|
On November 06 2010 17:46 Scruffy wrote:
Well I have seen people go to the E.R. for routine shit. They just have to wait longer because its not urgent. How did I refute myself? I didn't say preventative care isn't important, but do we need the government to take it over to administer it? I don't think so.
Looks like you completed your PSYCH 2010 class before you dropped out of college. Congratulations.
You said rationing would result in higher costs and lower outcomes as care would be unresponsive to needs. I pointed out the price mechanism IS rationing, so any complaints in that arena are moot unless you can quantify availability-to-cost in different systems. Having said unavailability would increase costs, you say people without insurance should go to the ER. Legally in many states hospitals can (And will, often) refuse care if it isn't life threatening. The story of the woman who shot herself in the arm in hopes of being treated comes to mind. You could even make an argument out of pure selfishness of not wanting people with the flu or menstrual cramps clogging up ER services for more serious cases, combined with increased costs on [i]you[/i ]to pay for the person's emergency. Whether governments have legitimacy at all is a question outside of the problem I brought up (rationing).
If you understand that pricing is rationing and thus everything in a market is rationed (and by extension of that a fear of rationing is irrational unless the alternative is measurably more restrictive) then I am happy and you may continue on with life.
On November 06 2010 17:46 Scruffy wrote:Looks like you completed your PSYCH 2010 class before you dropped out of college. Congratulations. 
Aw, quick to completely unverifiable insults eh?
Ballsy coming from someone who is using anecdotal evidence, regurgitating talking points and is unable to use the correct form of there\their\they're in a sentence  .
No, though, I know nothing about psychology or college. That said, I'm glad I give off that impression :p.
|
US polithics are to most of my friends across EU mostly a joke. But tbh US could anyway do some work with better polithics as they are one of the leading countries in the world.
I also find it abit ignorant place.
|
On November 06 2010 18:29 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 17:46 Scruffy wrote:
Well I have seen people go to the E.R. for routine shit. They just have to wait longer because its not urgent. How did I refute myself? I didn't say preventative care isn't important, but do we need the government to take it over to administer it? I don't think so.
Looks like you completed your PSYCH 2010 class before you dropped out of college. Congratulations. You said rationing would result in higher costs and lower outcomes as care would be unresponsive to needs. I pointed out the price mechanism IS rationing, so any complaints in that arena are moot unless you can quantify availability-to-cost in different systems. Having said unavailability would increase costs, you say people without insurance should go to the ER. Legally in many states hospitals can (And will, often) refuse care if it isn't life threatening. The story of the woman who shot herself in the arm in hopes of being treated comes to mind. You could even make an argument out of pure selfishness of not wanting people with the flu or menstrual cramps clogging up ER services for more serious cases, combined with increased costs on [i]you[/i ]to pay for the person's emergency. Whether governments have legitimacy at all is a question outside of the problem I brought up (rationing). If you understand that pricing is rationing and thus everything in a market is rationed (and by extension of that a fear of rationing is irrational unless the alternative is measurably more restrictive) then I am happy and you may continue on with life. Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 17:46 Scruffy wrote:Looks like you completed your PSYCH 2010 class before you dropped out of college. Congratulations. Aw, quick to completely unverifiable insults eh? Ballsy coming from someone who is using anecdotal evidence, regurgitating talking points and is unable to use the correct form of there\their\they're in a sentence . No, though, I know nothing about psychology or college. That said, I'm glad I give off that impression :p.
I was just yanking your chain on the college thing. I have much better grammar during normal waking hours 
I have a Bachelor's in Accounting and am working on my MBA. Now my transformation into a business-loving conservative is complete!
