|
So glad I live in a country where I don't need to abuse the fuck out of the system to get treated for my illnesses.
get free medical from welfare
he isnt abusing the system, he is doing the same thing that people without enough money to pay do in european countries. you're paying for people "abusing" the system the same way he does. they dont pay taxes, he doesnt pay insurance premiums.
It's funny because the people,civilians,the military ends up saving in one part of the world,it make up for it by killing double the amount in another part.
Look up the civilian casualties that the recent wars have caused.It's not pretty.
the civilian casualties of all the US wars from the last 15 years are far less than double the amount saved, its ridiculous
youre comparing maybe 250,000 people killed in the wars most of them killed by terrorists not the US, and the tens of thousands every year that would die if we werent feeding and healing them
along with everyone else too, i dont want to put the US up to the result of putting everyone else down, every life we all save is worth it
and i feel like im being conservative on the tens of thousands, but i dont want to exaggerate
|
On June 22 2011 04:41 gwaihir wrote:
you are slaves of the big companies and banks. nobody gives a shit about you getting healthcare!
they only thing they give a shit about is money and power
Posts like these always entertain me. Especially considering well... German political development over the past 200 years. I guess the argument is that the state is driving the corporations rather than the other way around.
|
On June 22 2011 05:05 nakedsurfer wrote:
So to get this straight....In United States, if you commit a crime and go to jail for it then you get free(or atleast cheaper?) healthcare but the people who actually contribute to society but don't have insurance pay a shit load for healthcare?
pretty much. unfortunately, it seems like if I understand some politicians logic they might look at this and say "hey, guess we better stop giving healthcare to people in jail!" or something equally stupid.
|
China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no.
If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that. As it is, China has a huge GDP but it also has a "huger" population. So it is still quite a poor country.
|
On June 22 2011 06:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare. i gave my reasoning for it, go read it and agree or disagree or stop badgering im pretty sure russias healthcare is shitty too, so, uh, right
Do you care whether you are correct or not?
|
When healthcare becomes business you get this
Bad side of capitalism, "shrug", I hope the man got better and that he wont have to do something like that again to get treatment, people deserve better
|
On June 22 2011 06:53 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no. If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that.
No it wouldn't. GDP is a flawed system based only on production.
Soviet Russia had a ginormous GDP, but that didn't mean they were living well, that just meant they made a fuckton of tanks -.-'
|
On June 22 2011 06:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +What's so funny about this that my original comment about Fox News was directed (with quote included) to the guy who said arguing with a socialist is like arguing with a woman. Then you responded to it and we've been corresponding since then. So yes, I do feel the need to caricature someone who would insult women for no reason in the same breath as insulting socialists. However, you caricatured yourself by responding to my comment about Fox News assuming I was talking to you if i dont think what you said to someone was fair i think i can say so, and also, i mentioned the caricaturing after you directed it at me, not just for directing it at him so, i guess, youre wrong and i didnt caricature myself? im pretty sure even if i did what you said it wouldnt have been caricaturing myself... also if you reference fox news as a way to associate people with sexism, do you think im sexist too?
Which part wasn't fair? The guy made a degrading comment toward the intelligence of women... and even got banned for it. I think I was pretty "fair" considering what I could have said about it.
What I'm about to say next, I'm not sure I know how to say in a way that you'll understand, but I'll do my best.
I wasn't referencing Fox News as a way to associate someone with sexism. I referenced Fox News because the guy was throwing around the word "Socialist" exactly like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly do. Because he made a statement that was so ignorant, he got banned for it... it makes me think that he probably watches Fox News. I am fully aware that I have a total caricature in my mind for someone who watches Fox News. I'm totally comfortable with that. The caricature in my head is unfortunately scarily accurate.
