|
|
On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system.
I dont think anyone is arguing that us system is not better for the very rich. But sans those millionaires it sucks for the average person as compared to a Canadian-style system.
|
On September 20 2012 07:51 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:34 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote:On September 20 2012 05:24 Defacer wrote:So what's your healthcare plan? For everyone to become millionaires and buy immortality? You're confusing healthcare tourism for healthcare coverage and effectiveness. I can point to the endless amount of anecdotes from Americans that were flat-out denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or delayed or avoided healthcare they desperately needed because they couldn't afford it. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. Canada's healthcare system is better than America's. You should take that $300 you've been saving every month and consider moving to Canada. It would save that life of yours that Obama has destroyed. Truth be told. I have to say ur right about ur little rant. Canada does NOW have a better HC system than America. But HC pre Obama in America > X100000 Canada HC I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world. Hard working people like me just got the shaft. I will no longer be able to fund my own HC. If I get an Illness that isn't covered under OBAMACARE, I'm dead. Least I can say I tried. I stood in oposition proudly. Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about. : P He complains about minimal savings but if he was one of the multiple millions of people who got diagnosed with cancer and is being helped by this bill he wouldn't be bitching. "Yo I had to pay 7k for my arm, and then a couple hundred grand a year on cancer care. Can't believe this 675 a year fucking was spent!" These are times I actually wish dire illness on someone so they can understand the anguish. Many people who have used the Canadian healthcare system are not very happy with it. It is pretty good at providing semi-decent or "adequate" care to everybody, but it's well known that if you want to get the best care you have to travel to the US -- the article quoted abote if just one of countless examples. The American healthcare system has major issues but I don't see it improving by moving towards a Canadian-style system.
There will always be private clinics for the wealthy in the US. A universal healthcare system needs to be developed for the masses.
|
Clinics arent enough, speaking as a Canadian. You replace control through money with control through time. Canada's hospital tech is way behind the states, you simply die through waiting time, and private family doctors take up to two years to get.
If it werent for the States [your the nemesis of Canada in our eyes] we would of abandoned our shit system decades ago. Ironically enough the only reason we havent privatized is so that we can assert our differences from you scornfully. Deregulate the healthcare industry and your costs will shoot down, your physician count up.
|
Universal healthcare is a terrible idea. 1. It would just add to the out of control spending in Washington. 2. The more dependent you become on government the more you become a slave of government.
|
It also adds a disturbing cultural toxity into the society, where the business of others is now your business. I guess you'd have to live in a country to really grasp it-- but theres a serious undercurrent here where people consider various fines and legal incentives to punish fat people, smokers, etc. Now that will never- realistically anyway - crystallize into actual legal action, but it still exists in a substantive form. Its not people griping about the fat nonchalantly, its just an example of a attitude; you dont own yourself, I do.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 08:17 whatevername wrote:
Clinics arent enough, speaking as a Canadian. You replace control through money with control through time. Canada's hospital tech is way behind the states, you simply die through waiting time, and private family doctors take up to two years to get.
If it werent for the States [your the nemesis of Canada in our eyes] we would of abandoned our shit system decades ago. Ironically enough the only reason we havent privatized is so that we can assert our differences from you scornfully. Deregulate the healthcare industry and your costs will shoot down, your physician count up.
Yeah, because it's worked out so well for us up until now! Seriously, before making all these false assertions that have previously been debunked over and over again, you might want to try backing up your claim with some substantial evidence.
It's really no surprise why most of the developed world has universal health care. It's just better. As long as there's a private option for the filthy rich to take advantage of, and an option for those with terminal illnesses to get priority treatment, what does it matter to you if the rest of the nation has cheaper more efficient care for non-lethal conditions?
|
On September 20 2012 08:23 whatevername wrote:
It also adds a disturbing cultural toxity into the society, where the business of others is now your business. I guess you'd have to live in a country to really grasp it-- but theres a serious undercurrent here where people consider various fines and legal incentives to punish fat people, smokers, etc. Now that will never- realistically anyway - crystallize into actual legal action, but it still exists in a substantive form. Its not people griping about the fat nonchalantly, its just an example of a attitude; you dont own yourself, I do.
This is not a hypothetical. We call them consumption taxes. Or vice taxes. Or basically, why a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of gin costs so much.
And frankly, I think higher taxes on cigarettes and booze are a good idea.
And this is not new... Americans have always considered the business of others their business. See: The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. See: anti-sodomy laws. See: child tax credits. See: anti-interracial marriage laws. See: public decency (anti-nudity) laws. See: ... examples too numerous to list them all.
Some are good ideas, many are bad ideas, some are now dead & buried, but Americans have been legislating society & each other's personal business since before the Constitution, and never stopped.
|
On September 20 2012 07:56 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:53 JinDesu wrote:
However, the IRS cannot go after you for the money. They can only take it out of your tax refund. If you get your tax refund to be 0 (or owe them tax payments anyways), you will never pay the Mandate fee. Wow. Good to know.