But seriously, I read around 30-40 political commentary books a year, so I could probably surprise you with what I know. I just like to argue really  Debating is so much better in person though; its hard to remember each point you make on a forum after a while unless you go back and read your posts.
|
On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
There's a big difference between a Ferrari and a life. The fact of the matter is health services (like for example the NHS) mean those who would otherwise suffer have the chance to take their life back. If you're really telling us that you would rather have a bigger pocket than save the life or good health of a stranger then you tell us a lot about your character. Personally i'm disgusted.
|
On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
I think you are trying to sound smart. Giving people care on the costs of society are nothing like giving people ferraris on the costs of society. A ferrari and health are two very diffrent things you cant just make up an analogy with two things like that.
And yes helping everybody on the costs of everybody, that sounds pretty justifiable to me! If you dont like it why dont you end your life, it seems you dont want it and neither want anyone pay for it!
|
|
|
On November 06 2010 13:35 Widar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 12:37 kzn wrote:On November 06 2010 11:14 Widar wrote:
Theyre healthcare-politic is so hilarious, basically, if you get sick, it's your fault, pay up or die.
Haha As opposed to, if you get sick, it's not your fault, so everyone else has to pay for it? If you get sick, its not your fault, no. Everybody pays taxes - Taxes goes to healthcare, which everybody gains from. The errors with capitalism, is that it promotes criminal activities, and works against everything thats just and fair. Imagine, a guy has waited 6 years on a new liver on the transplant list. Hes working to the best of hes abilities, and hasnt drunk a single drop of aclohol, or anything what would ruin it further. Another guy has rich parents, is partying every night, find out hes livers broke - Keeps partying and acting irresponsible Since hes parents are rich, they buy the liver which was ment for guy nr 1, who a week later dies, with "his" liver inside a brat who knows jack of lifes hardships. Sounds "OK" ? Everyone is eqal, exept if ur poor, then ur trash, and if ur rich, ofc you deserve more human value. My god, capitalism, like religion, is stupid. Social liberalism is by far the best ideology. Another stupid thing with the U.S, is theyre weapon laws. Ever heard of safty? I mean, ive heard americans who think they own the moon.. Look at thire educationsystem, no wonders americans, or at least a lot of them, are so stupid.
YOur liver example is not true, since private insurances are possible. And if he doesn't have one, its his own choice, and no one else is to blame.
Having a gun in your house btw does not make you more safe?
And I have ignored the rest of your prejudices as they are just hilarous.
|
|
|
US is probably the most corrupt country in the world and now their mess is catching up to them.
9/11 I'm convinced was actually an inside government job and it was all for money and oil, Iran problem is again created by the US itself and now they can't get out of it.
Al Kaeda I'm convinced is actually helped by the US itself to have all these reasons to control oil flow from the Arab countries.
|
On November 07 2010 02:49 thehitman wrote:
US is probably the most corrupt country in the world and now their mess is catching up to them.
9/11 I'm convinced was actually an inside government job and it was all for money and oil, Iran problem is again created by the US itself and now they can't get out of it.
Al Kaeda I'm convinced is actually helped by the US itself to have all these reasons to control oil flow from the Arab countries.
...
most corrupt country lol ?!
50% of the european states are more corrupt and 100% of africa^^
(italy france etc pretty much mroe corrupt than usa)
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is not being extreme in the US, right?:
- Wanting the government to have less power over peoples lives and at the same time wanting to make laws against same-sex marriage and abortion.
|
If their is rationing due to socialized medicine, then he would have had to wait (from what I hear). What if the cancer got aggressive, and then he died? Is that the governments' fault? Maybe. Rather have it in my hands than some lazy bureaucrat.
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but people over here are generally not dieing from cancer because they cant get appointments with their doctors.
For routine treatments you usually get waiting times from 0-2 weeks (e.g. at dentists or general practitioners) up to 6 weeks for some specialists, but in case of emergencies one can generally call in and get an appointment on the same day (thats part of the reason why non-emergency treatmentes take so long) or go the the emergency room.
|
On November 07 2010 03:58 Gigaudas wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is not being extreme in the US, right?:
- Wanting the government to have less power over peoples lives and at the same time wanting to make laws against same-sex marriage and abortion.
