms of being legally allowed to retain that office were thoroughly checked. Trying to say after the fact, that the fact that he has legally valid proof of his being born in the United States, is some sort of scam or conspiracy is exactly that, crazy conspiracy theorizing. Enough people had a vested interest in making it do he could never even have attempted to run for president that if there were such proof that he wasn't eligable it would have been found.
No, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that we may have an ineligible president that is reforming our entire nation.

Let me point out that more than have the congress is democratic, and there are plenty of lobbyists for each and every single one of them. And no, almost no attempt was made by the democratic party to test for his illegibility.

Quote:

Raising a state tax in only your state in order to pay for a project in another state entirley would be abusive taxation. Raising federal taxes in order to pay for a project anywhere in the united states is not abusive taxation. Additionally, every single person who has ever tried to point to the apparant illegality of having to pay taxes has been found at all levels of the legal system, to be dead wrong. Most of them are in prison right now.
Sure, sure, and the Democratic Congress also wants to keep illegals in the country. you want to know how illegals keep getting in our Country Devonin? A Illegal Man and a Illegal Woman come into the Country. The have a child. They are now illegal "Legals". And Money is brought out of no where to help the construction industry because these people need homes.

Quote:

People elected them by a majority vote. If a majority voted candidate is not representing the interests of the majority of their constituents, then those constituents need to express their dissatisfaction by NOT REELECTING THEM and making it clear that any candidate who -doesn't- represent their interests will suffer the same fate. WHat is REALLY happening is the huge numbers of people who simply don't bother voting are now upset that THEIR interests are not being represented, but too bad so sad. If you don't vote, you lose all right to complain about what elected officials do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8UjY3YDlwA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-Bpshk5nX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS4MI8fuXzw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXgHNX_uZ2E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boa77oBPZ8M

HAH! You'll get a kick out of this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWnxlFbYjVY

I think the people are pissed off. And I'm sure that they voted... Why do you assume they don't? I don't see proof, and quite frankly, I think most politically informed people or veterans vote.

Quote:

So wait, Bush put in more money, and this is an 'attempt to improve' the system, but when Obama puts in more money, he's just 'dropping more money into the government' with a pronounced negative connotation? Come on now. At least pretend you aren't biased.
OBAMA DIDN'T PUT MONEY! He's cutting money and he's cutting it in the wrong place! And he is dropping more money into goverment. The Goverment, mind you, is the only thing in this damn Country that can run at a deficit! But apparently the only thing that matters to obama is trying to bail out is his goverment, and he can't even do that good!

Quote:

By standardizing and nationalizing all healthcare, this would actually resolve the majority of the issues you seem to have for the VA healthcare system. It exists as an attempt to provide socialised healthcare to a certain small segment of the population while everyone else goes through the private sector. If -EVERYBODY- were part of a nationalised healthcare system, there would be no need for a seperate bureaucracy just to try and manage one small segment of the system.
If we lived in socialized health care and my girlfriend were to get breast cancer, she wouldn't be covered and would be denied. This whole "Pre-existing" condition phenomenon where you will always be accepted is absolute bull. The reform will put you IN A PLAN THAT IS DESIGNED BY THE GOV'T. The lies that Obama spews sometime just get me. Are we really going to let the Gov't reform our health care? Is it fair that THEY themselves get a different plan designed for them? They won't go what we go through! They've said this on videos and tv! Around 5-10 million people don't have health Care. About 300 Million people do. That doesn't seem fair to knock down the 300 million people to the 5-10 million.

Quote:

Under a nationalised healthcare system, everywhere would accept everything at all times. You woudln't need to shop around for a facility that will accept the specific kind of coverage you have (And this is currently true of private healthcare for many people, in that many insurance companies will only pay for your procedures if you go to specifc hospitals [usually ones with whom they've made arrangements]) because all hospitals would all support all procedures for all people. It would actually decrease wait times because there would be -more- possible places for each patient to go and be sure of being covered.
So that's what you getting from what evidence? Yes, Hospitals will "Accept" you, but the Doctors can't do anything for you if he's told to. Remember, the new bill addresses that the government will interfere with lined up procedures. There will be increased wait times.

Quote:

Well it's too bad that church and state are seperate and distinct entities. Once again: You can't elect your political figures by a majority vote and then insist that they aren't representing the majority interest. The constitution allows for mechanisms to remove political representatives whose constitutants believe are not representing them. Avail yourselves of those options, or acknowledge that perhaps the majority view isn't the one you personally think it is
Um... Yet again I'll say this. People vote. The Representatives are most likely paid to change there mind or represent another's opinion. The American people want these representatives out of office, either that or for them to actually represent their opinions. The political figures are not being removed because our congress wants what it wants. It wants the representatives to not represent the current opinion of the people and to vote for health care reform.

Quote:

The line you quoted is in fact only article 12 of the tenth amendment among many other articles, but anyway.

Article one of the US Constitution, section 8 lays out the powers and responsibilities of congress (which is a federal entity) AMong those powers is, direct quote: "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

So though we haven't necessarily established that the US federally has the power to make a healthcare system, it -absolutely- has the power to tax the nation in order to pay for things for the "general welfare of the United States" As well, the supreme court has often interpreted that clause to allow the establishment of national social programs. "for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause."

Pretty sure there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about a national healthcare system or taxation to pay for it.
So your saying it's unconstitutional to erect a health care reform? Really?

They say healthcare is free, but maybe if YOU take a look into the bill, you will see that there is a cost on top of tax. So we are forced to pay for something, when somehow we are able to keep OUR own insurance.

Again, we are supposed to fix the insurance industry, not health care as a whole.

Quote:

YOu have no actual evidence, lacking a functioning national heathcare system in the United States to point to supporting your claim that the funds will be misutilized. You do however, have a whole host of countries in which a nationalised healthcare system is already operational, and doing quite well, with populations who have no problem at all with the idea of marginally higher taxes in exchange for nationally guarenteed medical coverage at all times.
Of course I have no evidence! It's only upon speculation of radio, and the news. I don't trust the liberal wiki site, nor do I trust the Whitehouse.gov site.

Then again, you can always take a look at the ex. order by obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...entialRecords/

Also, when you reply devonin, I would prefer if you were to address all issues that I had posted, VERY, VERY thoroughly. That post was hard to read and seemed unfufilling.

*Edit*

Wait, You live in Canada? Don't your people come to our country for certain medical procedures? I know a lot of doctors that tell me so.. lol

*Edit2*

Also, A lot of what your saying seems to be biased as well, as you too have no evidence which is posted because a single picked amendment that will soon be going against the health care bill.

devonin 08-23-2009 04:12 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

No, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact that we may have an ineligible president that is reforming our entire nation.

Let me point out that more than have the congress is democratic, and there are plenty of lobbyists for each and every single one of them. And no, almost no attempt was made by the democratic party to test for his illegibility.
Right, but you don't think the republicans and other non-democrat opponants of him as a president wouldn't have done such an inquiry as to his eligability? Somehow I don't think that to run for president you just go "Hey guys, I'm running for president now" one assumes you rather need to -prove- to some sort of government body somewhere that you meet all of the requirements, that you're past the minimum age, that you've lived in the US for the minimum number of years, and that you're a natural born American. Hell, I had to go through steps to prove my own eligability to run for student council in highschool, so don't tell me Obama was just like "oh yeah, I'm running for president, I promise I'm allowed" and the government said "Oh, sure, no problem, we'll put you right on the ballot"

To wit: If it were possibly to prove that he was not eligable to run for President of the United states it would have been PROVEN long ago.

Quote:

Sure, sure, and the Democratic Congress also wants to keep illegals in the country. you want to know how illegals keep getting in our Country Devonin? A Illegal Man and a Illegal Woman come into the Country. The have a child. They are now illegal "Legals". And Money is brought out of no where to help the construction industry because these people need homes.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point to which it was posted in response. You said that taxing people in one state to build something in another state was wrong, and I said that "Taxing ONLY one state as a state-level tax to build something in another state would be wrong, but taxing the nation as a whole to pay for things in the nation as a whole is not." Illegal aliens have nothing whatsoever to do with that point, so as any kind of objection, this just means nothing.

Quote:

I think the people are pissed off. And I'm sure that they voted... Why do you assume they don't? I don't see proof, and quite frankly, I think most politically informed people or veterans vote.
Anecdotes don't constitute any kind of proof, and more to the point, we're talking about majorities, showing me any number of single cases of people who don't agree doesn't effect my point in the slightest. If a vote passes 99 to 1, and you show me that the 1 person is vehemantly opposed to the subject of the vote, that in no way discounts the proper functioning of a democratic system. You can show me as many single cases as you like. Show me polling data relevant to the sum total of all voters that shows that a majority of people who -voted- in the last election are not in support of actions being taken by the democratically elected government and we'll have something to discuss.

To wit: Even if the whole minority disagrees, it is still properly functioning democracy.

Quote:

OBAMA DIDN'T PUT MONEY! He's cutting money and he's cutting it in the wrong place! And he is dropping more money into goverment. The Goverment, mind you, is the only thing in this damn Country that can run at a deficit! But apparently the only thing that matters to obama is trying to bail out is his goverment, and he can't even do that good!
Okay, if what you were trying to claim is that Obama has cut money to the programs that Bush previously put money into, then you misspoke and didn't say what you meant to say. Regardless, since a national healthcare system would replace the need for individually serving subsidized healthcare like that provided through the VA office, then there's no need to put more money into a system that is pending replacement.

Quote:

If we lived in socialized health care and my girlfriend were to get breast cancer, she wouldn't be covered and would be denied.
I live in socialized healthcare. I know many people who have cancer and every single one of them is covered and has never been denied treatment for their condition. So I'm not sure why you're so positive that wouldn't work that way.

Quote:

Around 5-10 million people don't have health Care. About 300 Million people do. That doesn't seem fair to knock down the 300 million people to the 5-10 million.
Quote from the Los Angeles Times:
Quote:

"Thanks mostly to expanded government health coverage for children, the number of people without health insurance fell in 2007 for the first time since President Bush took office, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.

In all, the number of people without health insurance dropped last year to 45.7 million, from 47 million in 2006, "
That is SUBSTANTIALLY larger than 5-10 million people. I have no idea from where you got your numbers, but these ones come from the US Census Bureau.

As well, the whole point of nationalised healthcare is that it applies to everybody. You aren't paying for this AND also basic health insurance from somewhere else. This -replaces- basic health insurance from somewhere else. You aren't losing coverage, and in fact, given the basis by which nationalised healthcare is funded (By taxes) you aren't paying a customer specific premium with deductable, which means if you DO need to avail yourself of healthcare services, your payments won't increase as a result as they would with most existing private insurance companies.

Quote:

The Representatives are most likely paid to change there mind or represent another's opinion. The American people want these representatives out of office, either that or for them to actually represent their opinions.
If this is true, then in the next election, all of these people will fail horribly to get re-elected, and newly elected representatives in their place will strike down the reforms. You seem to keep forgetting how democracy works. These people were elected by a majority on the basis of their stated platforms. If they fail to live up to those platforms, they have failed the electorate and will swiftly leave office. Just because the minority is always more vocal doesn't mean that the minority is ACTUALLY the majority. Just louder.

Quote:

So your saying it's unconstitutional to erect a health care reform? Really?
Um...no...read what I said. It IS constitutional to erect a healthcare system federally and to tax federally to fund it. The federal governement is constitutionally empowered to lay taxes federally to fund programs that act towards the betterment of the nation as a whole, and existing programs like social security have already been upheld in the supreme court as being valid uses for that taxation clause. National healthcare reform seems to me to fall well within those same guidelines and thus is perfectly okay for the government to be doing.

Quote:

Then again, you can always take a look at the ex. order by obama.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...entialRecords/
Um...that executive order issued by President Obama repealed Executive Order 13233 (Which was put into place by President Bush)

Executive Order 13233 basically forbade the release of "records that reflect: military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege)." (That is from the exact text of EO 13233)

So basically: Bush put in an order that said "You aren't allowed to look at my military, diplomatic, national security, legal advice, legal work or deliberative process documents" and Obama repealed that, allowing such kinds of documents to be subpeonad.

So once more: For one: That statement had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the statement of mine it was made in response to AND cuts the legs out of one of your earlier claims that Obama is keeping some sort of secret evidence hidden, since what he did was repeal an existing order that would have KEPT that evidence hidden.

Quote:

*Edit*

Wait, You live in Canada? Don't your people come to our country for certain medical procedures? I know a lot of doctors that tell me so.. lol
No, though Canada does have an issue with many Americans especially in border cities, coming into Canada to try and get themselves some of our free treatment because they lack insurance or can't afford American medical procedures.

Quote:

Also, A lot of what your saying seems to be biased as well, as you too have no evidence which is posted because a single picked amendment that will soon be going against the health care bill.
I'm quoting directly from the documents that you say prove you right, to show that they don't. Fel free to provide similar evidence from government documents to prove me wrong.

Seefu Sefirosu 08-24-2009 05:12 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Magic187 (Post 3182494)
Why hasn't anyone talked about the infamous Democratic Health Care reform bill and the spectacular effects it will have on our daily lives?

Why should my grandfather (who contributed to society for 45 years working as a manager for a Lincoln - Mercury dealership) have to be put under in order to pay for some drug dealer's health care?

Why should my dad, who is a successful businessman, pay taxes AND pay for someone else's health care? I mean, he's already paying for someone else's housing, food, water, and electricity.

Why should our nation's working class pay for the less fortunate when the less fortunate are doing nothing to better their situation?

I think this is the government's way of trying to prove that each person is equal. I think the constitution states that every man is born equal. Whether he uses his liberty to benefit his society and himself should be up to him. I understand there are people who are in dire circumstances and are honest and good people. But I should be able to keep my doctor and my check-ups and he should be able to keep his availability and his business. Is it really necessary that we should pay for everyone's health? Especially since our government is trillions of dollars deep in debt?

Finally, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Obama's proposed reform? Why or why not? Is it good or bad for our nation?

