|
On December 12 2011 14:43 ryanAnger wrote:
Thing about democracy is this: Majority rules. By being a US citizen, you sign an imaginary contract that says you understand and respect the wishes of the majority, for the majority, by the majority. If at any time in your adult life you decide that things aren't exactly the way you want, you can vote and volunteer to try to change things, you can go into politics yourself to try to get more influence, or you can leave.
It's that simple.
Nope. we're not a pure democracy, we're barely a democracy even.
Until there has been an ammendment in the constitution it doesn't matter how big a majority wants something, if the consitution doesn't allow the federal government to enforce this, then it has no right to be enforced by the federal government PERIOD.
EDIT: At guy above me: Some basic rights of a US citizen are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. You might be familiar with that phrase if you have ever attended a first or second grade History/Gov't class. Logically speaking, you can't just give people "Life" but you can do the things necessary to ensure that they live. Things like public services (law enforcement, fire dept, etc.) and things like healthcare. Sooner or later, disease and the like catch up with all of us. Healthcare does the best it can to ensure that we live despite it.
I'm not against healthcare... I am for quality healthcare, and that's why I'm against government mandates that provide healthcare, because the people have less bargaining power with the government than they do with private companies. And since the government has a monopoly on force, no one can out-compete the government in a certain industry if it uses its force to monopolize that industry as well.
That's why the constitution provides boundaries for the government, and they are boundaries that should not be taken lightly.
Also, on your whole slavery thing. Sure, I'll cede that we are all slaves to each other. But that's fine. As long as it means that the majority is better off.
once again... nope, you're wrong.
Selfishness is not the reason the human species is still around. In every part of history that we, as a species, were faced with something that could potentially destroy us all, our ability to work together, for the greater good, is what saved us.
Selfishness is a very vague concept. What allows to survive is cost-benefit analysis, and that's why free market is MOST key in things that are of high necessesity LIKE food, healthcare, and etc. Because the government is more than likely to fuck up, and if the government runs these things there are no alternatives for when it does fuck up.
|
A gay veteran lit into GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Monday, challenging the former Massachusetts governor on his views on same-sex marriage.
Romney approached Bob Garon, a gay man seated with his husband at the Chez Vachon restaurant, taking note of the man's Vietnam Veteran hat.
"Vietnam veteran!" Romney said, taking a seat at the couple's booth, according to the Washington Post.
Garon, a self-avowed independent voter, quickly launched into a question about New Hampshire's gay marriage law, asking Romney if he supported recent stirrings by GOP presidential candidates about repealing the legislation, which allows same-sex couples to get married.
"I support the repeal of the New Hampshire law," Romney responded. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's my view."
"It's good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights," Garon shot back.
"No, actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman," Romney replied. "And I don't believe the Supreme Court has changed that."
Source
|
On December 13 2011 07:43 Kiarip wrote:
I'm not against healthcare... I am for quality healthcare, and that's why I'm against government mandates that provide healthcare, because the people have less bargaining power with the government than they do with private companies. And since the government has a monopoly on force, no one can out-compete the government in a certain industry if it uses its force to monopolize that industry as well.
As a Canadian with publicly funded Health Care, I can honestly say that I have far more bargaining power than you do, primarily because it's one of the few things in politics that can destroy you come election time.
Against a private insurance company, they can basically stone-wall you until you capitulate, or until you gather the funds and the time to take them to court (in which case, most people will simply pay their hospital bills). Against a private hospital, it's basically the same thing...they can shut down all your complaints until you take them to court.
With publicly funded health care, any unfairness can be taken directly to the media, which will hurt the leading party in the polls.
|
I'm not against healthcare... I am for quality healthcare, and that's why I'm against government mandates that provide healthcare, because the people have less bargaining power with the government than they do with private companies. And since the government has a monopoly on force, no one can out-compete the government in a certain industry if it uses its force to monopolize that industry as well.
