|
|
On September 06 2012 07:01 Troxle wrote:
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
|
On September 06 2012 06:54 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 06:52 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 06:47 ImAbstracT wrote:On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote:
Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that? They all have never been anything but capitalist. Just state controlled capitalism, even like the USSR was. Wow. I suppose if you strip words of their meanings you can make them do anything. Capitalism-An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Socialism-any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union
The economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning. The economy was characterised by state control of investment, public ownership of industrial assets, and during the last 20 years of its existence, pervasive corruption and socioeconomic stagnation.
So capitalism is like the one drop and "public ownership of industrial assets" is enough for the DQ?
I'll try to remember to call them the USCR from now on, though people don't talk about them very much any more.
|
Bill Clinton will speak tonight at the DNC. As a right wing person I have to reluctantly admit that I admire Bill Clinton. Not because I agree with his principles, but because I think he was a pragmatist who tried to get the job done, rather than do things for ideological reasons. I feel that both Bush and Obama were driven by ideological agendas, more than by practicalities. As a result, although both have some partisan accomplishments, both have ultimately been a bit disappointing to normal people.
Anyway, here are some exerpts from Clinton's upcoming speech. I think he makes the case for Obama's re-election better than Obama himself has up til now:
“In Tampa the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn’t finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in.” [I don't agree with this but I can't help laughing anyway]
“I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
“The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in? If you want a you’re-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility — a we’re-all-in-this-together society — you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/05/clinton-what-kind-of-country-do-you-want-to-live-in/?print=1
|
On September 06 2012 07:32 ziggurat wrote:Bill Clinton will speak tonight at the DNC. As a right wing person I have to reluctantly admit that I admire Bill Clinton. Not because I agree with his principles, but because I think he was a pragmatist who tried to get the job done, rather than do things for ideological reasons. I feel that both Bush and Obama were driven by ideological agendas, more than by practicalities. As a result, although both have some partisan accomplishments, both have ultimately been a bit disappointing to normal people. Anyway, here are some exerpts from Clinton's upcoming speech. I think he makes the case for Obama's re-election better than Obama himself has up til now: “In Tampa the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn’t finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in.” [I don't agree with this but I can't help laughing anyway] “I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators. “The most important question is, what kind of country do you want to live in? If you want a you’re-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility — a we’re-all-in-this-together society — you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/05/clinton-what-kind-of-country-do-you-want-to-live-in/?print=1
I'm going to a Beirut concert tonight, and will be watching every minute of Clinton's speech on my iPhone. Nothing will stop me from delighting in Bill's speaking. As for Obama being an ideologue, ehh, I'm not so sure he fits neatly into such a category.
|
On September 06 2012 07:13 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 07:13 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 07:02 Souma wrote:On September 06 2012 06:51 Praetorial wrote:On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote:
Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that? ...Japan has been a capitalist society since for 70 years. Singapore has been capitalist for so long that many wealthy capitalists go there once they become "big", as it's much more comfortable for businesses there since the government takes care of the businesses that work from there due to socialized spending. And not really. I don't particularly recall conservatives getting out in the street and marching to the tune of "We hate the PATRIOT Act", despite that being ever more worthy of "big government" criticism. Or the NDAA, for that matter. Japan has been a capitalist society but their government was highly, highly involved in business and trade, obstructing free-market trade for the better part of those 70 years. It's less regulated now (as they were pressured by the U.S. into relaxing government regulation) but the reason for their economic miracle was because the government had such a large role shaping the economy/business. In spite of, not because. But hey, if Obama gets re-elected maybe America can get our own Lost Decade. There you go posting your unsubstantiated claims.