I think I've made my stance pretty clear. Thanks for reading my opinions. By the way, I watch Fox News. Don't hate. xP

*is also a Fox News watcher, as well as a Limbaugh Listener and Glenn Beck devotee*

My largest problem with this new healthcare deal is that it was already tried with Medicare and Medicaid in a smaller scale. So if the smaller scale ****ed up, it stands to reason that the whole hog will also **** up.

devonin 08-24-2009 08:36 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Or it stands to reason that trying to do things by half-measures dooms them to failure, and you have to either do it all or nothing.

Afrobean 08-24-2009 09:42 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3203056)
Or it stands to reason that trying to do things by half-measures dooms them to failure, and you have to either do it all or nothing.

I think that's a dangerous assumption to draw. If I may kill myself with Godwin's Law here, it'd be like saying, "Well if the Nazis had actually gone through with killing ALL of the jews instead of just SOME of them, things would be better." Hopefully my hung lampshade did enough to make you not lose respect for the point I was trying to make, but basically, it is this: if something is bad on a small scale, it is likely it will also be bad if applied large scale.

And why should anyone be in favor of the government doing ANYTHING on a large scale? You really want the government doing more **** like that and ****ing more **** up? You like the government being larger, less efficient, having more power and responsibility? Do you not like taking responsibility for yourself? And why should the government be in charge of trying to keep people healthy when health and/or healthCARE is NOT an "unalienable right", nor something which is guaranteed (or even MENTIONED as far as I know) by the Constitution?

If a person wants to pay into a charitable service for helping people who can't afford to take care of themselves, I completely respect this, but this is possible already by-- you know-- donating to CHARITY. Why should the government be a charity, even for something as SUPPOSEDLY "necessary" as healthcare? If you want to give your hard-earned money away to people who didn't work for it, feel free, but I work for my money and I don't appreciate people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned.

ps dev and... uh... "hayatewillown", I plan on reading your tl;dr back and forth later. Got off work not too long ago and don't feel up to it now, but don't be surprised if I pop up later with an egregiously long post making huge multiple quoted replies.

devonin 08-24-2009 02:26 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Well, the Adult population of the US was 210 million in 2001, so even if we call it 250,000,000, the US census department says that unemployment nationally was 5.8% in 2008.

5.8% of 250,000,000 adults is 14,500,000 unemployed adults. But there are currently 45,700,000 americans without healthcare. The reason the 45.7M is even as low as it is, is because of government increases to automatic health coverage for children, which means that a fairly large percentage of "Americans without healthcare" are also "Americans that are NOT unemployed"

So if they have -jobs- but still can't afford health coverage, it's not a matter of you "appreciat[ing] people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned."

People who don't care enough is one objection.
People who can't make enough are another kettle of fish entirely.

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 03:11 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3203345)
Well, the Adult population of the US was 210 million in 2001, so even if we call it 250,000,000, the US census department says that unemployment nationally was 5.8% in 2008.

5.8% of 250,000,000 adults is 14,500,000 unemployed adults. But there are currently 45,700,000 americans without healthcare. The reason the 45.7M is even as low as it is, is because of government increases to automatic health coverage for children, which means that a fairly large percentage of "Americans without healthcare" are also "Americans that are NOT unemployed"

So if they have -jobs- but still can't afford health coverage, it's not a matter of you "appreciat[ing] people who don't or can't make enough money to support themselves feeling entitled to **** that I earned."

People who don't care enough is one objection.
People who can't make enough are another kettle of fish entirely.

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.

So let me ask you this.
WHY should we, as Americans, as our constitution and our republic designed us, be dependent on the GOV'T for support? Why should we let them choose for us? The Bill has actions to be made. In order to keep your "INSURANCE", as the bill states, is if you pay more than 3000 dollars!! On top of being taxed!

You however, may not know what it's like. I don't know, but you seem pretty confident so I'll continue.

Big Gov't means that the goverment will be involved with EVERYTHING! That's the point of the bill! The Government will soon involve itself (It already has but you know,) into the market. Then, for "Fair" and "balanced" competition, they will regulate what certain restaurants and stores can sell! Then it's not a competition, but rather a form of socialized (if even) communism.

I don't think I'm making myself quite clear here...

We will lose all of our rights as Americans.
If there's one thing I can say, it's that the liberal/democratic party is bad at being a loser.

Quote:

If you -are- working, and -are- contributing, and -are- paying your taxes and all that jazz, I and it seems the vast majority of my country and many other countries feel like you -are- entitled also to heath coverage.
I seem to remember a certain Darwins theory of survival in the question. BUT, there are also those who don't pay there taxes, who spend their money on illegal drugs, who spend others money on pork barrel projects. Yet these people deserve health care?

Also, I recall a certain group of people.. oh what was the name... SEIU?

This UNION has over 400 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money that the government has given to them, yet they won't spend a freaking dime to insure their employees! And these very same people go to the Senate Town hall meetings and harass Conservatives for free speech and for saying that they don't agree with their representative.

devonin 08-24-2009 03:22 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

We will lose all of our rights as Americans.
This is the only element of your post I feel is even worth responding to at this point, and I'll respond thusly:

I live in a country with government-run subsidized healthcare, and in my estimation, we have been SUBSTANTIALLY freer than americans, have had SUBSTANTIALLY fewer of our rights and freedoms trampled all over (by the republicans I'll remind you, not the democrats) and in general are an overall much better country to live in (As our beating out the US in the United Nations survey of the best places to live for umpteen years in a row supports)

For all that you come in here and crow about how this is illegal, how it is counter to the constitution on which you seem to want to hang every objection, despite my showing you repeatedly where the word-for-word articles and sections of the constitution back up this program, and how Obama and his democratic government wants to take away your freedoms in the wake of a republican president who DID take away MANY of the freedoms protected in the constituion just shows how completely and thoroughly biased you are.

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 05:15 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3203460)
This is the only element of your post I feel is even worth responding to at this point, and I'll respond thusly:

I live in a country with government-run subsidized healthcare, and in my estimation, we have been SUBSTANTIALLY freer than americans, have had SUBSTANTIALLY fewer of our rights and freedoms trampled all over (by the republicans I'll remind you, not the democrats) and in general are an overall much better country to live in (As our beating out the US in the United Nations survey of the best places to live for umpteen years in a row supports)

For all that you come in here and crow about how this is illegal, how it is counter to the constitution on which you seem to want to hang every objection, despite my showing you repeatedly where the word-for-word articles and sections of the constitution back up this program, and how Obama and his democratic government wants to take away your freedoms in the wake of a republican president who DID take away MANY of the freedoms protected in the constituion just shows how completely and thoroughly biased you are.


Obama said in a video that the electrical costs would skyrocket with the new bill (That again no one has read, have you even addressed this?). Take a look at this Devonin. This is OUR national debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

(If you have a good internet connection)

Do you think that with spending, more money will come in? If you destroy the free market and the insurance industry, do you honestly think that this will be fixed?

Cavernio 08-24-2009 09:01 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Does no one care that they will in all likelihood be paying less through their taxes than what they pay in insurance for similar healthcare?

Hayatewillon: You're totally unfocussed with your arguments, and many have nothing to do with healthcare. The only 'good' argument I've heard from you is an entirely personal one in regards to you wanting to be free of government. They way i see it, if it's not government who's going to control things for you though, it's going to be large business.

There will be jerks and idiots and power hungry people both on the left and the right. Saying that such and such a group is not being nice is hardly an argument against healthcare.

devonin 08-24-2009 09:19 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
They would rather pay more and know that they were only paying for themselves, than pay less and "pay for the lazy bums" as well.

Cavernio 08-24-2009 09:39 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
As far as quality of healthcare and wait times and the like, that really depends on how well it is set up, and how much money and effort the government is willing to spend towards healthcare.

I agree that canadian healthcare wait times can be very high, but I would also support higher taxes so that more doctors can be hired so that I could actually get a family doctor. I would also support more universal healthcare coverage in Canada too...like why do my glasses cost me so much money? I also hear of rich canadians crossing the border to pay for certain procedures so that they don't have to wait a month, and of poor US citizens trying to get healthcare in canada. *My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 09:46 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3203916)
As far as quality of healthcare and wait times and the like, that really depends on how well it is set up, and how much money and effort the government is willing to spend towards healthcare.

I agree that canadian healthcare wait times can be very high, but I would also support higher taxes so that more doctors can be hired so that I could actually get a family doctor. I would also support more universal healthcare coverage in Canada too...like why do my glasses cost me so much money? I also hear of rich canadians crossing the border to pay for certain procedures so that they don't have to wait a month, and of poor US citizens trying to get healthcare in canada. *My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*

From what I understand a Single Payer health care plan is almost identical to what Canada's is. The only difference that I really see that's going to happen is that America's government will have more control over what actual goes on in the free market and health care as a whole. Take a look at the bill.


Ps.
I've been in the military my entire life. My father is still in the Navy and I know what socialized health care is like.. it's the exact same thing. I'd prefer however to see a private practice (with a professional) rather than going to someone who's known as the tools of the trade.

Quote:

*My point is, that when considering your healthcare system in the US, there's many other healthcare systems in the world which work better than Canada's, and to say that you don't want Canada's healthcare system is really a weak argument, especially given that what I've heard about how the US is going to handle things will be quite different from what Canada currently has.*
My concern is this:

They are going to tax people who can't afford it, and those that can they are going to tax more because they have the money. This whole "Plan" is trillions of dollars that is going to be gathered from tax payers over 10 years.

Where are they getting the money. Since we are going to be paying for this HEALTHCARE PLAN when the hell are we going to fix the national debt? Has this even been an issue?? Democrats and liberals used to whine about it all the time when bush was in office, but as soon as obama preaches to the brainwashed it's like... OMG BILL TIME!

Please watch this devonin... and Whomever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDizyQK5DHo

It also contains a link to the health care bill.


And Yes, I'm all over the place with this argument, but the bill is all over the place in America. I should be more organized when typing but then again Devonin can afford better grammar.. lol

Sullyman2007 08-24-2009 10:35 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Here's a link to yet another senator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52r
Link is broken. Not sure why I'm posting here but to tell you the link doesn't work.. you aren't posting anything I want to reply to. It seems like you are so desperate... just so desperate and I don't understand why.

hayatewillown 08-24-2009 11:09 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sullyman2007 (Post 3204013)
Link is broken. Not sure why I'm posting here but to tell you the link doesn't work.. you aren't posting anything I want to reply to. It seems like you are so desperate... just so desperate and I don't understand why.

I don't know what happened to the link but it's whatever, I'll have the link removed before someone else posts about it.

Afrobean 08-25-2009 03:02 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3203840)
Does no one care that they will in all likelihood be paying less through their taxes than what they pay in insurance for similar healthcare?

What if I pay zero?

Because insurance is a ****ing scam.

devonin 08-25-2009 08:39 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
IT's only a scam while you don't need any very expensive medical procedures. Do you have 50 or 60 thousand dollars laying around in the event of a serious tragedy?

Afrobean 08-25-2009 09:10 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3204359)
IT's only a scam while you don't need any very expensive medical procedures. Do you have 50 or 60 thousand dollars laying around in the event of a serious tragedy?

I don't like the idea of wagering like 80k dollars (or more) over the length of my lifetime that I MIGHT have something VERY terrible happen that will be EXTREMELY costly.

I'd rather wager that if anything that terrible happens to me that it'd be big enough that that'd be how I go.

Patashu 08-25-2009 10:12 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
I don't have an awful lot of time right now, but the private for-profit healthcare system in America is terrible, just like your for-profit prison systems and so on. America's life expectancy is equal to Cuba's but yet it spends twenty times more per year on healthcare; Cuba and I think all of the world's industrialized nations besides America have some kind of universal healthcare system, and America is the unusual exception, unable to reflect on its own shortcomings because of the paradigm of American exceptionalism, for instance the consistent claims that America's healthcare system is 'number one in the world' despite falling short on many medical-related metrics. Because they are for-profit businesses, how do they make profit? They don't have a 'product' they can sell, so instead they have a huge bureaucratic web dedicated to denying claims, hunting down reasons to drop people when they get sick, etc etc. Basically something like half of all bankruptcies are due to medical costs and most of them had insurance lmao
http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...ting-condition
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...3959652.column
http://i27.tinypic.com/f52ema.png

Also if you don't want to rely on the government stop using roads, water and the legal system.

edit: oh yeah and if you had universal healthcare you wouldn't have to wager any money that you'd have a significant injury or illness over your lifespan lmao, it would just be accepted for granted that **** happens to people that's beyond their ability to control so we treat them until they're able to work for themselves again, I mean what did you think the point was. would you really just rather die the instant you got so sick that you lose your job and just die or go bankrupt w/o healthcare

Afrobean 08-25-2009 10:43 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3204407)
Also if you don't want to rely on the government stop using roads, water and the legal system.

Things like public roads, municipal water and legal systems are the few things that are wholly justified. Private roads and private legal systems are ****ing LAUGHABLE concepts to consider, and private water is only unreasonable to consider because of the outrageous cost that would be required to undergo a private water system as useful as the municipal one already in place.

You'll find some libertarians who are steadfast in their opinion that things like education or libraries or firefighting or even police force should be privatized. I don't think there are many who would make the same case for roads or THE ****ING LEGAL SYSTEM. Taxes, thus, are necessary for the necessary jobs that government IS justified in having, BUT the absurd taxes for the absurd **** they SHOULDN'T DO are NOT.
Quote:

edit: oh yeah and if you had universal healthcare you wouldn't have to wager any money that you'd have a significant injury or illness over your lifespan lmao, it would just be accepted for granted that **** happens to people that's beyond their ability to control so we treat them until they're able to work for themselves again, I mean what did you think the point was. would you really just rather die the instant you got so sick that you lose your job and just die or go bankrupt w/o healthcare
You're right. I wouldn't be wagering under universal healthcare, I'd just be FORCED TO PAY REGARDLESS through the money I pay into taxes.

If there was an opt-out (including an appropriately large tax refund), I think I probably wouldn't have too much problem with this though.

Proponents of healthcare reform in the form of universal healthcare overlook the BEST choice. The current system is corrupt due to profit, right? So remove the function of profit. Banks can be argued as similarly corrupt, so to fix that problem, remove the profit. Ever heard of credit unions? They're basically NOT-FOR-PROFIT banks. And they work GREAT. So why not apply the same business model to health care system? It's probably not allowed under current bull**** laws is my only guess, but if you're gonna MUCK AROUND WITH NEW LAWS, just ****ing fix the **** that's wrong with it in the first place.