Thats true... If your Bill Gates or some other obsenely rich person -.-... "Bargaining" power against Hospitals and Health Insurance companies? In what dreamworld do you live?
|
On December 13 2011 16:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 07:43 Kiarip wrote:
I'm not against healthcare... I am for quality healthcare, and that's why I'm against government mandates that provide healthcare, because the people have less bargaining power with the government than they do with private companies. And since the government has a monopoly on force, no one can out-compete the government in a certain industry if it uses its force to monopolize that industry as well. As a Canadian with publicly funded Health Care, I can honestly say that I have far more bargaining power than you do, primarily because it's one of the few things in politics that can destroy you come election time. Against a private insurance company, they can basically stone-wall you until you capitulate, or until you gather the funds and the time to take them to court (in which case, most people will simply pay their hospital bills). Against a private hospital, it's basically the same thing...they can shut down all your complaints until you take them to court. With publicly funded health care, any unfairness can be taken directly to the media, which will hurt the leading party in the polls. Nonsense. Issues with insurance are no different than having poor customer service at walmart. You dont like it, you complain and move on. Obviously the stakes are higher, but so the are the stakes for the insurance companies who use duplicitous practices. The problem is that America has arbitrary restrictions on insurance companies crossing state lines, so you have ineffective and corrupt monoplies form.
I'm Canadian too, and our healthcare system is in shambles, which everyone knows, and in complete contrast to your lie, no one randomly runs to the news and launches a scathing attack that cripples the Government in power. In fact thats never happened, despite the fact that 5000 canadians die yearly from hospital contracted diseases, despite the fact that weight times are often months long for basic surgery and easily eight hours long [at least where i am] for really any visit.
The most we get are ineffective platitudes that the Government will "fix it", yet I can sincerely think of nothing a Government has ever done well, ever. So...well, bullshit on that.
|
Allright, I rarely ever wade into these kinds of debates (because internet debates are totally important and meaningful ways to change policy), but posts like the ones above me just infuriate me.
I am sorry, but as a Canadian, I have to defend our healthcare system. I've had a lot of shit wrong with me in my lifetime (needed tubes in ears as baby, had tonselitis, appendix, numerous other small problems), and I have never, ever, not even once, had to complain about our healthcare system. My family has had loads of medical issues (mother is a survivor of breast cancer (twice), my grandmother had a hole in her heart that got repaired and appendicitis, my grandfather has a pig aorta, my aunt had numerous difficult pregnancies, my father got an insanely bad bacterial infection, my boss' kid had crazy health problems, he's even told me that if he lived in the states he would have lost his house), and we have always been seen to in a reasonable amount of time and recieved quality care from our healthcare professionals.
As far as I am concerned, we have fantastic healthcare. It's total and complete bullshit that our healthcare system is in shambles. Not "everyone" knows it. It's just something that the media likes to bring up and complainers like to bitch about. Sure, there are some things that can probably be improved (i.e. hip replacemeent surgeries for elderly, non-life threatening care). It took me a little under two years, for example, to see a specialist about my deviated septum (got that boxing with a friend). But guess what? It's a deviated septum! Who gives a shit? I'm fully capable of living with that for a year or two to have it fixed up for free. On anything else that matters or will have a significant impact on lifestyle, my friends and family have always been seen to efficiently and effectively.
And this whole eight hours long thing that everyone keeps throwing out. What a bunch of bullshit. I have never experienced anything like that, the worst I had was when I got stung by a hornet in my hand and got infected like three days later, my hand swewlled up like a doctor's glove. It sucked pretty bad, and it took me like four or five hours to see a doctor, but guess what? It's a frickin' hand infection. They wheeled in a dude who had bandages and blood all over his head while I was waiting, and you know what? I'm okay with waiting a few hours while that dude gets seen. He needs it much more. That's the point of an emergency room. You deal with problems on a needs basis. If you go with an infection or a basic illness like the flu or bronchitis (which can get severe, I know), then yeah, you'll be bumped behind people who've experienced real and significant trauma to their bodies. What the fuck do people expect?
Haters gotta hate, tho. There's always something to complain about, despite getting some of the best healthcare in the world....
So, for those who don't wanna read personal anecdotes, the tldr: Canada's healthcare system is awesome, people need to stop bitching, and it's a myth that it's "in shambles", it works pretty fucking good. I would so much rather have our system than the what's in the U.S.