Yeah, see, I don't get that. At all. Can a conservative step up and explain their reasoning?
|
On November 06 2010 19:32 rAize- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
I think you are trying to sound smart. Giving people care on the costs of society are nothing like giving people ferraris on the costs of society. A ferrari and health are two very diffrent things you cant just make up an analogy with two things like that. And yes helping everybody on the costs of everybody, that sounds pretty justifiable to me! If you dont like it why dont you end your life, it seems you dont want it and neither want anyone pay for it!
The only real differential in value is what someone is willing to pay for either. And that changes by person. Since people make money on both Ferrari's and Health Care, and everyone wants to get the most for their work, while everyone else is simultaneously trying to get their work for the least, I'd say it's a perfectly apt analogy when you consider that both are simply the end results of another persons labor that you're attempting to procure. To most people, sure, one is infinitely more valuable than the other, and I'd personally take health care, but for that small group who'd be willing to say, "I'll live without health care for a short bit, save my money and buy a ferrari." they have that right, and that is a personal financial decision they should be able to make.
|
On November 07 2010 03:58 Gigaudas wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is not being extreme in the US, right?:
- Wanting the government to have less power over peoples lives and at the same time wanting to make laws against same-sex marriage and abortion.
About the abortion thing: People are actually dumb and make these decisions lightly, not even realizing they are extinguishing human life and what that means.
16 girl gets pumped, parents scream, she blames the guy for raping her, all decide baby must go and no harm done. This is usually the "hard" decision they make.
So preventing those cases is actually a good thing, special cases like illness, no financial and parental support are to be allowed.
|
On November 07 2010 03:48 oN_Silva wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 02:49 thehitman wrote:
US is probably the most corrupt country in the world and now their mess is catching up to them.
9/11 I'm convinced was actually an inside government job and it was all for money and oil, Iran problem is again created by the US itself and now they can't get out of it.
Al Kaeda I'm convinced is actually helped by the US itself to have all these reasons to control oil flow from the Arab countries.
... most corrupt country lol ?! 50% of the european states are more corrupt and 100% of africa^^ (italy france etc pretty much mroe corrupt than usa)
no they're not.
Had you said Bulgaria Romania Cyprus,ok.
|
On November 07 2010 03:48 oN_Silva wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 02:49 thehitman wrote:
US is probably the most corrupt country in the world and now their mess is catching up to them.
9/11 I'm convinced was actually an inside government job and it was all for money and oil, Iran problem is again created by the US itself and now they can't get out of it.
Al Kaeda I'm convinced is actually helped by the US itself to have all these reasons to control oil flow from the Arab countries.
... most corrupt country lol ?! 50% of the european states are more corrupt and 100% of africa^^ (italy france etc pretty much mroe corrupt than usa)
Yes, it is.
Does say Spain go out kill the current president of country A, place their own man for a president of country A, after some time he rejects US orders and now they want to go in war with country A?
Does Netherlands kill 3000 of its own people and destroy its own buildings to go for oil?
Get real.
|
On November 07 2010 04:30 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 19:32 rAize- wrote:On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
I think you are trying to sound smart. Giving people care on the costs of society are nothing like giving people ferraris on the costs of society. A ferrari and health are two very diffrent things you cant just make up an analogy with two things like that. And yes helping everybody on the costs of everybody, that sounds pretty justifiable to me! If you dont like it why dont you end your life, it seems you dont want it and neither want anyone pay for it! The only real differential in value is what someone is willing to pay for either. And that changes by person. Since people make money on both Ferrari's and Health Care, and everyone wants to get the most for their work, while everyone else is simultaneously trying to get their work for the least, I'd say it's a perfectly apt analogy when you consider that both are simply the end results of another persons labor that you're attempting to procure. To most people, sure, one is infinitely more valuable than the other, and I'd personally take health care, but for that small group who'd be willing to say, "I'll live without health care for a short bit, save my money and buy a ferrari." they have that right, and that is a personal financial decision they should be able to make.
healthcare is needed for a good life and a stable and flourishing society,
a ferrari is not.