Why should I do more work than the person I was responding to?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 06 2012 07:40 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 07:13 Souma wrote:On September 06 2012 07:13 dvorakftw wrote:On September 06 2012 07:02 Souma wrote:On September 06 2012 06:51 Praetorial wrote:On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote:
Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that? ...Japan has been a capitalist society since for 70 years. Singapore has been capitalist for so long that many wealthy capitalists go there once they become "big", as it's much more comfortable for businesses there since the government takes care of the businesses that work from there due to socialized spending. And not really. I don't particularly recall conservatives getting out in the street and marching to the tune of "We hate the PATRIOT Act", despite that being ever more worthy of "big government" criticism. Or the NDAA, for that matter. Japan has been a capitalist society but their government was highly, highly involved in business and trade, obstructing free-market trade for the better part of those 70 years. It's less regulated now (as they were pressured by the U.S. into relaxing government regulation) but the reason for their economic miracle was because the government had such a large role shaping the economy/business. In spite of, not because. But hey, if Obama gets re-elected maybe America can get our own Lost Decade. There you go posting your unsubstantiated claims. Why should I do more work than the person I was responding to?
At least I gave you three lines.
|
|
|
On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that!
Oh so then where is your statistical analysis that makes this a fallacy? It's a pretty annoying move to respond with an experience with just "it looks similar to this fallacy." Just like me just telling you that you're wrong is not constructive at all, discrediting something only by linking a fallacy is not constructive in the least.
|
I remember about 1 page ago you linking some news article that showed some case were someone was declined care in britain?
You are truely a fascinating being...
|
On September 06 2012 07:45 Velr wrote:
I remember about 1 patch ago you linking some news article that showed some case were someone was declined care in britain?
You are truely a fascinating being...
Honestly, there's not point in engaging in drotwhateverthefuckhisname is. He's just some 16 year-old kid that likes trolling and being a contrarian. It's why his arguments (and behaviour) are so intellectually shallow and hypocritical.
You might as well be arguing with a five year-old about which Transformer is the coolest.
User was warned for this post
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Second night of the DNC. Excited for some Clinton. :D
|
On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that!
As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats.
Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US.
|
On September 06 2012 07:40 Souma wrote:
At least I gave you three lines.
And I gave you an example of the Japanese government doing wasteful spending to create a Lost Decade, a plan very similar to what Democrats want to do here. Would you like to read about how Spanish investment in solar power turned out to go along with all the Democrats praise for it here today?
|
On September 06 2012 07:28 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 07:01 Troxle wrote:
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it.
Do I have the right to force a nurse to check out my vital signs, a doctor to use his education and experience to diagnose me and recommend treatment, the surgeon to operate, the pharaceutical company to make my drugs, and the hospital to house me? That's why I have a problem calling health care (well, you don't say this here, you say health ... but unless you're God, you can't really call that a right ... some are born in poor health and die in a violent abuse of their personal rights).
Somebody pays. We sometimes discuss if everybody else should pay for the destitute, how we define destitute, etc. That's usually classed as "Welfare Programs." National healthcare means the government is your insurer, and you now pay taxes in part to insure yourself ... an agency of the government pays your bill when you visit hospital etc.
AKA quoted text is right. Insurers are out there to make money, to collect more from you in monthly payments than they're gonna spend for you on hospitalization, drugs, and all the rest. You buy in because regular payments is a better prospect than suddenly being billed for something you cannot afford, and you can (to some extent) leverage your current health and low-risk habits for a very cheap deal (i.e. get this service for very cheap).
But just knowing some people leap from "health is a right" and "poor people shouldn't have to die because they can't afford insurance" to "Nation Healthcare" is saddening. In unrelated news, your average poor person has a car, air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, DVD, and video game system (Reporting done on Census data).
ADDENDUM
As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats.
Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US.
It really isn't as well known as you would think. The prevailing notion is that Canadian health care is vastly superior to US because you don't have to pay for it. Countless times it has been brought up to me,
"Well look at Canada, Dang! They have universal health care and they're not doing so bad!"
"Canada's tried it, and they still got it, so it must be working out great!"
Sometimes somebody remembers hearing a story about a Canadian official or some friend flying down to US to get treatment. But maybe in Canada, good healthcare is free, but you can't get it. And in America, health care is expensive but quickly available.
|
On September 06 2012 07:45 Chocolate wrote:Oh so then where is your statistical analysis that makes this a fallacy? It's a pretty annoying move to respond with an experience with just "it looks similar to this fallacy." Just like me just telling you that you're wrong is not constructive at all, discrediting something only by linking a fallacy is not constructive in the least.