|
Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
|
On June 22 2011 06:20 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out. who cares if we have more? the people who were saved dont care that per capita or whatever country X gave more. they care about tons of food brought in, doses of medicine, the raw numbers of what is available vs. what is needed. all that per capita superiority wouldnt help one bit if the US just said "eh, no more" tomorrow and backed it up. the large bulk of us military spending is maintaining the capability to deliver lots of stuff to pretty much anywhere in the world pretty damn fast, it doesnt matter if we only use it sometimes, when needed, for humanitarian aid if we didnt spend the money to maintain the capability, we couldnt bring to bear enough capability fast enough to make the kind of difference we can so i disagree with your assertions here Show nested quote +When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
youre changing the subject i dont know if you're talking about humanitarian spending military spending or total US spending the US's troubles with katrina have what relevance here exactly, except to point to one of the few examples where the US humanitarian response was less than stellar? and i hardly consider barely over a thousand people dying to be some kind of horrible indictment on the us, as tragic as it was that many of those people did die needlessly Show nested quote +My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close. So, would a more free market hurt or not? You say it's an illusion to think that more free market is good, but then say we don't have one, not even close. So... uh... didn't you contradict yourself? If we're not even close, and what we have is shitty, aren't we then closer to the end of the spectrum? I didn't think you were saying socialism is shitty, but... anyway this other point as you call it is kind of incoherent anyway. Well since you've quite craftily missed everything. I'm not talking about what is good or what isn't. I'm saying that so many people believe this is a classically capitalistic/free-market economy when it is MUCH MUCH less than that. You just engineered all of these things i've "said" because thats where see a contradiction.
The US has the worst humanitarian responses to its own country in the entire civilized world.
|
On June 22 2011 06:54 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:53 domovoi wrote:China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no. If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that. No it wouldn't. GDP is a flawed system based only on production. Soviet Russia had a ginormous GDP, but that didn't mean they were living well, that just meant they made a fuckton of tanks -.-'
China isn't a command economy like the USSR (and their GDP numbers were most likely gamed), so the GDP per capita numbers would be a pretty good indication of quality of life, just as it is for pretty much every other non-oil country.
Also, income is part of GDP, as labor is what you pay for when you produce stuff.
How did we get on this topic anyway...
|
Do you care whether you are correct or not?
i am making what i think is a pretty commonsense argument
spread out larger population means a need for more hospitals, equipment, staff, etc
many places are not large enough to have the wealth base to make paying for all this operate in the black. not enough people around have insurance because there arent enough people around period, but they still need the hospital. and, smaller and more geographically more isolated towns tend to have lower incomes overall, so less people can afford health insurance too.
so the costs are passed to insurance companies which pass them to consumers of their health insurance plans.
nationalized healthcare doesn't solve this, it just adds to the costs by insuring more; broadening the base of people who have to pay for it through taxes wont fix the basic cost problems, one of which i have described above
i do care whether im correct or not but you seem not very interested in trying to find out
Well since you've quite craftily missed everything. I'm not talking about what is good or what isn't. I'm saying that so many people believe this is a classically capitalistic/free-market economy when it is MUCH MUCH less than that. You just engineered all of these things i've "said" because thats where see a contradiction.
I will say that the system is closer to crony-capitalism than real capitalism. Crony-capitalism is just as bad as socialism.
I didn't engineer anything you said, you contradicted yourself. You said:
1. Belief in free-market being better is an illusion.
2. We are FAR from a free-market system.
3. The current system is bad.
So, the conclusion should be...? Well there is none because 1 contradicts 2 and 3.
The US has the worst humanitarian responses to its own country in the entire civilized world.
i get the feeling that the differences are more likely than not inconsequential
for example, i could point to all those people dying in france in 2003 some of them because their younger relatives go on vacation and the air conditioning isnt on or they dont have any and regardless of the cause so many people died of heat exhaustion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
isnt that a pretty bad humanitarian response from a country towards itself for a civilized country?
you can provide your evidence of how the US is the worst (no, we arent, and the distinction is meaningless for whatever country has it, and i dont know which country that is) now k?
|
On June 22 2011 06:58 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:54 Euronyme wrote:On June 22 2011 06:53 domovoi wrote:China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no. If China's GDP/capita were as high as Sweden's, then it would pretty much mean that. No it wouldn't. GDP is a flawed system based only on production. Soviet Russia had a ginormous GDP, but that didn't mean they were living well, that just meant they made a fuckton of tanks -.-' China isn't a command economy like the USSR (and their GDP numbers were most likely gamed), so the GDP per capita numbers would be a pretty good indication of quality of life, just as it is for pretty much every other non-oil country.How did we get on this topic anyway...
The investment banker with no sence of worth in human life said that every European country has a worse debt / gdp than USA, which isn't true, and even if it was, we have less of a military producing a fuckton of useless GDP.