Private NPO healthcare. That's the ****ing solution here. Not bull**** government tinkering.

Cavernio 08-25-2009 02:48 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3203935)
They are going to tax people who can't afford it, and those that can they are going to tax more because they have the money. This whole "Plan" is trillions of dollars that is going to be gathered from tax payers over 10 years.

Where are they getting the money. Since we are going to be paying for this HEALTHCARE PLAN when the hell are we going to fix the national debt? Has this even been an issue?? Democrats and liberals used to whine about it all the time when bush was in office, but as soon as obama preaches to the brainwashed it's like... OMG BILL TIME!

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.
Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in. The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

Afrobean: Government healthcare is NOT insurance. You're not squirrelling money away either on your own or with a company who will then hopefully end up paying for anything that may happen to you. What you would be paying for is a service, a service I guarantee you will use multiple times in your life if you want to actually live a healthy life, and a service I guarantee will cost you less money than if you paid for the treatment from your own pocket. As someone who has just said that if any procedure you may ever need would cost so much money that you couldn't pay for it yourself, you'd rather die, you've basically just said you don't care if you live. If you don't want to live, your opinions and feelings about the issues involving sustaining living people aren't worth listening to.

Your comparison of roads waste management systems to healthcare is only saying that those systems are way better run by the government than by a smattering of individual, private companies. What you have yet to say is how government run healthcare is so drastically different from roads and water systems. You say it's absurd for government to run healthcare as if to make people feel dumb for not knowing the differences between why a road network and why healthcare are different in terms of why the government should be involved.

I see your points about road systems and other things and think you've just supported healthcare by making me think "I wonder if government can make healthcare that much better too?" Lets look at the main reason why private systems for roads don't work well, and see if there's a similarity in providing health care. The main reason why I see private companies building roads not working well is because roads need to interconnect and service everyone. If you have only even 2 companies building road networks in your state, then they would have to come to some sort of agreement as to how to connect or else your road network wouldn't get you where you want to go in anywhere near an optimal route. You would also have to charge some people somehow. The fairest way seems like putting on tolls when you cross from one companies' road to another. That'd be great for traffic flow! If, in this pretend world, you instead would just have people pay for the roads up front, and everyone would have to pay for their own individual pieces of road that goes in front of their house, no one would pay for the highway, or you'd have to pay for the highway by paying more money for your road in front of your house. It gets messy very, very easily.
Lets compare this to healthcare. Clearly the issue of payment for an individuals healthcare is going to much simpler. Pay for what you need and go. However, underlying this simple process is a lot of things. The very first thing is that you're going to have to have places and ways for people to pay. Having even 1 payment centre for, say, a hospital is way more overhead than taking a percent off someone's taxes. Secondly, in order to efficiently run things (all the while keeping in mind the road comparison of connecting everything properly) you would need to get individual doctors systems to agree with scheduling of equipment. Is it a first come first serve basis? Who pays the MRI tech's salary? Sure sure, the hospital does. But who gets what money when you find that hospital A's xray is booked to the max, and patients then get sent to hospital B for an xray but are still seeing some doctor who works at A? To top this all off, there has to be a liason between every insurance company and every healthcare worker because all this costs so friggin much that most people feel insurance is necessary. And then there's all the cost of the insurance.

With all that said, am I missing the point as to why roads are good for government to run but healthcare isn't?

As to your comments are credit unions and banks, they're functionally the same thing, except credit unions are smaller and don't have the weight of having to set precedents for balancing the economy. Any not-for-profit organization is just a company that sets a high salary for the top dog(s) instead of the salary of all the companies' profits (or losses if that's the case). If I were to join a credit union, I would feel as a part of it as I am about my local co-op store, which is basically not a part at all. If I had a say I would be able to complain about things like why the majority of the staff is paid minimum wage. As far as using some such thing with healthcare...I point to my previous paragraph.

Patashu 08-25-2009 05:58 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3204412)
Things like public roads, municipal water and legal systems are the few things that are wholly justified. Private roads and private legal systems are ****ing LAUGHABLE concepts to consider, and private water is only unreasonable to consider because of the outrageous cost that would be required to undergo a private water system as useful as the municipal one already in place.

You'll find some libertarians who are steadfast in their opinion that things like education or libraries or firefighting or even police force should be privatized. I don't think there are many who would make the same case for roads or THE ****ING LEGAL SYSTEM. Taxes, thus, are necessary for the necessary jobs that government IS justified in having, BUT the absurd taxes for the absurd **** they SHOULDN'T DO are NOT.

Okay, so you're fine with public services, you just disagree on which ones should be which. (I should talk about America's for-profit prisons too, haha. Awful stuff; they make money by imprisoning more people, which means they have a vested interest in not rehabilitating prisoners!)

Quote:

You're right. I wouldn't be wagering under universal healthcare, I'd just be FORCED TO PAY REGARDLESS through the money I pay into taxes.
Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point! While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.

Quote:

Proponents of healthcare reform in the form of universal healthcare overlook the BEST choice. The current system is corrupt due to profit, right? So remove the function of profit. Banks can be argued as similarly corrupt, so to fix that problem, remove the profit. Ever heard of credit unions? They're basically NOT-FOR-PROFIT banks. And they work GREAT. So why not apply the same business model to health care system? It's probably not allowed under current bull**** laws is my only guess, but if you're gonna MUCK AROUND WITH NEW LAWS, just ****ing fix the **** that's wrong with it in the first place.

Private NPO healthcare. That's the ****ing solution here. Not bull**** government tinkering.
Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?

hayatewillown 08-25-2009 07:37 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3204576)
I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.

As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.
Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in. The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.

Um... If you payed attention to my first post my argument is about taxes that are completely unreasonable, rushed, and first off, the phrase "Taxation without representation". Again, the people aren't being represented. It is the JOB of these senators to reflect what their citizens want. And Yes, anti capitalism is the worst. The healthcare system is OK, it's far from perfect, but socialized is another story, considering that electrical costs would skyrocket. So would the cost for healthcare. 9 Trillion over 10 years? Ok Obama.. Ok

Quote:

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point! While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.
So what happens to the nations debt?

Quote:

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?
First off, there should be incentive for profit, but this is not a fix to debt, and it destroys private practice, again, I prefer a professional.


Quote:

I'm not about to get into an argument over where the US government SHOULD be putting their money. We could both come up with hundreds of ideas at least one of us thinks is better, it really would get us nowhere. I'm really not an economist whatsoever, but I figure that paying off a countries debt works something like paying of your mortgage. You usually do it slowly, and people often take out a second one or re-mortage once it's paid off for various financial reasons. Paying off a mortgage in full is usually the last thing that someone does, and would also be stupid for the vast majority of homeowners.
And whats ironic is that the housing market sucks...


Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr5FO9hvFkw

Quote:

America is the world leader in medical advancements and people from all over the world travel to see U.S specialists. The US healthcare system's problem is not the quality of care(because we do have the best quality) but the costs of healthcare. However that can be achieved through tort reform and opening up nationwide competition. By the way wasn't it the Canadian health minister last week saying that the Canadian system is unsustainable?


And also... Cash for Clunkers is practically useless...







Patashu 08-25-2009 11:04 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
So you'd agree that the problem with Healthcare in America is the cost and lack of consistent coverage, not the effectivity of it, right? Why then do you oppose Universal Healthcare, which is not a reform of doctors but of the way care is provided and distributed between carer and client, as opposed to between carer, client and 'insurance provider' who's primary interest is to squeeze as much profit out of its hapless clients as it can get away with? Something like 30% of healthcare costs is on administrative overhead, i.e. chasing down claims, all because of insurance company greed, and because universal healthcare would allow people to feel safer and more secure in their job in case of catastrophic illness or injury, they would actually be able to spend more freely and be more equipped to keep their job; so joblessness would go down, costs would go down, what's meant to be the disadvantage?

Afrobean 08-26-2009 05:50 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Hi, my name is Afrobean and I make absurdly long quoted replies. Apologies for the obscenities if they offend you delicate constitutions, but I feel it's necessary sometimes to emphasize how ****ing stupid some of the **** put forth here is.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3204576)
As far as taxing people who can't afford it, if it is so similar to what canada has, then I wholly disagree with you. I've been on the low-income end ever since I've lived on my own, and I'm certainly not paying taxes beyond sales tax when I make less than a minimal amount of money.

Canada doesn't have income tax?

Because in USA, any job that's legit (i.e., not "under the table") cuts a relatively large chunk of your money out of each pay check. Then when you spend/invest the money that they let you keep, they take more of it. They hit you coming and going.

Quote:

Your argument against taxes is just that: an argument against taxes. The same argument could be made for any service the government would want to bring in.
So you're in favor of higher taxes? I'm sorry, but I am wholly opposed to the tax system as it stands now and to know it will get even worse from here is very troubling for me. And the only way it WOULDN'T become worse is if they **** up the national debt even more, and that's even ****tier.

Quote:

The only reason such an argument against taxes holds weight in this discussion would be if you thought the healthcare system that would be brought in would be terrible and end up being worse than the current system in the US, which is something you have not claimed.
It would be slower and it would force people like me who DON'T WANT IT to pay for the ****s who are the pimples on society's ass.

Quote:

Afrobean: Government healthcare is NOT insurance. You're not squirrelling money away either on your own or with a company who will then hopefully end up paying for anything that may happen to you. What you would be paying for is a service, a service I guarantee you will use multiple times in your life if you want to actually live a healthy life, and a service I guarantee will cost you less money than if you paid for the treatment from your own pocket.
I'm as healthy as I've ever been and haven't been to a medical institution in years. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in my life where I can be assured that I would even need to step foot in a hospital or doctor's office. Accidents are one thing, but you're GUARANTEEING I will need it? For what?

Quote:

As someone who has just said that if any procedure you may ever need would cost so much money that you couldn't pay for it yourself, you'd rather die, you've basically just said you don't care if you live. If you don't want to live, your opinions and feelings about the issues involving sustaining living people aren't worth listening to.
You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. All I was saying is that odds are good that if something truly terrible happens to me, something so bad I wouldn't be able to scrounge to afford treatment, that it would be LIKELY that something that bad is bad enough just to kill me. Terrible car wreck, I could easily die from that. Terrible disease, I could easily die from that. I'm not saying I'd prefer to, I'm just saying it's likely.

Quote:

Your comparison of roads waste management systems to healthcare is only saying that those systems are way better run by the government than by a smattering of individual, private companies.
Again, you misunderstood me. Don't know how you could draw that conclusion when I refer to the SUCCESS of waste management in private sector. Yes, water is impossible in the private sector pretty much, because of all the piping that would need to be laid, all the legal rights and all that.

But waste management can work. They don't require laying a bunch of pipes EVERYWHERE. They can just drive their trucks to the neighborhoods they're contracted for, pick **** up, and drive it back to their private dump (or whereever they're contracted to dump to). Same idea with health insurance. The thing stopping health insurance and "healthcare" from being useful is the profit model on it, NOT the fact that it's not feasible for the private sector to offer it. The private sector absolutely CAN offer it, they're just corrupted by the for-profit model. It's not like they need to apply work laying pipes all over the place and can't get the legal rights to it because of the inordinate cost.

Quote:

What you have yet to say is how government run healthcare is so drastically different from roads and water systems.
Roads and water cannot be supplied by the private sector due to cost constraints. Insurance can, as there are no costs which stop it from being possible.

Quote:

You say it's absurd for government to run healthcare as if to make people feel dumb for not knowing the differences between why a road network and why healthcare are different in terms of why the government should be involved.
Yeah, if a person can't see why the private sector can't do private roads and yet can do insurance, that person dumb.

Quote:

I see your points about road systems and other things and think you've just supported healthcare by making me think "I wonder if government can make healthcare that much better too?"
It's not that government makes roads better, it's that the private sector CANNOT DO IT AT ALL. The Insurance industry, however, IS possible to function in the private sector.

Quote:

Lets look at the main reason why private systems for roads don't work well, and see if there's a similarity in providing health care. The main reason why I see private companies building roads not working well is because roads need to interconnect and service everyone.
Actually, it's that, plus the fact that roads need to be officially standardized, plus how would a person pay for private roads? Would every road you drive on from the street you live on up to main streets up to interstates be TOLLWAYS? Every mile you'd have to stop and pay money? How do you think it would cost effective for a private company to build and maintain these roads, keep them standardized in size and type and rules and such, ANNND maintain their money collection system which would likely need to be MANNED BOOTHS freaking EVERYWHERE.

Quote:

Lets compare this to healthcare. Clearly the issue of payment for an individuals healthcare is going to much simpler. Pay for what you need and go. However, underlying this simple process is a lot of things. The very first thing is that you're going to have to have places and ways for people to pay. Having even 1 payment centre for, say, a hospital is way more overhead than taking a percent off someone's taxes. Secondly, in order to efficiently run things (all the while keeping in mind the road comparison of connecting everything properly) you would need to get individual doctors systems to agree with scheduling of equipment.
Roads interconnecting analogy doesn't work here. If you're covered by Company X with health insurance, Company X doesn't need to interact with Company Y to serve you. They have to interact with HOSPITALS AND ****. I would guess that in the terrible and broken analogy of road construction, that would be like ensuring that all roads and ways to get off the roads to enter private businesses. You can't say "all roads need to interact so all health care needs to interact therefore government should socialize health care". **** no. That's just stupid.

Quote:

With all that said, am I missing the point as to why roads are good for government to run but healthcare isn't?
Because roads need to:

#1: be standardized
#2: collect money for payment

Insurance:

#1: doesn't need to be universally standardized
#2: Has no problems being able to collect payment for their services

Honestly, how can you look at the profits they make and say "no, they have problems with money and government running it would make things better." Seriously? They have a problem with money: they have too ****ing much of it.

Quote:

As to your comments are credit unions and banks, they're functionally the same thing, except credit unions are smaller and don't have the weight of having to set precedents for balancing the economy. Any not-for-profit organization is just a company that sets a high salary for the top dog(s) instead of the salary of all the companies' profits (or losses if that's the case).
Or in other words:

"I don't understand how NPOs work!"