|
On December 13 2011 17:41 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 16:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On December 13 2011 07:43 Kiarip wrote:
I'm not against healthcare... I am for quality healthcare, and that's why I'm against government mandates that provide healthcare, because the people have less bargaining power with the government than they do with private companies. And since the government has a monopoly on force, no one can out-compete the government in a certain industry if it uses its force to monopolize that industry as well. As a Canadian with publicly funded Health Care, I can honestly say that I have far more bargaining power than you do, primarily because it's one of the few things in politics that can destroy you come election time. Against a private insurance company, they can basically stone-wall you until you capitulate, or until you gather the funds and the time to take them to court (in which case, most people will simply pay their hospital bills). Against a private hospital, it's basically the same thing...they can shut down all your complaints until you take them to court. With publicly funded health care, any unfairness can be taken directly to the media, which will hurt the leading party in the polls. Nonsense. Issues with insurance are no different than having poor customer service at walmart. You dont like it, you complain and move on. Obviously the stakes are higher, but so the are the stakes for the insurance companies who use duplicitous practices. The problem is that America has arbitrary restrictions on insurance companies crossing state lines, so you have ineffective and corrupt monoplies form. I'm Canadian too, and our healthcare system is in shambles, which everyone knows, and in complete contrast to your lie, no one randomly runs to the news and launches a scathing attack that cripples the Government in power. In fact thats never happened, despite the fact that 5000 canadians die yearly from hospital contracted diseases, despite the fact that weight times are often months long for basic surgery and easily eight hours long [at least where i am] for really any visit. The most we get are ineffective platitudes that the Government will "fix it", yet I can sincerely think of nothing a Government has ever done well, ever. So...well, bullshit on that.
I'm a Canadian too. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Our health care system is in shambles? Why was my dad able to receive testicular cancer surgery, why was I able to receive ACL surgery, and why was my brother able to receive a nose surgery. Unless you've redefined words in the English language, I fail to see how it's in shambles.
|
On December 13 2011 16:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 07:43 Kiarip wrote:
I'm not against healthcare... I am for quality healthcare, and that's why I'm against government mandates that provide healthcare, because the people have less bargaining power with the government than they do with private companies. And since the government has a monopoly on force, no one can out-compete the government in a certain industry if it uses its force to monopolize that industry as well. As a Canadian with publicly funded Health Care, I can honestly say that I have far more bargaining power than you do, primarily because it's one of the few things in politics that can destroy you come election time. Against a private insurance company, they can basically stone-wall you until you capitulate, or until you gather the funds and the time to take them to court (in which case, most people will simply pay their hospital bills). Against a private hospital, it's basically the same thing...they can shut down all your complaints until you take them to court. With publicly funded health care, any unfairness can be taken directly to the media, which will hurt the leading party in the polls.
Nope you don't. I can chose between healthcare providers, different plans, different coverages, I can fill out different types of forms or go through different types of tests to check my overall health that will influence my rates and etc.
LOL at going to the media... and what bargaining power do you have with the media compared to the bargaining power the government has with the media? The government has more money to offer, and can promise subisidies, you can't, you can only offer a "good story."
What's more is that you can go to the media to expose unfairness in private healthcare as well and it will hurt their business TREMENDOUSLY, because unlike with the government you're not MANDATED to buy their service so they'll lose money. The government can promise one thing, and once they're elected do something completely different.
|
To be fair what is he was trying to say was that the government is supposed to responsible to the people whilst coporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist for different purposes. One is to reflect the will of society whilst the other is to make a profit.
In something like health care the objectives of the company are not likely to align with those of the population. I am not saying that a consumer has power in either situation. That's the problem with democracy, it doesn't exist. However the corporation is most certainly not working in the consumer's favour, whilst in some cases the government can.
|
IMO the American vs Canadian healthcare debate always comes down to priorities. America uses a top down approach. If you have the resources then there is literally no crazy ass experimental procedure you cant get here IMMEDIATELY but there is very little focus on preventative care. Most socialized programs have tremendous focus on preventative (bottom-up) care which accounts for their longer life expectancy and/or qualities of life but there will of course be tons of bad PR "rationing" stories in extreme situations. The fact that a thousand little Timmy's don't get their yearly physicals is a less compelling story than some foreign billionare having to come to America for heart or brain surgery.
In the end, fierce independence will always be a loud voice in American politics, no matter how much evidence suggests that giving a little is better (just look at the anti-vaccination crowd).
|
|
|
On December 14 2011 11:20 Probulous wrote:
To be fair what is he was trying to say was that the government is supposed to responsible to the people whilst coporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist for different purposes. One is to reflect the will of society whilst the other is to make a profit.