u cant compare those 2.
|
On November 07 2010 04:35 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 04:30 Kimaker wrote:On November 06 2010 19:32 rAize- wrote:On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
I think you are trying to sound smart. Giving people care on the costs of society are nothing like giving people ferraris on the costs of society. A ferrari and health are two very diffrent things you cant just make up an analogy with two things like that. And yes helping everybody on the costs of everybody, that sounds pretty justifiable to me! If you dont like it why dont you end your life, it seems you dont want it and neither want anyone pay for it! The only real differential in value is what someone is willing to pay for either. And that changes by person. Since people make money on both Ferrari's and Health Care, and everyone wants to get the most for their work, while everyone else is simultaneously trying to get their work for the least, I'd say it's a perfectly apt analogy when you consider that both are simply the end results of another persons labor that you're attempting to procure. To most people, sure, one is infinitely more valuable than the other, and I'd personally take health care, but for that small group who'd be willing to say, "I'll live without health care for a short bit, save my money and buy a ferrari." they have that right, and that is a personal financial decision they should be able to make. healthcare is needed for a good life and a stable and flourishing society, a ferrari is not. u cant compare those 2.
And you can't make that decision for other people. It's not your life, it's theirs.
|
On November 07 2010 04:30 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 19:32 rAize- wrote:On November 06 2010 16:37 kzn wrote:
The fact that everybody gains from it isn't sufficient to justify that you take money from people to pay for services rendered to someone else.
Everybody gains if they're given a Ferrari, too, but you don't see any attempts to redistribute income so everyone can have one.
I think you are trying to sound smart. Giving people care on the costs of society are nothing like giving people ferraris on the costs of society. A ferrari and health are two very diffrent things you cant just make up an analogy with two things like that. And yes helping everybody on the costs of everybody, that sounds pretty justifiable to me! If you dont like it why dont you end your life, it seems you dont want it and neither want anyone pay for it! The only real differential in value is what someone is willing to pay for either. And that changes by person. Since people make money on both Ferrari's and Health Care, and everyone wants to get the most for their work, while everyone else is simultaneously trying to get their work for the least, I'd say it's a perfectly apt analogy when you consider that both are simply the end results of another persons labor that you're attempting to procure. To most people, sure, one is infinitely more valuable than the other, and I'd personally take health care, but for that small group who'd be willing to say, "I'll live without health care for a short bit, save my money and buy a ferrari." they have that right, and that is a personal financial decision they should be able to make.
A Ferrari is a luxury item, health care is a basic need, not really comparable.
In the UK I guess you could theoretically somehow forfeit your use of the NHS and pay a negligibly small amount of tax less than you normally would and save up for years and years and buy yourself a Ferrari but that would be totally retarded. I guess in the US the amount of money you have to pay on insurance is so large that you'd have loads of extra money to buy your Ferrari much more quickly when forfeiting your health care.
+ Show Spoiler [Why the US needs to change their healt…] +
On November 07 2010 04:34 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 03:48 oN_Silva wrote:On November 07 2010 02:49 thehitman wrote:
US is probably the most corrupt country in the world and now their mess is catching up to them.
9/11 I'm convinced was actually an inside government job and it was all for money and oil, Iran problem is again created by the US itself and now they can't get out of it.
Al Kaeda I'm convinced is actually helped by the US itself to have all these reasons to control oil flow from the Arab countries.
... most corrupt country lol ?! 50% of the european states are more corrupt and 100% of africa^^ (italy france etc pretty much mroe corrupt than usa) Yes, it is. Does say Spain go out kill the current president of country A, place their own man for a president of country A, after some time he rejects US orders and now they want to go in war with country A? Does Netherlands kill 3000 of its own people and destroy its own buildings to go for oil? Get real.
No and neither does the US. The US is among the most corrupt of Western nations but it's got nothing on every country in Africa, Russia, the majority of Asia and pretty much all of Latin America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9592/1266900869189.jpg)