Quote:

If I were to join a credit union, I would feel as a part of it as I am about my local co-op store, which is basically not a part at all. If I had a say I would be able to complain about things like why the majority of the staff is paid minimum wage. As far as using some such thing with healthcare...I point to my previous paragraph.
If an employee is only paid minimum wage, that is all they are worth. You have no right to complain "This person here is only making minimum wage for their unskilled work!" If the employer says they are going to pay the employee that much and they are able to fill the job with a person, THAT IS WHAT THE JOB IS WORTH. THIS IS HOW THE FREE MARKET

CAPITALISTIC WORLD WORKS MOTHER ****ER.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3204777)
Okay, so you're fine with public services, you just disagree on which ones should be which. (I should talk about America's for-profit prisons too, haha. Awful stuff; they make money by imprisoning more people, which means they have a vested interest in not rehabilitating prisoners!)

That is truly terrible, and I will say that prisons should be government run due to their necessary role in the judicial system.

Quote:

Actually, you'd be forced to pay tax regardless, which is different from paying for the procedure itself; you do not have to pay catastrophic amounts of money for a catastrophic illness, that's the whole point!
So you're thinking that taxes will remain CONSTANT? Where will the money come from to pay for this then? If I'm not paying any more in my taxes and no one else is paying any more, where does the money come from to pay for my "catastrophic illness"?

And what if I don't feel as though I will ever be catastrophically ill? What if I don't want to pay into the pot that will be used IN CASE I am ever catastrophically ill? What if I don't like the idea of paying for health insurance when I'm perfectly healthy so that some **** who doesn't deserve it can get whatever medical treatment. Screw the asshole who can't fend for himself.

Quote:

While you're sick and can't work, a bit of the state's tax would go towards ensuring you're cared for so you'll be alive, jobbed and productive at the end.
**** that. I don't need mommy picking me up and kissing my booboos. I can take care of myself, at least as far as "[being] alive, jobbed and productive at the end."

And actually, you say "state". If this was a STATE decision, I think I might be more ok with it. If the state I live in sets up something I don't like, I could always move to another state, right? BUT THIS **** IS FEDERAL.

Quote:

Isn't what you're advocating, a system with no incentive for profit, basically what the government is meant to do anyway?
Sort of, except that it would be private sector with COMPETITION. And it's not that there is no "incentive for profit", it's that it's not profit above all else. They would provide the service necessary first and foremost, provide a FAIR salary for the people they employ, then figure out what to do with surplus, which would otherwise be PROFIT. It can go toward new projects, new advancements, expansion, whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3204844)
And also... Cash for Clunkers is practically useless...

lmao FREE MONEY

That's what makes government great, right? WHEN THEY GIVE AWAY FREE MONEY?!

And of course everyone turned around and bought Japanese cars and ****, when the whole point was to try to prop up the American companies that the government had given loans to (while at the same time, they had just given FREE MONEY away to the financial industry).

Man, I hate the world some times. It's like we get the worst of both worlds from capitalism and socialism without anything of the good stuff. Where's the competition brings down costs and brings up quality? Foreign cars are way better than American because American cars are pieces of **** and the companies refuse to fix it. Then we turn around and get the ****ty side of socialism in government taking their absurd taxes and using it to prop up failing industries, and yet we don't get the benefits of government funded social projects that help the greater good (we instead only get social projects that help the BOTTOM RUNG).

devonin 08-26-2009 10:37 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
(Friendly "Here's how it is in Canada" aside)

Quote:

Canada doesn't have income tax?
If you make less than a certain amount of money in the year, your income is not taxed. And if it were taxed but you made little enough money that you shoudln't have been, you get that money back when you file your income taxes.

Patashu 08-26-2009 05:32 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture
2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it
3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

Afrobean 08-27-2009 02:47 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3205842)
the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture

NPO would do the same in this area, while still faciliating the function of competition in the free market. It would also give individuals AN OPTION of whether they want to pay for this service or not.

Quote:

2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it
Or in other words: "take from the rich and give to the poor". You really think it's fair to charge the rich with funding public health insurance for poor people who don't deserve it? REMEMBER: good health and insurance are NOT government protected rights. A person isn't endowed by their creator with the right to be healthy or with the right to be protected by any sort of insurance service or medical care service.

Quote:

3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.
Huh? You're talking on a micro level but refer to it as "the country"? No. A single person, particularly a POOR PERSON would be better able to handle health insurance issues without fear.

In addition, I think you're oversimplifying things and missing the point of CLASS DIFFERENCES. Looks to me like you're envisioning a world where everyone is economically equal and that's not only impossible, but it's also not an ideal choice: that would be communism.

SOME people need to be at the bottom rung of society. That's just the way it is. It's unfortunate for those individuals, but we can't all be equal. You can't just say "oh we'll just move all of the lower class up to middle class by taking extra money from the rich."

Quote:

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.
This is counterproductive to capitalism and the American way. If you're so fond of that sort of thing, go check out Cuba or something. I hear they love communism.

Quote:

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.
You are clearly not an adult. You do not understand how little health insurance (or "healthcare" as you would say it) helps a person. You talk about "having money and a job when you recover", but healthcare won't do that for you. All it CAN do for you is minimize (NOT eliminate) the INSTANT cost of medical treatment, but it does this by making you pay CONSTANTLY the rest of your life as well.

ps do you seriously believe taxes would be LOWER if the government brought upon itself such an enormous and ridiculous social project? I assure you, costs of government will be HIGHER if this happens, and if taxes aren't raised to compensate, the debt will just become even more and more worse.

Patashu 08-27-2009 03:37 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3206715)
NPO would do the same in this area, while still faciliating the function of competition in the free market. It would also give individuals AN OPTION of whether they want to pay for this service or not.

who's going to fund it then?


Quote:

Or in other words: "take from the rich and give to the poor". You really think it's fair to charge the rich with funding public health insurance for poor people who don't deserve it? REMEMBER: good health and insurance are NOT government protected rights. A person isn't endowed by their creator with the right to be healthy or with the right to be protected by any sort of insurance service or medical care service.
Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages? Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either, but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society; just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)


Quote:

Huh? You're talking on a micro level but refer to it as "the country"? No. A single person, particularly a POOR PERSON would be better able to handle health insurance issues without fear.

In addition, I think you're oversimplifying things and missing the point of CLASS DIFFERENCES. Looks to me like you're envisioning a world where everyone is economically equal and that's not only impossible, but it's also not an ideal choice: that would be communism.

SOME people need to be at the bottom rung of society. That's just the way it is. It's unfortunate for those individuals, but we can't all be equal. You can't just say "oh we'll just move all of the lower class up to middle class by taking extra money from the rich."
haha where have I suggested making everyone completely equal? all I'm advocating is that the system doesn't **** someone over as soon as they get too sick to work even though they could get better and be just as productive as before with a little help from the rest of us. we are not giving them money, we're just not sucking them dry for things beyond their control that could strike at any moment.
whether and why it is the case that some people have to be obscenely ultra rich and others have to be obscenely ultra poor is something that would be interesting to discuss but is outside the scope of this debate

Quote:

This is counterproductive to capitalism and the American way. If you're so fond of that sort of thing, go check out Cuba or something. I hear they love communism.
so what, you hate helping others? humans are, you know, social creatures who naturally bond together in groups.
I love how you put 'the american way' in italics like some kind of reverent indisputable jingoistic phrase. what does that even mean? is it the american way to **** over your neighbours when they get weak and sick? or wouldn't you rather lend a helping hand?
also I'm pretty sure I said this earlier but cuba's life expectancy is the same as america's despite spending 5% per annum of the amount america does on healthcare, so I'd say they're doing p. OK given the circumstances

Quote:

You are clearly not an adult. You do not understand how little health insurance (or "healthcare" as you would say it) helps a person. You talk about "having money and a job when you recover", but healthcare won't do that for you. All it CAN do for you is minimize (NOT eliminate) the INSTANT cost of medical treatment, but it does this by making you pay CONSTANTLY the rest of your life as well.
in america, half of bankruptcies are related to medical costs and most of these people had health insurance. how many times would you like me to say this?

Quote:

ps do you seriously believe taxes would be LOWER if the government brought upon itself such an enormous and ridiculous social project? I assure you, costs of government will be HIGHER if this happens, and if taxes aren't raised to compensate, the debt will just become even more and more worse.
it worked in canada, the UK, france, cuba, etc etc etc. basically all the industrialized countries except America implement some form of universal healthcare, and most of them are doing better than America in various metrics of health, i.e. life expectancy (no, america's life expectancy is not number one in the world)

Cavernio 08-27-2009 05:11 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
I'm as healthy as I've ever been and haven't been to a medical institution in years. I honestly cannot think of a single instance in my life where I can be assured that I would even need to step foot in a hospital or doctor's office. Accidents are one thing, but you're GUARANTEEING I will need it? For what?

Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through. You WILL die. You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped. Otherwise you'll likely die from an accident. Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live. (The only other situation of death is from war or murder: neither are likely.) And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
Yeah, if a person can't see why the private sector can't do private roads and yet can do insurance, that person dumb.

I never said private sector couldn't do roads, you did. I'm saying it's a bad idea for the private sector to do roads. I'm also claiming it's a bad idea for the private sector to give healthcare. I'm claiming that public sector can do roads AND healthcare better than the private sector. My analogy was too much of a stretch...I should have set it aside and said what patashu's been saying all along, because it was an elaborate way of saying things are terribly inefficient with private healthcare, and that government run healthcare would take away those inefficiencies. The very fact that you say private companies can do INSURANCE and not healthcare means that a huge inefficiency will go away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
It's not that government makes roads better, it's that the private sector CANNOT DO IT AT ALL.

Just to be a pain, I've got a solution for private sector road building companies in terms of payment. Have every car registered in the US have a GPS system which also records where the car has driven. Every month or week or whatever, it would be mandatory to send that info somehow. Make it as easy as taking out your car's USB key and plugging it into any computer and upload the info to a website. The website would have to a separate company for sure, but that wouldn't be a problem. Maybe you could even just have the data always send the info wirelessly from the car. Whatever road or highway you've driven on, you have to pay that company's rate. Pretty easy, not a lot of overhead, totally doable.
On another note, there's no reason that a private company couldn't do the mapping for any road network. Multiple, private companies can decide to build roads wherever they want provided where they want them built meets whatever good criteria they need to meet for environmental reasons or what have you. If they incorporate a payment system as I said above, it seems like the main issue with private road building has been resolved.
Just because private companies haven't done a good job at making roads, and just because you can't perceive a way for them to do it, it doesn't mean they can't. I'm sure if suddenly the department of transportation got dissolved, we'd have private companies take a step in and do a fine job of making roads with new, innovative ways of doing things. For godsakes, if you think the free market is so uber and taxes are so terrible, don't give up on non-government so easily. Use your head.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
The Insurance industry, however, IS possible to function in the private sector.

Your own counterargument follows....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
The thing stopping health insurance and "healthcare" from being useful is the profit model on it, NOT the fact that it's not feasible for the private sector to offer it. The private sector absolutely CAN offer it, they're just corrupted by the for-profit model.

I gather that you think it's better that you personally don't have to pay for anything and not get anything in terms of health coverage, and to have people essentially steal money from sick people who thought they wouldn't have to pay anything, and for you to not be able to ever get treatment for diseases or accidents even though we totally have the technology because our infrastructure makes them too expensive, than for you to have to pay a couple hundred dollars a year so that everyone can get equal access healthcare? And you talk about people who are drains on society...seems like you're refusing to help it on principal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
Or in other words:

"I don't understand how NPOs work!"

Nice of you to enlighten me. Really, discussion where I'm told I'm wrong with nothing else beyond that it isn't much of a discussion. (I should really let this point slide.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
If an employee is only paid minimum wage, that is all they are worth. You have no right to complain "This person here is only making minimum wage for their unskilled work!" If the employer says they are going to pay the employee that much and they are able to fill the job with a person, THAT IS WHAT THE JOB IS WORTH. THIS IS HOW THE FREE MARKET

CAPITALISTIC WORLD WORKS MOTHER ****ER.


/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm
You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism. It must be nice to have an 'out' in your pocket against any virtually all complaints about something that exists in a free market economy. (The out being that because clearly that's how things are supposed to work, and if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3205383)
and yet we don't get the benefits of government funded social projects that help the greater good (we instead only get social projects that help the BOTTOM RUNG).

Well, it'd DEFINITELY be a waste of money for the government to be funding social programs for the people who don't need them. I think not seeing people living and dying on the streets helps the greater good anyways. You really don't want more people sitting on the streets asking you for money, do you?

eMVy 08-27-2009 09:01 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Think about nationalized health care this way:

You walk into a hospital to have an appendectamy.
The hospital takes a look at thier charts and says "Sorry, we're at a deficit of the proper type of stitching for that particular part of the body."
You get turned away with an erupting appendix.

There was a story in England about a man that had an appendectamy done twice, because the first time the doctor didn't care to actually take his appendix out.
That is what nationalized health care will do.

There are ways for people to get health care that can't afford it now - It's called Medicaid.

Patashu 08-27-2009 09:30 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
because this is a fundamental problem with nationalized healthcare?

hayatewillown 08-27-2009 10:42 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3205842)
the tax burden will be lower then it would if you were getting private insurance, for a couple of reasons:
1. government provided healthcare is not a for-profit service, so slash off the 30% or more overhead for administrative costs dedicated to squeezing more money out of the venture
2. progressive taxes tax the poor less and the rich more, so if you're at a level where catastrophic illness would seriously endanger your life you're probably not needing to pay much towards it
3. because the country will now be able to better handle healthcare issues without fear of going bankrupt or into debt or being denied coverage they will be healthier, more economically mobile and better able to hold down jobs; thus, there will be more of an ability to make wealth go around.

It's one of those community social cohesion things. When one member of the community is down, use a bit of everyone else's productivity to help him back up; as long as you do this for everyone, everyone will remain productive and it will pay itself off.

You say you can take care of yourself? It's okay, you don't need to prove you're a big strong tough man to us. Some diseases and injuries are MUCH tougher than you are, and you can't just pull up your bootstraps and get over it; if you're not getting taken care of for the duration and can't be confident you'll have money and a job when you recover, you're pretty much screwed.