In something like health care the objectives of the company are not likely to align with those of the population. I am not saying that a consumer has power in either situation. That's the problem with democracy, it doesn't exist. However the corporation is most certainly not working in the consumer's favour, whilst in some cases the government can.
but businesses still COMPETE for their customer-base. Shareholders are appeased through rise in profits and profits can only rise through out-competing the competitors.
|
On December 14 2011 11:23 Velocirapture wrote:
IMO the American vs Canadian healthcare debate always comes down to priorities. America uses a top down approach. If you have the resources then there is literally no crazy ass experimental procedure you cant get here IMMEDIATELY but there is very little focus on preventative care. Most socialized programs have tremendous focus on preventative (bottom-up) care which accounts for their longer life expectancy and/or qualities of life but there will of course be tons of bad PR "rationing" stories in extreme situations. The fact that a thousand little Timmy's don't get their yearly physicals is a less compelling story than some foreign billionare having to come to America for heart or brain surgery.
In the end, fierce independence will always be a loud voice in American politics, no matter how much evidence suggests that giving a little is better (just look at the anti-vaccination crowd).
Whilst this is sonewhat true, I have to giggle at the bolded bit. If people are under the illusion that there is no rationing in private healthcare they are sorely mistaken. The difference is that it is the insurance companies and private hospitals that are deciding on what gets rationed, not the government. In addition, in a public system, you can still purchase private health care. It just costs more than in a completely private system.
|
On December 14 2011 11:33 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 11:20 Probulous wrote:
To be fair what is he was trying to say was that the government is supposed to responsible to the people whilst coporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist for different purposes. One is to reflect the will of society whilst the other is to make a profit.
In something like health care the objectives of the company are not likely to align with those of the population. I am not saying that a consumer has power in either situation. That's the problem with democracy, it doesn't exist. However the corporation is most certainly not working in the consumer's favour, whilst in some cases the government can. but businesses still COMPETE for their customer-base. Shareholders are appeased through rise in profits and profits can only rise through out-competing the competitors.
Or, you know, through cheating the customers and denying care to neutral, risky or negative profit cases.
|
On December 14 2011 11:33 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 11:20 Probulous wrote:
To be fair what is he was trying to say was that the government is supposed to responsible to the people whilst coporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist for different purposes. One is to reflect the will of society whilst the other is to make a profit.
In something like health care the objectives of the company are not likely to align with those of the population. I am not saying that a consumer has power in either situation. That's the problem with democracy, it doesn't exist. However the corporation is most certainly not working in the consumer's favour, whilst in some cases the government can. but businesses still COMPETE for their customer-base. Shareholders are appeased through rise in profits and profits can only rise through out-competing the competitors.
But then this becomes a debate about competition as a method for controlling health expenditure. Is the healthcare industry competitive? Big call if you ask me. Health providers have a huge information advantage over patients, they have actuaries who can provide far more accurate predictions of health expenditure than your average citizen. How do you know if you are paying too much for your insurance? This is just one example of information assymtery that is rife in this environment. At least with a single payer system you can dedicated experts evaluate whether a treatment provies value for money.
Sorry no, share holders can gain above normal profits byt methods other than out-competing, collusion is one such example. Bare in mind most treatments have few if any competitors, so monopoly is also a problem. The whole model assumes that the industry is competitive, I have a big problem with that.
Anyway, this has been covered in this thread before, perhaps we should get back on topic.
|
On December 14 2011 11:40 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 11:33 Kiarip wrote:On December 14 2011 11:20 Probulous wrote:
To be fair what is he was trying to say was that the government is supposed to responsible to the people whilst coporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist for different purposes. One is to reflect the will of society whilst the other is to make a profit.
In something like health care the objectives of the company are not likely to align with those of the population. I am not saying that a consumer has power in either situation. That's the problem with democracy, it doesn't exist. However the corporation is most certainly not working in the consumer's favour, whilst in some cases the government can. but businesses still COMPETE for their customer-base. Shareholders are appeased through rise in profits and profits can only rise through out-competing the competitors. But then this becomes a debate about competition as a method for controlling health expenditure. Is the healthcare industry competitive? Big call if you ask me. Health providers have a huge information advantage over patients, they have actuaries who can provide far more accurate predictions of health expenditure than your average citizen. How do you know if you are paying too much for your insurance? This is just one example of information assymtery that is rife in this environment. At least with a single payer system you can dedicated experts evaluate whether a treatment provies value for money. Sorry no, share holders can gain above normal profits byt methods other than out-competing, collusion is one such example. Bare in mind most treatments have few if any competitors, so monopoly is also a problem. The whole model assumes that the industry is competitive, I have a big problem with that. Anyway, this has been covered in this thread before, perhaps we should get back on topic.
because if they're charging you too much a different company can make a HUGE profit by charging just a tiny bit less...