Making humvees contributes to the GDP, but not to the quality of living.
|
On June 22 2011 06:46 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:29 Yang Wenli wrote:On June 22 2011 06:18 jello_biafra wrote:On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote:
There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare. The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures. On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote:
I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all. Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided... I'm not pulling random figures out of my ass, go research each European country public debt in comparison to their GDP and the tax rates. You'll find it is much higher than the United States and that the fact taxes alone cannot finance the social programs. Also just because it has worked for over 60 years does not mean it will continue to function as it is in the future. Cuts will have to be made or more funding to be secured. Take at look at Social Security in the United States, been here for ever 70+ years, yet there will not be enough money to give beneficiaries the full amount in the future. Uh yeah. GDP isn't the same as income you know. GDP is the production of a country. The US has a huge military production that doesn't yield an income, and is only a huge cash sink for instance, whereas other countries have more refined GDP that actually makes something. Compare IKEA to the US defense department. Guess what gives more tax money. China has a HUGE GDP compared to the scandinavian countries for instance. Does that mean that the living standard in China is better? Heeell no. Sweden has 42% of its GDP in debt, whereas the US has over 90%, and is estimeted 2012 to be around 110%, so your logic is still flawed.
Was I arguing whether or not the living standard was better? I don't think so, I'm merely arguing the fact that healthcare, in addition to social programs that EU countries are not sustainable for future levels. I do concede that I got the U.S GDP debt figure wrong as I did not take into account state and intra level of debt.
|
On June 22 2011 04:30 Cr4zyH0r5e wrote:
I think the whole situation is pretty sad. When you'd rather be in jail than try to deal with bureaucracy and government the 'conventional way', you know action is needed.
[/spoiler][/QUOTE]
America. Just like Monopoly..
|
If it came down to it, I would do a crime to get treatment.
It's not that great in Canada right now. If you don't have a GP (and it's very hard to get one) you have to pay out of pocket for a private doctor. You also have to pay for your medication, which can be very expensive. It covers a very limited amount of things, whenever I get testing I pay out of pocket. When my brother was in hospital it was costing us 1k a day, luckily he had his first nations band cover the cost.
|
GOOD!
Althought I'm surprised he didn't get shot in the bank by 10 officiers claiming he was hiding a lethal weapon. (only in Miami)
Straight up. This is just Americanism.
+ Show Spoiler +Fuck the monopoly over healthcare. I will have none of it.
Fuck a country that bleeds people dead. Stuffs people into giant grotesque walking heart attacks.
|
Maybe healthcare shouldn't be allowed to be capitalist. It doesn't work. Paying doctors and surgeons and nurses for their time is very important, they spent thousands and thousands for the training to get there and they worked themselves into a long term industry but maybe the large conglomerates shouldn't be allowed to rape the market they control.
This isn't nice cars or phones, this is human health. It should be a right of every world citizen to receive care.
Governments need to protect and serve the needs of the people otherwise they all will crumble into irrelevance. This isn't 1776 anymore, the founding fathers are relics of a world without relevance. We need governments built for the world we live in now, not slave owners, racists and ancient thinking. We can do better. We can have a more perfect union.
We need a new constitution. We need a new federal system.
Those big conglomerates all lined behind Obamacare, something to think about.
It's nice to know political liberty and the pursuit of happiness are relics of an ancient racist slave-owning world without relevance.
you dont know that this country is about people ruling themselves in a way they all get together and choose to be ruled, i guess.
Fuck the monopoly over healthcare. I will have none of it.
Fuck a country that bleeds people dead. Stuffs people into giant grotesque walking heart attacks.
...you do know the biggest providers of health insurance in this country after employers are the state and federal governments, right?
|
On June 22 2011 06:11 Toadesstern wrote:
hell yeah, theres a multitude of different countries in europe. countries like germany, having something about 80 mil people and also countries that are fucking huge compared to their population (don't know, something like sweden for example?) and pretty much everything in between
///Edit: And every country got its healthcaresystem, no matter how small, big, poor or rich///
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding?
It's simply a question of will. Theres a lot of people in this thread who don't want to pay a little more, to secure everyone in your country (talking about healthcare). Well it's your decision. I feel pretty good knowing, that I will at least always get medical treatment for free (as in "don't have to pay the moment I arrive, but indirect via taxes"), no matter what kind of accident may happen / no matter If I got the money to pay taxes AT ALL.
No dude, it's not our decision, we have fuck all say in it.
|
On June 22 2011 07:02 Euronyme wrote:
The investment banker with no sence of worth in human life said that every European country has a worse debt / gdp than USA, which isn't true, and even if it was, we have less of a military producing a fuckton of useless GDP.
Making humvees contributes to the GDP, but not to the quality of living.
Well someone still needs to be paid to make them. That increases that person's quality of living for sure. Not to say that there aren't better uses of the money, but it's wrong to say it's "useless" GDP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