Wow dude you know what you sound like? A preaching socializing communist.. in a way.

First off, people who don't deserve to have their taxes lowered probably shouldn't have their taxes lowered. People who go to college and spend several years to get the perfect dream job with a payroll to compensate DESERVE it. Not some tard working in a Mc Donalds. I completely agree with Afrobean with how much The health insurance actually helps.

Quote:

I've got a solution
Then go to some forum our talk to your senator about it. It won't work now and not ever, especially in this moment in time. Just to be a pain..

Quote:

/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm
You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism. It must be nice to have an 'out' in your pocket against any virtually all complaints about something that exists in a free market economy. (The out being that because clearly that's how things are supposed to work, and if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.)
What an asshole remark to an American View.

I'm sure that if you had a real job in America (Like a teacher, because now educational funds are being cut HORRIBLY) you might think that you shouldn't be taxed more because you do have a real job.

Quote:

Think about nationalized health care this way:

You walk into a hospital to have an appendectamy.
The hospital takes a look at thier charts and says "Sorry, we're at a deficit of the proper type of stitching for that particular part of the body."
You get turned away with an erupting appendix.

There was a story in England about a man that had an appendectamy done twice, because the first time the doctor didn't care to actually take his appendix out.
That is what nationalized health care will do.

There are ways for people to get health care that can't afford it now - It's called Medicaid.
Barack Obama cut medicaid funds. What a smart, smart man.
And I love how Cavernio and Patashu are totally teaming up on Afro here. So here Afro, I lend you my help. For the assholes who are talking about all of this nonsense about taxes the "rich" (Which is actually counting MIDDLE CLASS NOW) and giving to the poor and (as afro said, unskilled), take a look into the bill and see how your going to be taxed. EVEN if you have a low paying job your still going to be paying the new skyrocketing electrical costs. There's many damn earmarks in this bill (which was the original topic by the way). The cash for clunkers program, the program that Obama released, allows you to trade in a old car for technically a economically efficient car equal to 4500 or less. What he DIDN'T tell you, and what Americans are pissed off at, is that you have to pay a TAX on top of buying it, and you pay it over time.

Quote:

Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through. You WILL die. You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped. Otherwise you'll likely die from an accident. Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live. (The only other situation of death is from war or murder: neither are likely.) And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.
If people weren't so stupid and cutting educational funds, people might know what the hell causes what. Plus Medicaid can provide vaccinations for poor people depending on how bad off they are financially. Your talking about people that live in trailers because they don't want to improve there life. They have no incentive. Lets talk about America as a whole.

Quote:

who's going to fund it then?
The Government. Because apparently they don't have to be under the same health care.

Quote:

Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages? Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either, but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society; just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)
Costs are going to skyrocket. Maybe this doesn't affect you but to more than half the nation it will. Remember, paying for some bridge or road to be made 200 miles out of your state is abusive spending.


Lets not forget the original argument, which I see many of you have failed to answer in the respected format:

Quote:

Why hasn't anyone talked about the infamous Democratic Health Care reform bill and the spectacular effects it will have on our daily lives?

Why should my grandfather (who contributed to society for 45 years working as a manager for a Lincoln - Mercury dealership) have to be put under in order to pay for some drug dealer's health care?

Why should my dad, who is a successful businessman, pay taxes AND pay for someone else's health care? I mean, he's already paying for someone else's housing, food, water, and electricity.

Why should our nation's working class pay for the less fortunate when the less fortunate are doing nothing to better their situation?

I think this is the government's way of trying to prove that each person is equal. I think the constitution states that every man is born equal. Whether he uses his liberty to benefit his society and himself should be up to him. I understand there are people who are in dire circumstances and are honest and good people. But I should be able to keep my doctor and my check-ups and he should be able to keep his availability and his business. Is it really necessary that we should pay for everyone's health? Especially since our government is trillions of dollars deep in debt?

Finally, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Obama's proposed reform? Why or why not? Is it good or bad for our nation?

I think I've made my stance pretty clear. Thanks for reading my opinions. By the way, I watch Fox News. Don't hate. xP
[With the exception to devonin, whom I respect politically, even DUE to his location, as he has actually replied to the original questions]

Patashu 08-27-2009 11:11 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty; in idealistic capitalism free market america eagleland everyone's social status and salary would be determined purely by how much work you've put in, but in reality this is not the case because the richer and more privileged you are the more of an ability you have to stay rich and privileged.
think about it; if you're homeless and jobless, it's going to take all the effort you can muster to even stay alive; that doesn't leave any time and effort over to learn job skills or hone their body or get an education. if you already have a home, an education and connections in high places and some desk job that's relatively painless and gives you a huge income, you'll probably never have to fend for your life; anything you want you have the disposable income for already. aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck, most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were. this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an even playing ground open, where the poor aren't ****ed from the start just because they're poor and will have to spend their entire lives on the brink of complete ruin. how can you improve your life if you can't ever afford to do it? unskilled manual jobs even are less and less in demand over time and if you don't have a home to go to you can't even get one of those.

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?

I replied to the original question too btw

hayatewillown 08-27-2009 11:40 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3207921)
the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty; in idealistic capitalism free market america eagleland everyone's social status and salary would be determined purely by how much work you've put in, but in reality this is not the case because the richer and more privileged you are the more of an ability you have to stay rich and privileged.
think about it; if you're homeless and jobless, it's going to take all the effort you can muster to even stay alive; that doesn't leave any time and effort over to learn job skills or hone their body or get an education. if you already have a home, an education and connections in high places and some desk job that's relatively painless and gives you a huge income, you'll probably never have to fend for your life; anything you want you have the disposable income for already. aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck, most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were. this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an even playing ground open, where the poor aren't ****ed from the start just because they're poor and will have to spend their entire lives on the brink of complete ruin. how can you improve your life if you can't ever afford to do it? unskilled manual jobs even are less and less in demand over time and if you don't have a home to go to you can't even get one of those.

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?

I replied to the original question too btw

First off, if your talking about people who designed technology that made the entire world a better off place (medicine, computer) then yes you deserve the money. If your smart about the economy and the stock and make a lot of money then you deserve it.

THE POOR IS ALSO GOING TO BE TAXED.

Quote:

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?
I don't know, ask your senators.

I'm sure all the teachers who voted for Obama are kicking their-selves in the ass. I know my History teacher is.

Quote:

aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck, most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were. this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an
Wow I was literally laughing when I read this. Almost every rich person has an unpayable debt or an extremely high debt. think about it.

Quote:

the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty;
FIRST OFF the minimum wage increased.

And if you think this plan isn't going to tax the poor then maybe you should take a look at Obamas speeches. ELECTRICAL COSTS ARE GOING TO SKYROCKET! This affects everybody! And even the poor are going to have to pay the new healthcare tax...

Afrobean 08-28-2009 05:47 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
here comes the torrents you commie pigs
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3206801)
who's going to fund it then?

lmao

Who "funds" the current system? THE CUSTOMERS. Customers pay money to the company and that income is what the company uses to pay for medical treatments and pay its employees.

It'd be the EXACT same with it running on a NPO model, except that instead of going above and beyond to reach higher profits for the shareholders, they'd be more interested in ACTUALLY PROVIDING SERVICE.

Quote:

Why are you complaining about progressive taxation NOW when it's been going on for ages?
Because I wasn't alive when it began and I only relatively recently have been enlightened as to what I feel the purpose of government should be in society. I believe that government should protect our "god-given" rights and nothing more; you evidently feel the government should baby us and take care of those who can't take care of themselves, usually because they are too lazy, stupid, incompetent, etc. Life, liberty, right to own property. That's all I want my government concerned with, along with any necessary societal systems which is cost prohibitive for the private sector (like water). If the government is doing something that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with protecting those things, then I feel they're overstepping their boundaries.

Quote:

Having maintained roads and a functional legal system aren't God given rights either,
The legal system protects my rights to life, liberty and property by making it illegal for other people to take those things from me. The road system having standardized rules protects my life (90 MPH in a residential street would likely end in many accidental deaths), liberty (I can use any road I want to go anywhere I want... within reason), and property (my automobile, similarly protected as is life).

Quote:

but they sure are desirable for a properly functional society;
Not just desirable, but necessary for modern society. Can you honestly imagine true anarchy in the modern world thanks to lack of a legal system?

Quote:

just like prisons should be not-for-profit because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (private prisons have no interest in rehabilitation because it reduces their profits to not be locking people up), so should healthcare because for-profit results in undesirable consequences (the best way to make profit is to deny claims, charge more and other bureaucratic abuses, as opposed to providing more of or a better product)
Ok, let me repeat myself AGAIN.

The problem is the FOR-PROFIT mindset. You see the solution as eliminating the INDUSTRY ALTOGETHER and having the government socialize it instead. But the problem isn't the INDUSTRY, it's the FOR-PROFIT model. So remove the FOR-PROFIT business model, right? Keep the business but remove the THING that makes it terrible. So what do you get if you do that? A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, commonly abbreviated as NPO.

Quote:

haha where have I suggested making everyone completely equal? all I'm advocating is that the system doesn't **** someone over as soon as they get too sick to work even though they could get better and be just as productive as before with a little help from the rest of us.
And you want to achieve this by forced redistribution of wealth. Now, of course, you're not advocating full redistribution (which would be communism), but you are advocating a free-money idea here, taking money from those with a lot and giving it to those who haven't earned it.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each...s_contribution
particularly this portion:
"Stalin's most famous use of the concept is in his Constitution. He writes that 'The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.' It is especially noteworthy that he says the principle of socialism and not full communism."

Quote:

we are not giving them money,
When there is a product/service one person cannot afford and you take money from another person in order to give the product/service to the first person for "free", what is the difference?

Quote:

we're just not sucking them dry for things beyond their control that could strike at any moment.
No, it wouldn't be putting millionaires into the poorhouse, but I say even a single cent is wrong.

Quote:

whether and why it is the case that some people have to be obscenely ultra rich and others have to be obscenely ultra poor is something that would be interesting to discuss but is outside the scope of this debate
This topic is under the topic of "Socialism". I think discussing the nature of Capitalism and Communism is entirely appropriate, at least as far as they relate to the concept of Socialism and why it may be desirable or unwanted.

Quote:

so what, you hate helping others? humans are, you know, social creatures who naturally bond together in groups.
I hate being FORCED to help others, particularly where I have no choice over who gets my help and who doesn't. For example, a 20 year old single mother with 5 kids each with a different father is far less deserving of help than a down-on-his-luck unemployed 35 year old head-of-a-house.

Quote:

I love how you put 'the american way' in italics like some kind of reverent indisputable jingoistic phrase. what does that even mean? is it the american way to **** over your neighbours when they get weak and sick? or wouldn't you rather lend a helping hand?
No, I was just referring to the fact that it is WRONG of you to think we are all equal or that we are all entitled to certain things. The only thing we are entitled to is our rights to life, liberty and ownership of property, and a myriad of other related rights in the Bill of Rights.

Quote:

also I'm pretty sure I said this earlier but cuba's life expectancy is the same as america's despite spending 5% per annum of the amount america does on healthcare, so I'd say they're doing p. OK given the circumstances
Oh, I bet their healthcare isn't too bad, but how do you think their life is like? What do you think the average income is? I really like being able to afford a bigass TV and tons of electronics. I doubt I'd be doing very well in a place such as that. Sure, I'd be just as healthy as I am now probably, but my life would be less enjoyable I think.

Quote:

in america, half of bankruptcies are related to medical costs and most of these people had health insurance. how many times would you like me to say this?
It doesn't matter. The problem is the DENIED NECESSARY CLAIMS that come about because of the FOR PROFIT MODEL. If you tear down the system and rebuild it as NPO, people wouldn't be so easily rejected for necessary medical care.

If you don't mind an analogy, imagine a person has a large wart on the bottom of his foot. It's terrible and quite painful to even walk, but aside from that, his body is working correctly. This problem is akin to the for-profit business model that health insurance runs on. What I am suggesting is akin to talking to a doctor and getting it dug out so that hopefully tissue can regrow there correctly. What you are suggesting is akin to severing both of the man's entire legs to ensure the problem doesn't come back.

Quote:

it worked in canada, the UK, france, cuba, etc etc etc. basically all the industrialized countries except America implement some form of universal healthcare, and most of them are doing better than America in various metrics of health, i.e. life expectancy (no, america's life expectancy is not number one in the world)
Screw those socialist bastards. Just because it can be functional doesn't mean it's the ideal solution to the problem. Furthermore, we are a LOT different than those countries. In fact, I again point to my statement about the states: if this were something on a state level, I would be a lot more OK with it, and in this case due to the simplification of the process requiring more spread out micromanagement. But the USA as a whole is MUCH larger than any of the countries you named. How can you say "tiny ol' England works fine, big-ass USA must as well!" And seriously, England is all crazy with leftist ****; they're seriously a stone's throw away from full-on Big Brother.

Is that the kind of nation you want to live in?

If so, ****ing move there and leave America to people who actually prefer our economic system to not have ridiculous government tinkering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3207377)
Then you're lucky and young and you're an idiot for not being able to perceive anything that could possibly go wrong with you where you could easily live through it and it could be expensive to live through.

I am well aware that something COULD go wrong, but the exact wording was "GUARANTEE". This does not say "it is possible", it says "it is certain", and I'm just telling you, there is no certainty that anything will ever happen in my life where it will be less costly for me to have health insurance than the alternative.

Quote:

You WILL die.
Yeah, and that's why I'll be glad to have life insurance as soon as I have anyone I care enough about that I'd want to leave them with something when I go.

Quote:

You will likely die from a disease than can be slowed or even stopped.
Not necessarily, since I've never had any such affliction as of yet. I'm guessing an accidental death is more likely for me personally. Probably car wreck.

Quote:

Both are situations where you WILL want medical attention if you want to live.
And if something terrible like that happens and I survive one of these things, I will scramble to take care of it. I will get help at that time in whatever ways I can, and if it leaves me in financial ruin afterward, that's something I would have to deal with and I'll cross that bridge IF I come to it.

