On October 31 2008 09:44 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ. That's one the dumbest posts you've made in this thread. You're not in the center; you're in the far right and happen to make non-offensive posts.
The US health care system is absolutely atrocious and nationalizing it will be one of the best steps this country ever takes. You talk about bloat and inefficiency, but look at the administrative costs of insurance companies vs that of Medicare. We don't even need to look at the 30+ other modern countries that provide better health services than us, to see an example of government doing a better job.
Of course your response is probably going to be the CAHI study (or lazily link Heritage citing CAHI) without realizing the CAHI is an advocacy group for insurance companies and is very likely full of shit.
No. But this does strengthen what I said about every year SOMETHING sounds like it would be better if government expanded itself.
It will be something else next year and the against something different in 3 years.
Eventually you get to the point we were at in the '70s with a massive top tax bracket around 70% of your income. Then eventually, something has to give.
On October 31 2008 09:24 Mindcrime wrote: yeah because libertarian socialism are totally on the right
No, they're pretty far left.
then your definition of left and right falls apart
And open your fucking eyes; you aren't going to socialize private property and industry without a massive government implementation. Anarchy? Viva la revolucion! Totally off topic.
On October 31 2008 09:44 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ. That's one the dumbest posts you've made in this thread. You're not in the center; you're in the far right and happen to make non-offensive posts.
The US health care system is absolutely atrocious and nationalizing it will be one of the best steps this country ever takes. You talk about bloat and inefficiency, but look at the administrative costs of insurance companies vs that of Medicare. We don't even need to look at the 30+ other modern countries that provide better health services than us, to see an example of government doing a better job.
Of course your response is probably going to be the CAHI study (or lazily link Heritage citing CAHI) without realizing the CAHI is an advocacy group for insurance companies and is very likely full of shit.
No. But this does strengthen what I said about every year SOMETHING sounds like it would be better if government expanded itself.
It will be something else next year and the against something different in 3 years.
Eventually you get to the point we were at in the '70s with a massive top tax bracket around 70% of your income. Then eventually, something has to give.
In some sense, yes, however a reasonable level of education and healthcare should be staples of all modern societies. Poverty isn't going away, but there are basic humanitarian minimums that should be filled. Right now the minimum for healthcare is at low income children and for immunizations, and that's unacceptable. Our infant mortality rate is worse than the Isle of Man. WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ISLE OF MAN? Or even worse, GREECE.
On October 31 2008 09:44 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ. That's one the dumbest posts you've made in this thread. You're not in the center; you're in the far right and happen to make non-offensive posts.
The US health care system is absolutely atrocious and nationalizing it will be one of the best steps this country ever takes. You talk about bloat and inefficiency, but look at the administrative costs of insurance companies vs that of Medicare. We don't even need to look at the 30+ other modern countries that provide better health services than us, to see an example of government doing a better job.
Of course your response is probably going to be the CAHI study (or lazily link Heritage citing CAHI) without realizing the CAHI is an advocacy group for insurance companies and is very likely full of shit.
No. But this does strengthen what I said about every year SOMETHING sounds like it would be better if government expanded itself.
It will be something else next year and the against something different in 3 years.
Eventually you get to the point we were at in the '70s with a massive top tax bracket around 70% of your income. Then eventually, something has to give.
since the negative for nationlized health care i hear all the time is the wait and not being able to pick your doctors (dunno if im correct on this 100% or not)
But why couldnt you have nationlized healthcare/insurance and still go to any doctor you wanted to? It could be like charter schools only you dont really have a limit on what you can spend.
On October 31 2008 09:44 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ. That's one the dumbest posts you've made in this thread. You're not in the center; you're in the far right and happen to make non-offensive posts.
The US health care system is absolutely atrocious and nationalizing it will be one of the best steps this country ever takes. You talk about bloat and inefficiency, but look at the administrative costs of insurance companies vs that of Medicare. We don't even need to look at the 30+ other modern countries that provide better health services than us, to see an example of government doing a better job.
Of course your response is probably going to be the CAHI study (or lazily link Heritage citing CAHI) without realizing the CAHI is an advocacy group for insurance companies and is very likely full of shit.
No. But this does strengthen what I said about every year SOMETHING sounds like it would be better if government expanded itself.
It will be something else next year and the against something different in 3 years.
Eventually you get to the point we were at in the '70s with a massive top tax bracket around 70% of your income. Then eventually, something has to give.
I'm glad you posted this chart. I run across it every so often.
However, I'm not so sure it supports the conclusions that you're implying. In fact, the years of very high top brackets (40s through 70s) were generally a period of broad gains for most Americans, particularly the middle class. In contrast, the median wages for Americans have stagnated (actually dropped slightly) since the early 1980s. We can also see that one of the most dramatic cuts in the top rate was 1928, just before the Depression. We can also see that we pulled ourselves out of the Depression (I might add, in large part thanks to Government spending on infrastructure), with correspondingly high top income tax rates.
We also had excellent economic growth, from almost every objective measure, throughout the 1990s with tax brackets totally identical to those proposed by that "socialist" Obama.
Just a question for you, what "gave" in the 1970s and how can you prove it was a result of high income tax rates (especially because rates higher than that had been in place for decades before, with no corresponding crisis)?