During free market competition marginal profit is minimized, this is like economics 101.
Also, collusion costs money, and no monopoly or trust has ever survived without being propped up by the government so..
Or, you know, through cheating the customers and denying care to neutral, risky or negative profit cases.
That's fraud then, and they get the shit sued out of them along with a ton of bad publicity.
|
Canada11373 Posts
On December 14 2011 11:33 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 11:20 Probulous wrote:
To be fair what is he was trying to say was that the government is supposed to responsible to the people whilst coporations are responsible to their shareholders. They exist for different purposes. One is to reflect the will of society whilst the other is to make a profit.
In something like health care the objectives of the company are not likely to align with those of the population. I am not saying that a consumer has power in either situation. That's the problem with democracy, it doesn't exist. However the corporation is most certainly not working in the consumer's favour, whilst in some cases the government can. but businesses still COMPETE for their customer-base. Shareholders are appeased through rise in profits and profits can only rise through out-competing the competitors.
And the way they compete is by giving minimum care at the lowest price possible. In addition they tell their workers they are not employees, but contractors until their bluff is called when the nurse regulating body comes to check up on the details of contracting (much more rigorous). Then suddenly you were an employee all along despite all that crap they fed you before to avoid paying for transportation costs between clients and a variety of other corners they were cutting to get around labour laws. (They didn't have to pay, because you were supposedly a contractor.) In the mean time they try and over-work you without paying any form of overtime, try and guilt trip you into take the most ridiculous shifts with the most amount of commuting between cities and the list goes on.
In theory such a crap company like that would lose to a better company, but in practice the company can drive their employees to quit and there isn't a better company waiting in the wings. There is a place for private companies, but there can be some real losers running some of those those companies like in-home care. And while competition can create better products for the least price, I'm not convinced it is necessarily so. Public spending is generally wasteful, but private spending tends to cut way to many corners. If not in cutting into customer satisfaction then the corners are cut at the expense of employee.
I see problems with both methods. As such, I see value in a mixed solution of public-private, but I don't think I would support an either/or solution.
|
Really america? Really?
I looked at the profiles of these candidates, and I can't believe they are taken seriously. Not even from a political standpoint, but a human standpoint.
|
I'm going to miss Herman Cain. Any many that quotes the Pokemon Movie 2000 on a serious political podium is, in my opinion, a perfect representative of the republican party.
It's too bad that Ron Paul is completely ignored by the media. He's far and away the only republican that has more than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama.
That said, I'm sick and tired of political parties. George Washington himself warned us of the dangers of partisan politics in his farewell speech. Partisanship is human nature, and it is the cause for all of our problems these days. Laws have been passed due to popular vote simply because the law was attached to the right party, not because of any merit it may contain. I've historically voted Democrat, but since GWB all the way through Obama, I've taken the stance of non-voting. I don't consider either party worthy of my vote nowadays.
On December 14 2011 12:09 Tomazi wrote:
Really america? Really?
I looked at the profiles of these candidates, and I can't believe they are taken seriously. Not even from a political standpoint, but a human standpoint.
Exactly. I'm an American, I think the Democrats couldn't find their ass even if they were given two hands and a special "Ass map," and the current choices for the republican party are just so sickening that I can't help but raise an eyebrow and wonder what kind of human being would support such disgusting ideals?
These people are just chameleons and puppets of the party agenda.
|
On December 14 2011 12:10 Honeybadger wrote:
I'm going to miss Herman Cain. Any many that quotes the Pokemon Movie 2000 on a serious political podium is, in my opinion, a perfect representative of the republican party.
It's too bad that Ron Paul is completely ignored by the media. He's far and away the only republican that has more than a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama.
That said, I'm sick and tired of political parties. George Washington himself warned us of the dangers of partisan politics in his farewell speech. Partisanship is human nature, and it is the cause for all of our problems these days. Laws have been passed due to popular vote simply because the law was attached to the right party, not because of any merit it may contain. I've historically voted Democrat, but since GWB all the way through Obama, I've taken the stance of non-voting. I don't consider either party worthy of my vote nowadays.
Blame the Democrat party. They formed one first in order to maintain slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