Quote:

And we're just talking about death situations here...god forbid you get something that makes your quality of life crap that you might want to seek medical help for.
The only thing like that I really have a chance for is things like hypertension or type2 diabetes, and I'm healthy enough in the meantime that neither of these things really have a shot at affecting me.

Anything else would be totally random out of left field, and again, if something that terrible happens, I'll scramble to take care of it. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Quote:

I'm also claiming it's a bad idea for the private sector to give healthcare.
Why?

Because of the businesses propensity for denying claims to optimize profits, right? Because that's the ONLY thing wrong with it. Is competition bad? No. Is employing so many people bad? No. It's just the profit drive.

So you advocate CUTTING THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY OFF rather than addressing the actual problem? Hey you know what other industry is doing bad because of shooting themselves in the foot by being too for profit? The auto industry. Why don't we just kill off Ford and GM and Chrysler and all those companies because they're doing a bad job and replace them with a single brand of car manufactured by the government? Screw quality or choice, let's go full-on socialist! And all these banks and lenders and everything in the financial sector. They're doing even worse thanks to bad choices in loans, so why don't we just destroy all of the companies and replace them with a single federal bank and loan system? Screw JPMorgan and all those bastards they employ. Get that **** outta here and replace it with the BIG BAD GOVERNMENTTTTT.

Quote:

I'm claiming that public sector can do roads AND healthcare better than the private sector.
Please explain to me why forced socialized health care is better for me than an insurance system from a private NPO. Please explain to me why it is better than my idea for ANYONE who isn't poor as hell. I don't care if those people can't afford it; insurance is a luxury, not a necessity.

Quote:

My analogy was too much of a stretch...I should have set it aside and said what patashu's been saying all along, because it was an elaborate way of saying things are terribly inefficient with private healthcare
My answer of taking away the profit incentive would also fix this issue.

Quote:

and that government run healthcare would take away those inefficiencies.
And they'd introduce new ones.

Quote:

The very fact that you say private companies can do INSURANCE and not healthcare means that a huge inefficiency will go away.
...........................

You're foolish to heavily differentiate between the two.

Quote:

Just to be a pain, I've got a solution for private sector road building companies in terms of payment. Have every car registered in the US have a GPS system which also records where the car has driven.
I'll stop you right there. Big Brother, **** no. Are you retarded?

Quote:

Pretty easy, not a lot of overhead, totally doable.
And totally government mandated invasion of ****ing privacy.

Quote:

On another note, there's no reason that a private company couldn't do the mapping for any road network. Multiple, private companies can decide to build roads wherever they want provided where they want them built meets whatever good criteria they need to meet for environmental reasons or what have you.
This would be a legal rights NIGHTMARE. Because they'd be PRIVATE roads, each company would be able to establish their own "laws" on each road. And you'd be lucky to see different companies working together well... look at any industry: competitors RARELY work well together.

Also notice that the road system also falls under the umbrella of "it's not cost effective in the private sector". In fact, I'm pretty sure that the government doesn't even stop people from having private roads: you will often find private roads on large private estates. But it's not a profitable business model to make publically available private road system even aside from the fact that payment would be difficult to obtain LEGALLY.

Quote:

If they incorporate a payment system as I said above, it seems like the main issue with private road building has been resolved.
Yeah, and if we tear up the Constitution we can all become Communists! Great plan!

Quote:

Just because private companies haven't done a good job at making roads, and just because you can't perceive a way for them to do it, it doesn't mean they can't.
If they could and they had a reason to, they would.

Quote:

I'm sure if suddenly the department of transportation got dissolved, we'd have private companies take a step in and do a fine job of making roads with new, innovative ways of doing things.
So... now you're saying the private sector would do this job better than the government? How on Earth can you go from "private sector can't do insurance (even though they currently are just not the best)" to "private sector can magically produce a service where there is no profit or incentive"?

Quote:

For godsakes, if you think the free market is so uber and taxes are so terrible, don't give up on non-government so easily. Use your head.
There are some things the private sector cannot do but are still necessary in modern society. The private sector has proven it CAN do this, even if it's not ideal. The solution then should be to FIX THE PROBLEM rather than to kill the entire industry.

Are you familiar with the concepts of cause and effect? The effect is poor customer service. The cause is being profit driven. The solution to a problem always addresses the cause of the problem, so why then would you feel it appropriate to eliminate an entire industry? Do you know how many people would lose jobs and not have anywhere to go? Sure, new government jobs would open up, but you really think a single "company" servicing the entire country would employ as many people? And you know, if it DOES employ as many people, that means the government is doing an inefficient job of running the "company" and is thus wasting tax dollars.

Quote:

And you talk about people who are drains on society...seems like you're refusing to help it on principal.
I contribute to society. I have a job, I pay my taxes, and I am a unapologetic consumer. I am not the one causing a drain on society, it is the willfully unemployed, the willfully uneducated.

Quote:

Nice of you to enlighten me. Really, discussion where I'm told I'm wrong with nothing else beyond that it isn't much of a discussion. (I should really let this point slide.)
I explained the concept of non-profit organizations. If you still don't understand, I suggest you attempt to do a little research. Even simply googling "NPO" should be enough to put you on the track toward understanding the concept I've tried to put forth, even if the simple phrase "non-profit organization" somehow does not.

Quote:

/start sarcasm. Ohhhh, I'm sorry, I was misinformed. I thought having a free market and being a part of a co-op meant I actually had a say in what goes on. I didn't realize a free market meant I have no free speech or that I have no say in the value of work and goods are. That's right, apparently I can only say things with money in the free market. And of course, I only have any meaning of any sort in a free market if I own a company! Why do I even have a mouth or a keyboard? All I have to do for my voice to matter is own that store! I'll get right on that just so I can validly say that my cashier doesn't get paid enough by going out and paying her more. If she doesn't get paid enough, it's my fault for not paying her more. Maybe I'll just start tipping everyone who I assume doesn't get paid enough...because I think its best that I spread my meagre wealth around so that I can try and get all 'poor' people can be on the same level while letting large business owners do whatever they want. /end sarcasm
lmao you're ridiculous

It doesn't matter what YOU think a person's worth is, it matters what EVERYONE ELSE thinks a person's worth is. If you think an unskilled employee at McDonald's deserves 20 dollars an hour, try telling them that. Use your free speech to your heart's content. But it won't do any good, because the free market says unskilled labor is inexpensive. If one person refuses to work for such small wages, surely there will be SOME OTHER person who would. Because unskilled labor is a so common. If a person wants to make good money, they need to make themselves special in some way; a special skill, trait, ability, craft, anything.

Quote:

You've just cited perfectly why I dislike purponents of capitalism.
Or in other words "I am a communist", to which I say, gtfo my america plz

Quote:

if we didn't have things that way, we wouldn't be 'free' anymore, and that would be bad.
Yes, if we (employers included) weren't free, it would be bad.

Quote:

Well, it'd DEFINITELY be a waste of money for the government to be funding social programs for the people who don't need them.
So you don't think the middle class deserves any help, but the lowest class deserves all of the help? You'd propose to shoot the middle class in the foot to better the lower class?

Quote:

I think not seeing people living and dying on the streets helps the greater good anyways.
lmao "greater good" is NOT a good thing. You'll cut off the individual so that the AVERAGE might be higher? Where's the limitation to this mindset? Would you propose we go all the way, take all money and possessions of every citizen and equally distribute them for the greater good?

Quote:

You really don't want more people sitting on the streets asking you for money, do you?
If they're on the street, that's their fault. No matter HOW they got into that situation they're in, there is always a way to move back up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patashu (Post 3207921)
the problem with taxing the poor more than the rich is that it encourages a cycle of poverty;

Is anyone actually in favor of a poor tax here?

And actually, it would only encourage a cycle in the listful masses. Those who truly are upset over it would do everything they can to climb that ladder. Only the true screwups would be stuck at the bottom. Ever heard of social darwinism? I must admit that I am in favor of it. Survival of the fittest. If the poor unskilled masses don't want to contribute, **** THEM. Let them die pitiful failures.

But that said, I'm in favor of low taxes for all. I'm not sure how best it'd be to handle it, but I think it's ridiculous that the more money you earn the more the government claims you don't deserve it.

Quote:

in idealistic capitalism free market america eagleland everyone's social status and salary would be determined purely by how much work you've put in, but in reality this is not the case because the richer and more privileged you are the more of an ability you have to stay rich and privileged.
I don't thinkyou understand Capitalism or the Free Market at all.

Quote:

think about it; if you're homeless and jobless, it's going to take all the effort you can muster to even stay alive; that doesn't leave any time and effort over to learn job skills or hone their body or get an education.
So they start at the bottom. There is plenty of charity services that help people get off the street and get into jobs. As long as they work hard and aren't completely hopeless, they can move on from being homeless into being contributing members of society.

Quote:

aside from the occasional tale of people moving up through the class hierarchy through sheer luck
How on earth could LUCK move a homeless man up to being a contributing member of society? When a person is at the bottom it takes effort and hard work.

Quote:

most people who are rich are that way because their parents were also rich and gave them a home, an education and connections so they could stay just as rich as they were.
Not everyone can be rich. Class distinctions exist for a reason. WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL. We can't all be millionaires.

Quote:

this is part of why progressive taxation exists; to help keep an even playing ground open, where the poor aren't ****ed from the start just because they're poor and will have to spend their entire lives on the brink of complete ruin.
I don't think you understand ANYTHING, because the poor are STILL poor from the start and live week by week, paycheck by paycheck constantly teetering on the edge.

Quote:

how can you improve your life if you can't ever afford to do it?
By slowly working your way up with hard work, effort, and a bit of luck.

Quote:

unskilled manual jobs even are less and less in demand over time and if you don't have a home to go to you can't even get one of those.
It is difficult, but it is possible. All it takes is a little charity combined with hard work for a homeless person to work themselves off of the streets.

Quote:

it's horrible that education is cut and neglected so much in america, what are they thinking when they do that?
Maybe that it's not cost effective to educate the masses in the way they do? Maybe that by putting responsibility of education on the individual, it will more easily separate the "men" from the "boys".

As my closing remark, I would just like to reiterate that anyone in favor of communism or socialism is free to leave the country at any time. You point to examples around the world with socialized medical systems that you love so much, so what are you waiting for. Move there. If you're so distasteful towards Capitalism and economic class distinctions, get the **** out. USA is clearly not the country for you. Go take a read over the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for clear mission statements. It's not the government's job to give you insurance.

Patashu 08-28-2009 07:24 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
edit: I'm going to go put c-c-communist pig somewhere in my sig now

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3207955)
First off, if your talking about people who designed technology that made the entire world a better off place (medicine, computer) then yes you deserve the money. If your smart about the economy and the stock and make a lot of money then you deserve it.

you seem to be conflating the idea of being rich with being productive or smart or worthy; it's actually not. some methods of making money are easy, some are hard, some create a lot of common good for the public, some are self-centered and take away from the public.
what has someone who trades in stocks (which is essentially a form of gambling) given to the public?

I was going to add a little bit here going into how money is worth less as you get more and more of it, but this works fine:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-Adam Smith

progressive taxation actually runs according to this rule of money being worth less to you as you get more of it (or along having more disposable income as you get richer, up from the poorest having 0); if we taxed the poor as much as we did the rich, the poor would not be able to sustain themselves and would be ex-taxpayers in contrast to the rich.
the tax brackets don't go up by that much in modern america anyway; the top bracket is taxed something like 30-40% now when before Reagan it was way up in the 80s.

also, do you think that the slowly increasing progressive tax brackets really discourage people from taking up jobs with higher income, or do you think they do it anyway because there's still an increase inherent?

Quote:

Wow I was literally laughing when I read this. Almost every rich person has an unpayable debt or an extremely high debt. think about it.
uuh?



Quote:

FIRST OFF the minimum wage increased.
minimum wage != living wage in america unfortunately

Quote:

And if you think this plan isn't going to tax the poor then maybe you should take a look at Obamas speeches. ELECTRICAL COSTS ARE GOING TO SKYROCKET! This affects everybody! And even the poor are going to have to pay the new healthcare tax...
hang on a second. are you arguing against nationalized healthcare being a good thing or against the policies Obama is enacting? Obama could do the ****tiest job in the world and it wouldn't be an argument against nationalized healthcare but the way Obama/the senate went about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afrobean (Post 3208194)
Who "funds" the current system? THE CUSTOMERS. Customers pay money to the company and that income is what the company uses to pay for medical treatments and pay its employees.

It'd be the EXACT same with it running on a NPO model, except that instead of going above and beyond to reach higher profits for the shareholders, they'd be more interested in ACTUALLY PROVIDING SERVICE.

cool, so you'd be all for government healthcare then B)


Quote:

Because I wasn't alive when it began and I only relatively recently have been enlightened as to what I feel the purpose of government should be in society. I believe that government should protect our "god-given" rights and nothing more; you evidently feel the government should baby us and take care of those who can't take care of themselves, usually because they are too lazy, stupid, incompetent, etc. Life, liberty, right to own property. That's all I want my government concerned with, along with any necessary societal systems which is cost prohibitive for the private sector (like water). If the government is doing something that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with protecting those things, then I feel they're overstepping their boundaries.
excuse me? all poor people are lazy, stupid and incompetent? it's not easy to be poor, you know; if you're homeless forget about being able to get a job, you need a legal address for practically everything. even if you do you're not going to manage to get anything spectacular because you can't afford to be educated because you're poor because your parents were poor to so you stay poor and just barely get by from pay check to pay check and as soon as you're inconvenienced by sufficient illness/injury/other upset you're screwed because of a complete lack of disposable income. would like to reiterate again that 50% of bankruptcies in america are related to medical costs, and it is impossible to control when you get sick or when you don't.
you think the government should protect the god-given right to life? so, like... nationalized healthcare, then? B)
also if that's the only things you want government doing then there aren't many countries in the world you'll like, since they all provide many, many more services beyond these three fundamentals you pulled out of thin air (and for good reason at that; without a central organization not concerned with profit you would have no central force to break up monopolies and regulate businesses to ensure they acted fairly, to provide law enforcement/military/justice systems that are universally recognized and thus able to mediate all of society, etc etc)

Quote:

The legal system protects my rights to life, liberty and property by making it illegal for other people to take those things from me. The road system having standardized rules protects my life (90 MPH in a residential street would likely end in many accidental deaths), liberty (I can use any road I want to go anywhere I want... within reason), and property (my automobile, similarly protected as is life).