I'm not going to spend time disproving what you haven't tried to prove.
|
On September 06 2012 07:45 Velr wrote:
I remember about 1 page ago you linking some news article that showed some case were someone was declined care in britain?
You are truely a fascinating being...
It was stories about 1000s dying every month. I mean, all you had to do was read the title to know it was more than "someone denied".
|
On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US.
Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system.
|
On September 06 2012 08:14 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 07:45 Chocolate wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! Oh so then where is your statistical analysis that makes this a fallacy? It's a pretty annoying move to respond with an experience with just "it looks similar to this fallacy." Just like me just telling you that you're wrong is not constructive at all, discrediting something only by linking a fallacy is not constructive in the least. I'm not going to spend time disproving what you haven't tried to prove.
Okay, you're making me mad. Someone posts a personal account of Canadian healthcare, you link a fallacy article, the fallacy being that personal anecdotes are nothing in the face of statistics. Since there were no statistics present, I ask you to present some, since you seem to think that the statistics show otherwise, or else you wouldn't have linked that fallacy. You then tell me that I have to prove that the statistics are correct? Sorry, that's not how it works. The burden of proof is on someone making a claim, in this case that the article is a fallacy. You can't make a claim and claim it correct until someone disproves it.
|
On September 06 2012 08:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 07:28 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 07:01 Troxle wrote:
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
This is why I support Nation Healthcare. To me, health is a right and poor people shouldn't have to die because they cant afford insurance (which is way high in America) or an expensive operation. And yes we raise taxes to pay for it. Do I have the right to force a nurse to check out my vital signs, a doctor to use his education and experience to diagnose me and recommend treatment, the surgeon to operate, the pharaceutical company to make my drugs, and the hospital to house me? That's why I have a problem calling health care (well, you don't say this here, you say health ... but unless you're God, you can't really call that a right ... some are born in poor health and die in a violent abuse of their personal rights).
This, right there, is a very common fallacy used against the notion of a right to healthcare. Such a right would NOT be opposable to individuals (such as doctors) but to the government. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is advocating for a right to walk into any doctor's office and force the doctor to treat him. Yet each time I read a discussion about the idea of a right to healthcare, someone comes up with that ridiculous fallacy that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. There's even a video of Rand Paul making that exact comment and arguing that a right to healthcare would amount to enslaving the doctors. No, it wouldn't. How do you think the right to counsel works? Does an accused individual suddenly get the right to walk into any lawyer's office and force the lawyer to defend him in court? No, the right to counsel is not opposable to individuals but to the government, meaning that it is the government that has to find someone willing to defend the accused (in exchange for money, of course). A right to healthcare would imply the exact same thing - the government would have to provide you with access to healthcare, notably by paying doctors who will willfully be public employees.
|
On September 06 2012 08:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 08:10 ziggurat wrote:On September 06 2012 07:43 dvorakftw wrote:Yeah, facinating. Thanks for that! As a Canadian who has had a few brushes with our health care system, I really dislike it. I would much rather be able to get health insurance from a company where I would then have a legal right to get the treatments described in the policy. In Canada you get crappy treatment and the nurses shrug and say, "sorry we're short staffed". No one is really accountable for giving me any particular standard of treatment, and if I don't like it all I can do is write some letters to some bureaucrats. Whatever. Government-run healthcare is a fact of life in Canada so there's no point in complaining about it. But don't try to tell me that you get better treatment in Canadian hospitals. It's well-known that Canadians who really need the best treatment and who can afford it go to the US. Really, what sort of treatment did you need may I ask if that is not too personal. Every single experience I have had with the healthcare system was quite good. I know some specialist procedures are hard to get up here but for the most part the system does good by the people when they break an arm or have some other common injury (or nearly split the back of their head open, in my case) so I think it is quite a good system.
I think it really depends on what your needs are and what treatment your required.
There are people that complain that the Canadian health care is impersonal, but I find they have no concept of how much healthcare actually costs. A person receiving ongoing cancer treatment in the States may be getting 'the best care in the world' but they are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