Interesting. I had never heard this before. Not motivated enough to demand or search for a source due to reading required.
I'm more interested in something the folks opposed to the mandate are saying, regarding the person leading a healthy, active lifestyle. Several here touched on the notion that if you don't drive a car, then you aren't forced to buy insurance for it. That makes sense, of course. In my state, as an example, driving without auto insurance is even punished severely. Would any of you (open question) argue that, if you do drive a car, you shouldn'to be forced to buy insurance for it? Ideally, you maintain the vehicle at your own expense, drive as safely as possible, and keep savings aside for dealing with unexpected expenses, frequently caused by rainy days.
I think where this is going is obvious. But...well, in case it isn't, being alive would be like always driving a car, wouldn't it?
Of course, I understand the difference between insurance mandates on state vs federal levels, and yes, I understand -- and share, actually, -- many complaints about things attached to Obamacare. But, I don't understand this kind of 'ideological' (?) opposition; if you (god forbid!) need expensive medical care from a hospital today, -- through no fault of your own, possibly, -- you will be cared for, today. If you can't pay for it tomorrow, they don't un-care for you; instead, someone else pays for that.
Eh, I don't really know where this was going. Kinda just posting in hopes that someone can help me wrap my head around another viewpoint. I guess I don't really understand why states don't treat health insurance like auto insurance anyway.
|
On September 20 2012 08:23 whatevername wrote:
It also adds a disturbing cultural toxity into the society, where the business of others is now your business. I guess you'd have to live in a country to really grasp it-- but theres a serious undercurrent here where people consider various fines and legal incentives to punish fat people, smokers, etc. Now that will never- realistically anyway - crystallize into actual legal action, but it still exists in a substantive form. Its not people griping about the fat nonchalantly, its just an example of a attitude; you dont own yourself, I do.
That's a load of strawmans without any pragmatic reality. Business of others is always your business eventually. The reality is that you are responsible for yourself, but your actions will always affect others.
Freedom and responsibility go hand to hand. That's why I can't just take a pen to stab my coworkers for teh freedom or cyberbully people until they kill themselves just for a matter of teh freedom. What's disturbingly toxic for our culture is this absurdly entitled narcissism. You need to find a sweet spot that's grounded in reality and that allow maximum flexibility. What sucks though is that what used to be common knowledge became responsibilities of the "nanny state".
BTW I support legalization of weed, and do not want a "health" tax.
|
On September 20 2012 08:28 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 07:56 Defacer wrote:On September 20 2012 07:53 JinDesu wrote:
However, the IRS cannot go after you for the money. They can only take it out of your tax refund. If you get your tax refund to be 0 (or owe them tax payments anyways), you will never pay the Mandate fee. Wow. Good to know. Interesting. I had never heard this before. Not motivated enough to demand or search for a source due to reading required. I'm more interested in something the folks opposed to the mandate are saying, regarding the person leading a healthy, active lifestyle. Several here touched on the notion that if you don't drive a car, then you aren't forced to buy insurance for it. That makes sense, of course. In my state, as an example, driving without auto insurance is even punished severely. Would any of you (open question) argue that, if you do drive a car, you shouldn'to be forced to buy insurance for it? Ideally, you maintain the vehicle at your own expense, drive as safely as possible, and keep savings aside for dealing with unexpected expenses, frequently caused by rainy days. I think where this is going is obvious. But...well, in case it isn't, being alive would be like always driving a car, wouldn't it? Of course, I understand the difference between insurance mandates on state vs federal levels, and yes, I understand -- and share, actually, -- many complaints about things attached to Obamacare. But, I don't understand this kind of 'ideological' (?) opposition; if you (god forbid!) need expensive medical care from a hospital today, -- through no fault of your own, possibly, -- you will be cared for, today. If you can't pay for it tomorrow, they don't un-care for you; instead, someone else pays for that. Eh, I don't really know where this was going. Kinda just posting in hopes that someone can help me wrap my head around another viewpoint. I guess I don't really understand why states don't treat health insurance like auto insurance anyway.
The logic is, that car insurance isn't for yourself, it's for others that you might get in to an accident with. If you can't afford to pay for that damage to their health or their property that you caused, then who will pay for it? For your health insurance, it doesn't affect others(well it affects your family, loved ones, a lot.) So I don't think that health insurance or car insurance is very comparable.
I have the opinion that there should be universal health coverage, and rich can go to private clinics or whatever, but I don't think car insurance is the reason that it's justifiable.
|
On September 20 2012 08:17 whatevername wrote:
Clinics arent enough, speaking as a Canadian. You replace control through money with control through time. Canada's hospital tech is way behind the states, you simply die through waiting time, and private family doctors take up to two years to get.