Not just desirable, but necessary for modern society. Can you honestly imagine true anarchy in the modern world thanks to lack of a legal system?


Ok, let me repeat myself AGAIN.

The problem is the FOR-PROFIT mindset. You see the solution as eliminating the INDUSTRY ALTOGETHER and having the government socialize it instead. But the problem isn't the INDUSTRY, it's the FOR-PROFIT model. So remove the FOR-PROFIT business model, right? Keep the business but remove the THING that makes it terrible. So what do you get if you do that? A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, commonly abbreviated as NPO.


And you want to achieve this by forced redistribution of wealth. Now, of course, you're not advocating full redistribution (which would be communism), but you are advocating a free-money idea here, taking money from those with a lot and giving it to those who haven't earned it.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each...s_contribution
particularly this portion:
"Stalin's most famous use of the concept is in his Constitution. He writes that 'The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.' It is especially noteworthy that he says the principle of socialism and not full communism."


When there is a product/service one person cannot afford and you take money from another person in order to give the product/service to the first person for "free", what is the difference?


No, it wouldn't be putting millionaires into the poorhouse, but I say even a single cent is wrong.


This topic is under the topic of "Socialism". I think discussing the nature of Capitalism and Communism is entirely appropriate, at least as far as they relate to the concept of Socialism and why it may be desirable or unwanted.


I hate being FORCED to help others, particularly where I have no choice over who gets my help and who doesn't. For example, a 20 year old single mother with 5 kids each with a different father is far less deserving of help than a down-on-his-luck unemployed 35 year old head-of-a-house.


No, I was just referring to the fact that it is WRONG of you to think we are all equal or that we are all entitled to certain things. The only thing we are entitled to is our rights to life, liberty and ownership of property, and a myriad of other related rights in the Bill of Rights.


Oh, I bet their healthcare isn't too bad, but how do you think their life is like? What do you think the average income is? I really like being able to afford a bigass TV and tons of electronics. I doubt I'd be doing very well in a place such as that. Sure, I'd be just as healthy as I am now probably, but my life would be less enjoyable I think.


It doesn't matter. The problem is the DENIED NECESSARY CLAIMS that come about because of the FOR PROFIT MODEL. If you tear down the system and rebuild it as NPO, people wouldn't be so easily rejected for necessary medical care.

If you don't mind an analogy, imagine a person has a large wart on the bottom of his foot. It's terrible and quite painful to even walk, but aside from that, his body is working correctly. This problem is akin to the for-profit business model that health insurance runs on. What I am suggesting is akin to talking to a doctor and getting it dug out so that hopefully tissue can regrow there correctly. What you are suggesting is akin to severing both of the man's entire legs to ensure the problem doesn't come back.


Screw those socialist bastards. Just because it can be functional doesn't mean it's the ideal solution to the problem. Furthermore, we are a LOT different than those countries. In fact, I again point to my statement about the states: if this were something on a state level, I would be a lot more OK with it, and in this case due to the simplification of the process requiring more spread out micromanagement. But the USA as a whole is MUCH larger than any of the countries you named. How can you say "tiny ol' England works fine, big-ass USA must as well!" And seriously, England is all crazy with leftist ****; they're seriously a stone's throw away from full-on Big Brother.

Is that the kind of nation you want to live in?

If so, ****ing move there and leave America to people who actually prefer our economic system to not have ridiculous government tinkering.

Is anyone actually in favor of a poor tax here?

And actually, it would only encourage a cycle in the listful masses. Those who truly are upset over it would do everything they can to climb that ladder. Only the true screwups would be stuck at the bottom. Ever heard of social darwinism? I must admit that I am in favor of it. Survival of the fittest. If the poor unskilled masses don't want to contribute, **** THEM. Let them die pitiful failures.

But that said, I'm in favor of low taxes for all. I'm not sure how best it'd be to handle it, but I think it's ridiculous that the more money you earn the more the government claims you don't deserve it.


I don't thinkyou understand Capitalism or the Free Market at all.


So they start at the bottom. There is plenty of charity services that help people get off the street and get into jobs. As long as they work hard and aren't completely hopeless, they can move on from being homeless into being contributing members of society.


How on earth could LUCK move a homeless man up to being a contributing member of society? When a person is at the bottom it takes effort and hard work.


Not everyone can be rich. Class distinctions exist for a reason. WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL. We can't all be millionaires.


I don't think you understand ANYTHING, because the poor are STILL poor from the start and live week by week, paycheck by paycheck constantly teetering on the edge.


By slowly working your way up with hard work, effort, and a bit of luck.


It is difficult, but it is possible. All it takes is a little charity combined with hard work for a homeless person to work themselves off of the streets.


Maybe that it's not cost effective to educate the masses in the way they do? Maybe that by putting responsibility of education on the individual, it will more easily separate the "men" from the "boys".

As my closing remark, I would just like to reiterate that anyone in favor of communism or socialism is free to leave the country at any time. You point to examples around the world with socialized medical systems that you love so much, so what are you waiting for. Move there. If you're so distasteful towards Capitalism and economic class distinctions, get the **** out. USA is clearly not the country for you. Go take a read over the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for clear mission statements. It's not the government's job to give you insurance.

too much to reply to atm, maybe later??

edit: wait this one really stuck out to me though. tell us more about how the free market pays everyone exactly the amount of money they deserve for having contributed X amount of worth to society :allears: for instance, explain why bank/privatized prison/american privatized healthcare CEOs are paid so much for providing negative net gain, and we'll move on from there

fido123 08-28-2009 07:53 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
First of all every country that has any sort of tax is socialist to some extent. You give a portion of money to your government and they provide you with services such as roads, other transportation like trains and buses, police, firemen. The argument should really be is health care an essential service which in my opinion it is. Insurance isn't a good means of protection for everybody as if you have some sort of medical condition, they deny you when you need their help most. Instead of just coming out and calling it communist, just look at it logically. Every country needs some level of socialism and right now, the countries leaning a bit further to the left like Sweden and Denmark are the ones with the highest standards of living. Taxing the poor more than the rich isn't good either but Patchsu already covered that. It's not really Darwinism if the government is suppressing them, making them unable to climb to the top.

Patashu 08-28-2009 08:34 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
it's not so much the government but the very way society is set up that allows people to be born into circumstances that disproportionately favour or disfavour them; a lot of someone's 'fortune' or 'success' is from the class they were born into as opposed to purely on their personal ability/choices. if you have to bootstrap your way up to getting an education or job training you're still far disadvantaged than children of a rich family who get it all easy with disposable income to spare

devonin 08-28-2009 08:52 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
As an aside Afro, you seem to be all about healthcare being run privately by NPOs...just how do you suggest the system be converted from for-profit to non-profit? It wouldn't be...by direct government interference in the system would it?

Cavernio 08-28-2009 09:34 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
"I'm sure that if you had a real job in America (Like a teacher, because now educational funds are being cut HORRIBLY) you might think that you shouldn't be taxed more because you do have a real job."

Yeah, if I had a real job I'm sure I'd be upset that I'm paying taxes and not happy that I'd be making money. My parents are quite wealthy and are taxed heavily. I've lived with both sides of the taxing story, my personal experience is not changing my mind here.

"If people weren't so stupid and cutting educational funds, people might know what the hell causes what. Plus Medicaid can provide vaccinations for poor people depending on how bad off they are financially. Your talking about people that live in trailers because they don't want to improve there life. They have no incentive. Lets talk about America as a whole. "

Umm, no, I was addressing Afrobean specifically here. I also can't believe you're saying our research into health issues isn't good enough.

"Then go to some forum our talk to your senator about it. It won't work now and not ever, especially in this moment in time."

FFS read the rest of the paragraph, you're obviously not paying attention.
I'm arguing mainly with afrobean because you have nothing worth arguing against hayate. Poor people shouldn't be taxed as much as rich people. I don't see how electricity costs for providing healthcare could magically go up without any need to actually be running more electricity. If they do, it would only be because the free market would make them that way.

Afro:
"The legal system protects my rights to life, liberty and property by making it illegal for other people to take those things from me. The road system having standardized rules protects my life (90 MPH in a residential street would likely end in many accidental deaths), liberty (I can use any road I want to go anywhere I want... within reason), and property (my automobile, similarly protected as is life)."

2 of those 3 things regarding roads are laws and hence also part of the legal system. As far as your liberty goes, I have no idea how you can think your government should provide roads to places you want to visit and still hold the views you do. It's also a liberty to be able to live, that's the liberty that healthcare provides. I'd say it's much much more of a liberty than being able to drive wherever I want. Furthermore, if you really wanted liberty to go wherever you want, why stop at government roads? Why not give every family a vehicle?

This is how I see your opinion here: You don't like being taxed, you hold to a free market viewpoint, you don't want to have to pay for lazy people to get stuff. Ergo, anything that makes you pay more taxes you're going to initially be against. That's fine. However, you also see that a lot of what your government does and what taxes do is actually good. Since it works well, you see no reason to get rid of it. But that doesn't fit into your cognitive scheme in general about the free market and capitalism, so you're trying to make up **** pretending that it does fit into your larger set idea. It's a very common thing for everyone to do. It's called cognitive dissonance when someone is faced with someone that runs counter their beliefs. People will try to fit facts to their beliefs instead of changing their beliefs. The only consistent thing that I see with your beliefs is that you hate having to help people who don't help themselves, and taxes make you do that. I think you're a ****ing prick and are totally unable to put yourself in someone else's place, Mr. I-have-good-health-so-I-can't-understand-how-people-who-have-poor-health-shouldn't-be-held-accountable-for-their-poverty.

"The problem is the FOR-PROFIT mindset. You see the solution as eliminating the INDUSTRY ALTOGETHER and having the government socialize it instead. But the problem isn't the INDUSTRY, it's the FOR-PROFIT model. So remove the FOR-PROFIT business model, right? Keep the business but remove the THING that makes it terrible. So what do you get if you do that? A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, commonly abbreviated as NPO."

But we're in a free market, and if the market WANTS a non-profit organization, then enough people will feel the same way and it will happen. Clearly the fact that we DON'T have one now means that this isn't what people want. (Did I do that right? I just want to make sure I've used the free market argument properly, I'm used to counter-arguing it, not using it.)
Seriously though, we should be talking about this more. It does seem like a NPO healthcare system could work. There's some issues I have though. First of all, I have a hard time seeing how to implement it without the government stomping on health insurance companies in some way, shape or form, and that's obviously against people's liberties and I can see the same people getting upset about that as who are getting upset about government run healthcare. I just don't see any significant change happening in how people will choose to get healthcare without some sort of kick start. People are used to having insurance, the majority of people have insurance, and the majority of people (probably) with insurance feel perfectly safe with it, and don't expect to not be covered. There's no reason why these people would choose to change.
I suppose even with a NPO for health system, there could be some sort of NPO insurance to go with it. I'm sure that insurance would be very costly though, it'd have to be. And why would anyone opt to pay more insurance? Even if once they're trying to make a claim and seeing the light of their errors, that doesn't matter, because they're choice, for better or for worse, is likely going to choose to pay less. Just like you who choose to not have insurance at all. If a NPO weren't to have some sort of insurance policy, then I just don't see people using that system for any procedures that cost more than 500$.
You need to elaborate on your NPO idea, because what I'm envisioning is just not going to work out.

"So you don't think the middle class deserves any help, but the lowest class deserves all of the help? You'd propose to shoot the middle class in the foot to better the lower class?"
Yes, exactly what I said. I went into a whole discussion about taxes and said exactly how much a person of middle-class income should pay, said exactly where that money will go, and totally glazed over the high income earners. FFS don't be an idiot, I'm not supporting shooting middle class people in the foot. I ideally want everyone to all relatively be middle class. Oh, and I also like art, so I should be compared to Hitler.

"I hate being FORCED to help others, particularly where I have no choice over who gets my help and who doesn't. For example, a 20 year old single mother with 5 kids each with a different father is far less deserving of help than a down-on-his-luck unemployed 35 year old head-of-a-house."
But those 5 kids of the 20 year old mother don't deserve less than the 35 year old who's unemployed. Furthermore, that 20 year old mother probably has a mental illness which makes her promiscuous, like borderline personality disorder, which in turn was probably exapserated by a crappy childhood she had. Your arguments about people simply being lazy are used by proponents of things like racism, because black people in north america make less money and are less skilled. I'm not sure if this matters to you though, because people who are racist are about as distasteful as you are. If everyone supported social darwinism, we'd have had no immigrants, blacks, or native americans in the US.

"If the poor unskilled masses don't want to contribute, **** THEM."

YOU ARE WRONG. Poor, unskilled masses contribute en masse to our economy. Our technology is not so advanced yet as to have all of our ****ty jobs be automatized, we're a loooooong ways off. It's terrible that you can somehow say **** about the free market and somehow claim that that supports you being an asshole.

*edit: I missed some posts in the time it took me to post. I totally agree with devonin, fido, and patashu

Afrobean 08-28-2009 12:07 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3208228)
As an aside Afro, you seem to be all about healthcare being run privately by NPOs...just how do you suggest the system be converted from for-profit to non-profit? It wouldn't be...by direct government interference in the system would it?

That depends on how direct we're talking about here.

I'd probably estimate that it's not legal for a NPO to function as an insurance agency at present probably due to bull**** lobbying, as I've never heard of it happening. First step would be to fix that. If that alone doesn't encourage enough better service providers, give tax incentives. Tax incentivized free market is better than government interception or complete removal of the industry in favor of socialization, and it's better than the current bull**** profit-driven system. If the goal is to fix service providers, I don't see why people would suggest merely killing them all off to replace them with a LONE "non-profit organization"... I seriously cannot get over how people can be in favor cutting out the free market and eliminating all of the jobs from the job pool. The only thing I can figure is they so greatly enjoy the idea of people like me being FORCED to pay for all the medical treatments poor ****s who can't afford it want, all for the greater good. You know what would be good for the "greater good"? Capital punishment for repeat offenders. Does that sound like something desirable? How about making automobiles illegal to spare the lives of every person who would die in a wreck? That would be better for the greater good. And alcohol, tobacco and firearms: so many people have deaths involving one or more of these things, just remove liberty completely in favor of trying to keep everyone alive... even those who don't deserve it... **** the "greater good" and **** anyone who is in favor of that ****.