On October 31 2008 12:38 Sadist wrote: since the negative for nationlized health care i hear all the time is the wait and not being able to pick your doctors (dunno if im correct on this 100% or not)
But why couldnt you have nationlized healthcare/insurance and still go to any doctor you wanted to? It could be like charter schools only you dont really have a limit on what you can spend.
Any explanations?
It may have to do with the plan itself, which may create an opt-in system for doctors a la HMO where only doctors within the system are covered by the national plan. Also if the industry was completely socialized as in run by the government with only government hospitals having doctors, you may have to take whoever is available if you need treatment as your doctor may be assigned elsewhere on a given day.
Or in the case where all doctors were legislated into the plan it may have to do with the economics of supply and demand in conjunction with the requirements of a national plan. In order to control costs, government institutes price ceilings. Price ceilings below equilibrium value will create a shortage. The already observed effect of waiting lists and lines, the rationing of health care, is a fairly obvious and inevitable result unless the country is small and possesses abundant enough resources to avoid capping costs much below their economic value. A lot of people will argue that having to wait for all but emergency care is a fair trade-off, especially when we currently have a significant number of people unable to afford care at all.
When your doctor has longer lines and a waiting lists you may be able to go to your guy, as long as you're willing to be patient #345. In reality if you were ill you'd be accepting whatever doctor was first available. That may be what people mean in not getting to pick your doctor.
This question of choosing your doctor strongly depends on the particulars of the national plan and how far it goes in socializing the health care industry. You can't simply say a national health care plan must necessarily prevent people from seeing the doctors of their choosing.
On October 31 2008 09:44 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ. That's one the dumbest posts you've made in this thread. You're not in the center; you're in the far right and happen to make non-offensive posts.
The US health care system is absolutely atrocious and nationalizing it will be one of the best steps this country ever takes. You talk about bloat and inefficiency, but look at the administrative costs of insurance companies vs that of Medicare. We don't even need to look at the 30+ other modern countries that provide better health services than us, to see an example of government doing a better job.
Of course your response is probably going to be the CAHI study (or lazily link Heritage citing CAHI) without realizing the CAHI is an advocacy group for insurance companies and is very likely full of shit.
No. But this does strengthen what I said about every year SOMETHING sounds like it would be better if government expanded itself.
It will be something else next year and the against something different in 3 years.
Eventually you get to the point we were at in the '70s with a massive top tax bracket around 70% of your income. Then eventually, something has to give.
In some sense, yes, however a reasonable level of education and healthcare should be staples of all modern societies. Poverty isn't going away, but there are basic humanitarian minimums that should be filled. Right now the minimum for healthcare is at low income children and for immunizations, and that's unacceptable. Our infant mortality rate is worse than the Isle of Man. WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ISLE OF MAN? Or even worse, GREECE.
in regards to acess, i believe the Brazilian healthcare system totally blows the american one, our poor people can get the important surgeries they need, if they are smart enought to discover it in time to live enought on the line lol
Part of the problem is mindset, I'm sure. People just have to understand that, whether it's a nationalised system or a private system or something in between, you can't always have what you want. So if you've used up all your money to pay for treatment for your lung cancer and you get stricken with Alzheimer's, tough. Nobody owes you your life and no amount of "fixing" the health care system will change the fact that there are limits on how much care there is to go around.
If i got Lung Cancer and somehow get healed from it and shortly after get alzheimer my assurance would pay for the full costs of it, theres no limit, it's just a limit to what treatments are payed (some medicaments and stuff are not payed).
Thats the point of an assurance...
In my country the Health Care-System is obligatory BUT run by privat companys. You just pay it like a telephone bill once month. You can cheapen it by paying more yourself (the first 300/600/1500/2500$ of your healthcosts a year) or by letting the assurance tell you to which doctors you may go...
On October 31 2008 02:26 Mindcrime wrote: Okay, so I walk into my 12:30 poli sci class, and the professor tells me "Class is canceled. John McCain is going to be at the courthouse; go see him." So I went to the Courthouse... well, on the opposite corner from it because that's where some guy who sure looked like he was in the secret service was telling us to go. John McCain came in his bus, got out, and walked around the corner shaking hands. I got within 5 ft of him and one of my classmates shook his hand.
I was a bit disappointed that there was no speech. :|
awesome man, thanks for sharing, i love hearing about these kinds of encounters.
i wonder how many TL'ers here have seen the candidates at events, i know we've had a couple over the last year posted about
On October 31 2008 09:44 Jibba wrote: Jesus christ. That's one the dumbest posts you've made in this thread. You're not in the center; you're in the far right and happen to make non-offensive posts.
The US health care system is absolutely atrocious and nationalizing it will be one of the best steps this country ever takes. You talk about bloat and inefficiency, but look at the administrative costs of insurance companies vs that of Medicare. We don't even need to look at the 30+ other modern countries that provide better health services than us, to see an example of government doing a better job.
Of course your response is probably going to be the CAHI study (or lazily link Heritage citing CAHI) without realizing the CAHI is an advocacy group for insurance companies and is very likely full of shit.
You hit the nail on the head Jibba. Americans like it when the government provides them services in a cost effective effficient way. Having faith in the free market is one thing, realizing its limitations and where it produces massive waste is another. The health care system is one such example.
EPT