If it werent for the States [your the nemesis of Canada in our eyes] we would of abandoned our shit system decades ago. Ironically enough the only reason we havent privatized is so that we can assert our differences from you scornfully. Deregulate the healthcare industry and your costs will shoot down, your physician count up.
This is a joke of a post. Our tech isnt way behind. We dont die through wait times. Having grown up in an aging neighbourhood, I have had extensive experience with our healthcare system (both with family and neighbours). Not a single person had anything to complain about. The great thing about universal health care, is that it promotes prevention and early detection, due to regular doctor visits being free. I can go to the doctor as many times as I want, for as many screenings, tests, check-ups, etc... that I feel necessary, and by doing so, you increase your chances of catching something potentially harmful in its extremely early stages. This also lowers costs overall as it decreases the amount of serious treatment and surgery that needs to be done.
None of my neighbours, family, friends, nor any people I associate with or their relatives have ever died from waiting for treatment, tests, surgery, etc... In fact, I had quite the opposite experience.
My grandmother got a tear in her stomach wall which was causing internal bleeding. She went to the family doctor complaining about discomfort. Immediately she took a few tests, and at 11pm the same night, we got a call from the testing facility. They told her to rush into emergency because she had a dangerously low red bloodcell count. We made it in about 4 hours before they predicted she would have passed away.
If she would have to pay hundreds of dollars every time she went to the family physician, she would be mroe likely to ignore or deal with discomfort on her own, as to not pay the high fees. This is yet another reason our system is better.
It is a nasty exaggeration to claim people die in line, or we have prehistoric technology. Our health care system is very good, both in care, and in cost.
|
It looks like voters are finally starting to notice the Obama administration's bungling with what is going on in the Middle East.
(CNSNews.com) – The first opinion poll to be conducted after last week’s deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya and a spate of anti-American protests across the Muslim world has recorded a five-point drop in approval for President Obama’s handling of foreign policy.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday found the president’s foreign policy approval among registered voters at 49 percent, down from 54 percent one month earlier.
“The fall was steeper among independents, going from 53 percent in August to 41 percent,” NBC reported.
Source.
I tend to think that this drop in approval is a reflection on Obama's week long stupidity of insisting that the Libya attacks were not premeditated.
|
Still think Mittens is going to win this election xDaunt?
|
On September 20 2012 08:48 DamnCats wrote:
Still think Mittens is going to win this election xDaunt?
Yep.
|
On September 20 2012 08:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 08:48 DamnCats wrote:
Still think Mittens is going to win this election xDaunt? Yep.
Cool :D
|
On September 20 2012 08:49 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 08:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2012 08:48 DamnCats wrote:
Still think Mittens is going to win this election xDaunt? Yep. Cool :D
xDaunt is like a Knicks fan. You can talk about the Lakers and the Heat all you want, but he's convinced Carmelo is going to have a breakthrough and take them all the way this year.
|
On September 20 2012 08:52 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 08:49 DamnCats wrote:On September 20 2012 08:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2012 08:48 DamnCats wrote:
Still think Mittens is going to win this election xDaunt? Yep. Cool :D xDaunt is like a Knicks fan. You can talk about the Lakers and the Heat all you want, but he's convinced Carmelo is going to have a breakthrough and take them all the way this year.
Does he also hate Jeremy Lin because the Knicks owner suddenly decided he wasn't going to splurge a little to keep perhaps the best thing that ever happened to the team?
|
On September 20 2012 08:43 xDaunt wrote:It looks like voters are finally starting to notice the Obama administration's bungling with what is going on in the Middle East. Show nested quote +(CNSNews.com) – The first opinion poll to be conducted after last week’s deadly attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya and a spate of anti-American protests across the Muslim world has recorded a five-point drop in approval for President Obama’s handling of foreign policy.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday found the president’s foreign policy approval among registered voters at 49 percent, down from 54 percent one month earlier.
“The fall was steeper among independents, going from 53 percent in August to 41 percent,” NBC reported.
Source. I tend to think that this drop in approval is a reflection on Obama's week long stupidity of insisting that the Libya attacks were not premeditated.
Bro, same poll data has Obama at a 5 percent advantage overall.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/September_WSJ_NBC_Poll.pdf
Silly man.
|
Anyone else think regardless of what the polls say if legit war hero McCain and Miss Alaska couldn't beat Obama Romney and Romney Jr don't really stand a chance?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 20 2012 09:03 DamnCats wrote:
Anyone else think regardless of what the polls say if legit war hero McCain and Miss Alaska couldn't beat Obama Romney and Romney Jr don't really stand a chance?
Romney/Ryan have cards to play that McCain didn't, more specifically the spoils of Republican obstructionism in the face of a recession. If McCain was running in this election and not the previous, it'd be a much tougher race for Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