Long-winded fellows, expect a long-winded reply from me later on tonight.

Patashu 08-28-2009 12:15 PM

Re: Socialism?
 
Don't government jobs count as jobs as well, or do they have to be provided by the Freemarket to count? Under nationalized healthcare, the doctors don't go away, the payment system between doctor and client is simply mediated by different people.

Also your examples are fallacious in that you're comparing the banning of things that have some good and some bad effects with the replacement of a system that is almost all bad (privatized healthcare) with something better; they're clearly not the same, you can't band them together under the same banner.

Also why do you keep complaining about being taxed to pay for others healthcare when the amount you'd end up paying is roughly an average of the amount you'd pay for on average for your own healthcare over your lifetime under privatized healthcare...well, in fact, far far less then that because of the removed 30% administrative costs during the move to privatized healthcare, the fairer system, the additional wealth going around due to people more able to hold down jobs and homes, etc etc blah blah

devonin 08-28-2009 04:18 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Changed the thread name since we're pretty soundly on the one topic now.

kommisar[os] 08-28-2009 09:43 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
delete this post plz

kommisar[os] 08-28-2009 09:43 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
socialised healthcare is probably one of the better functionning healthcare systems where it works.

i do have a question however, taking my canadian country in example: to fund medicare are the funds strictly from taxes or do they have another source where everyone pays a certain amount anyways?

i guess canada could be considered a little socialist due to having higher taxes and more services given (correct me if i'm wrong on this one) and stepping foot into a hospital doesn't cost you 100$. i'd like to know why a little extra tax payed for free hospital services isn't better than paying retarded fees and having people dumped on the streets due to lack of funding (even with medicare, some people have to "co-pay" stupid amounts for something that could be free).

in new-brunswick taxes were as high as 15% before harper became pm. state of maine had about 7%. an extra 8% off everything you pay would mean you don't pay any medical expenses. yea sounds more expensive to live with 15% taxes, but its not like everyone sets money aside in case they get sick, nor will they know how much it will cost them.

hayatewillown 08-28-2009 11:30 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kommisar[os] (Post 3208897)
i guess canada could be considered a little socialist

Lol and canada is trying to leave their system, or at least the health care minister wants to. It's funny how people don't understand what it's like living in this country, as afro stated to have your rights stripped from you.

Quote:

hang on a second. are you arguing against nationalized healthcare being a good thing or against the policies Obama is enacting? Obama could do the ****tiest job in the world and it wouldn't be an argument against nationalized healthcare but the way Obama/the senate went about it.
Ok, first off, IF WE WANTED TO GO INTO SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE WE NEED TO FIX THE DAMN PROBLEMS WITH THE COUNTRY NOW.

LOOK: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I'm preaching this for that fact that the way OBAMA is trying to fix the debt, which he has barely addressed in ANY of his speeches, is going to a SOCIALIZED health care. This drops an F bomb on medicaid, private insurance agencies, and on the FREE MARKET. Maybe Canada doesn't have a free market. I wouldn't know. But I'd be damn sure that if the Government gets big enough, it will interfere with the free market and competition would be eliminated because it's not "FAIR".

Quote:

on't government jobs count as jobs as well, or do they have to be provided by the Freemarket to count? Under nationalized healthcare, the doctors don't go away, the payment system between doctor and client is simply mediated by different people.
Even Obama said he wouldn't go underneath our health care. Nor will his Senate.

Quote:

, my personal experience is not changing my mind here.
That is completely ignorant, and the fact that you'd rather have lazy ass people living off the rich is asinine!

Quote:

I'm arguing mainly with afrobean because you have nothing worth arguing against hayate. Poor people shouldn't be taxed as much as rich people. I don't see how electricity costs for providing healthcare could magically go up without any need to actually be running more electricity. If they do, it would only be because the free market would make them that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4


No they shouldn't be taxed as much. HOWEVER- Why should hardworking paid Americans (With real jobs..)have to pay more to support people who can improve their life but don't? Answer it, because clearly you have no idea how many people are actually at this state.

squeesfan 08-29-2009 09:32 AM

Re: Socialism?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eMVy (Post 3207694)
Think about nationalized health care this way:

You walk into a hospital to have an appendectamy.
The hospital takes a look at thier charts and says "Sorry, we're at a deficit of the proper type of stitching for that particular part of the body."
You get turned away with an erupting appendix.

There was a story in England about a man that had an appendectamy done twice, because the first time the doctor didn't care to actually take his appendix out.
That is what nationalized health care will do.

There are ways for people to get health care that can't afford it now - It's called Medicaid.

I'm sorry, but I have to call out this post as it's ridiculously close-minded and uninformed.

All you are doing here is highlighting a horror story, the sort of stuff that makes the news. I'm sure if I looked I could find just as many 'horrors' from the American healthcare system.
Your example is also ridiculous, that sort of **** doesn't happen, just because we have a government run health care system does NOT mean every hospital is some ****ty run-down garbage heap with lack of basic items.

My family and I have only had great experiences with the NHS. As have most of the people I know. Many years ago I had an extremley rare tumour in my leg which required the NHS to fly some crazy doctor from Europe over. They sorted this out, did the operation, and had me back home within three months of it being diagnosed, which is insane considering the tumour was not life threatening. My father had a serious illness when he was twenty. Even back then, some thirty odd years ago, the doctors fixed as much as they could, and now my dad recieves the health items he needs weekly from the NHS free of charge. This would have cost our family an unfathomable amount of money if it had been through a privatised system.

Yes, I know my example is the other end of the spectrum when it comes to highlighting the goods and bads, but my point is that a nationalised health system is nowhere near as bad as many people assume it is. I am appalled by the large scale of people that think places like England have terrible health care just by looking at what fox news or some equally **** reporting service pipe up. There are always going to be pro's and cons with ANY system of healthcare. I personally do not know enough about the intricate details of the American health service to comment, but I feel I had to point out that a nationalised health system is not the end of the world, and I am sick of seeing uninformed people assuming the worst from reading bias reports of rare occurences.

fido123 08-29-2009 10:01 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3208983)
Lol and canada is trying to leave their system, or at least the health care minister wants to. It's funny how people don't understand what it's like living in this country.

No we're not...if the health care minister said that it's probably a bs story or he's retarded. We're not leaving it. Nobody I know in this country doesn't like the healthcare system and it works fine.



Quote:

That is completely ignorant, and the fact that you'd rather have lazy ass people living off the rich is asinine!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4


No they shouldn't be taxed as much. HOWEVER- Why should hardworking paid Americans (With real jobs..)have to pay more to support people who can improve their life but don't? Answer it, because clearly you have no idea how many people are actually at this state.
A lot of people have "real jobs" yet aren't wealthy. My dad is a mould maker and he works and insane amount of hours a week including weekends, about 80-90 hours a week. He's self employed and his work contribute a lot to society. I do not live in a wealthy family. Why should some guy who inherited a couple million from his parents or landed a cushy paper pushing job that pays 250K a year not have to pay as much tax as my father?



EDIT: Converting fossil fuel power plants will obviously cost money but to me it's worth it. Fossil fuels is probably the worst way to make electricity as it emits so many green house gases. This is a step in the right direction.

kommisar[os] 08-29-2009 11:28 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
gonna agree with squees' story. my mother has crohn's disease and remicade shots are 4000$ and this is done every 6 weeks.

living in canada, she pays 20$

in america, she would recieve no treatment nor financial relief.

Necros140606 08-29-2009 02:39 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
i live in italy and even though flawed, our medical assistance is way better than anything we could ever get with the american way. assuming that payment implies quality of the treatment is a crucial mistake. errors will come anyways from single individuals every now and then. and if you rely on media for the quantification of these numbers, you indeed are ignorant.

Cavernio 08-29-2009 04:48 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3208983)
Ok, first off, IF WE WANTED TO GO INTO SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE WE NEED TO FIX THE DAMN PROBLEMS WITH THE COUNTRY NOW.

Why? Having a debt and running a deficit isn't the end of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3208983)
Even Obama said he wouldn't go underneath our health care. Nor will his Senate.

You keep bringing this up as if it were a serious problem. I definitely understand how it is elitist, however, if someone feels like paying more for health services in the US through some other means, then they're going to be allowed to, (even if whatever current bill says it's not allowed, people are bitching about it so much and it counters what Obama has said, it will be changed.) The fact that people will be allowed to do this, including the president, means that there is not going to be total control of the government over healthcare. I'm sure that even if Obama were to use the regular healthcare system, he'd get preferential treatment, (whether he personally would want it or not) which would look and be pretty bad. If he instead pays for his healthcare privately, no one can say that the healthcare system is bowing down to the commie rulers of the US. Of course, then there's people like you, and he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.


Quote:

Originally Posted by hayatewillown (Post 3208983)
That is completely ignorant, and the fact that you'd rather have lazy ass people living off the rich is asinine!

You must understand a few things here:
1) I believe very, very few people are just 'lazy'. The majority of homeless people have a mental illness or multiple mental illnesses. Even drug abusers, once they've become addicted, have to fight using a will that is destroyed, to simply stop using. I understand that many people don't hold this viewpoint, but I believe those people are ignorant.
2) Many people who use social programs YOU wouldn't even call lazy. Low wage jobs are still jobs, we still need people to do them, and yet to say that these people should pay 30% of their income in taxes because otherwise they're living off of the non-lazy people, is horrible. There's also tons of labor that people do that they don't get paid for. Raising children is the best example of this.
3) You're ignorant to not consider how the distribution of wealth in a free market can be unfair.

Cavernio 08-29-2009 05:06 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Fido123: Tons of canadians dislike the healthcare system. Allowing private healthcare companies was a hot topic 5 years ago. The main dislike about it is that wait time are too long.

afrobean: In response to my supposedly Big Brother suggestion about how private companies could charge for the roads people drive on, you missed the point of it. See, the point was to offer a way for PRIVATE industry to charge people for the roads they drive on. The only place government would be allowed in my make-believe system would be for legislation of where and how roads can be built. They would not have any access outside of criminal investigation for where someone has and hasn't been. Furthermore, if you still think that such a system is a total invasion of privacy....I see that you use the internet. I bet you have a phone too. *gasp* you mean the phone company can choose to see every, single number you call if they want? Do you think that's terrible? Are you going to stop using your phone? Do you think its against your rights? I've never heard you complain about it, so I gather you don't care one way or the other. Personally, in order for any sort of Big Brother scenario to concern me is if my rights are going to be impeded because of it, like for example, the US don't fly list. Just because a government or industry or person has access to information about you, doesn't mean they're stalking you or even going to use it. Privacy issues are a total downside to technology, but with proper laws and legislation and if the principals of free speech are kept, no one's going to be Big Brother.

fido123 08-30-2009 01:11 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3209625)
Fido123: Tons of canadians dislike the healthcare system. Allowing private healthcare companies was a hot topic 5 years ago. The main dislike about it is that wait time are too long.

I wasn't really very politically aware 5 years ago, however I do know people including I see problem in it like wait times, and idiots going in for stuffy noses. I don't think the majority of people now want to get rid of it, rather than have those problems fixed though. It's still MUCH better than privatized health care though IMO.

devonin 08-30-2009 01:15 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
While it's true that there are long waits at the hospital if you go with stupid problems, the reason the wait is so long for your stubbed toe and your snuffy nose is that you're being put to the bottom of the triage list under people with legitimate problems.

The possibility of a long wait in exchange for guarenteed, free, health coverage and -immediate- attention if you are in a legitimate emergency is a trade-off I'm glad to make.

dragonmegaXX 08-30-2009 01:16 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
My grandpa died because of the Canadian healthcare system because he needed a complex operation, but they wouldnt give it to him.

He would be alive if he was in america :/

devonin 08-30-2009 01:23 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Not necessarily. Could he have -afforded- the complex operation in America? Even if he had been able to pay for it, would he have then been so far in debt that he might have to decalre bankruptcy?

devonin 08-30-2009 09:59 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
I'm going to go ahead and just remove the whole CO2 sideline here...if people really want to have a discussion about that in particular, they can make a thread about it.

Afrobean 08-31-2009 02:14 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3210251)
The possibility of a long wait in exchange for guarenteed, free, health coverage and -immediate- attention if you are in a legitimate emergency is a trade-off I'm glad to make.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Huge response from older posts coming later... it's only about half done right now.

devonin 08-31-2009 09:08 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Free at the time, and free of the actual cost of the procedure. I'm well aware of the fact that I'm paying more income tax than you in order to fund it, and that's fine by me. I'd rather more infrequent-but-high cost items be subsidized personally.

Cavernio 08-31-2009 09:13 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
I've been waiting over 3 years for a family doctor :-(

I am still in support of our healthcare system though. I'm in support of putting more money into it since that's clearly what's needed.

fido123 08-31-2009 09:35 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3211810)
I've been waiting over 3 years for a family doctor :-(

I am still in support of our healthcare system though. I'm in support of putting more money into it since that's clearly what's needed.

Where in Canada do you live?

Coolgamer 08-31-2009 04:02 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
I support single-payer healthcare. This will never happen in America thanks to lobbyists and corporate money.

To those that claim that paying a tax for healthcare is socialism, you can stop using highways, libraries, ambulances, fire services, police, national parks, and the national guard... cause, you know, your taxes pay for those too.

devonin 08-31-2009 05:54 PM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
Right, but people opposed to healthcare on the grounds that they don't want to have to pay tax into services for others to use them often would argue that they'd like most of the above things you listed to -also- be privatized. So your objection of "Well what about all these things" is usually answered with "Yeah those too"

rqm 09-2-2009 11:46 AM

Re: Socialised Healthcare
 
next time you hear a government official railing on about how terrible providing government health care for those who cant afford any private health care is, write them a letter asking if theyd like to trade health care plans with you.

anyone who wouldnt accept long waits to resolve miniscule problems while being offered essentially free, quick treatment for life threatening ailments is not the brightest. i completely support health care reform in america. i dont see how anyone who doesnt work for an insurance company can be against the proposed reform.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution