|
On May 16 2009 05:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 05:27 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately. It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well. Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1 I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)? I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys. Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot. I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely. I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first. Don't delude yourself. I like to. Removal of the FICA cap and extending the age to 70/75 would be a good start. The original social security (started by the Germans) had an age cap of 65 because the average citizen lifespan was 57 and few people had access to it, so it could easily sustain itself. As a "realist," you should know your plan isn't going to happen.  It doesn't even matter who the president is. You'd have to combat the most powerful lobby in the country, which most senators belong to.
Did I say what I wanted would happen? Nope. The only possible way is when the US goes into chapter 11 (metaphorically speaking that means bankruptcy not actual chapter 11, as countries don't do that, we just print and inflate our money until it has no value, since obviously, its just worthless paper)
|
United States22883 Posts
LBJ is more to blame for the current costs than FDR though. I'd throw them both in there.
|
On May 16 2009 05:47 Jibba wrote:
LBJ is more to blame for the current costs than FDR though.
There would be no SS without FDR. Isn't this great society lovely?
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 16 2009 05:48 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 05:47 Jibba wrote:
LBJ is more to blame for the current costs than FDR though. There would be no SS without FDR. Isn't this great society lovely?
Did you know we almost got the national health care system along with it? The Southern Dems' major point of opposition was that it would apply to black people, not really that it would be an act of big government or violate state's rights. Some of them thought about opposing the GI Bill for that reason as well, but it was considered a bit too extreme and the rest of the Dems eventually caved to some of their demands .
|
On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately. It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well. Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1 I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)? I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys. Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot. I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely. I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.
That needs to be changed, and something really needs to be done about the ridiculous pensions that city, state and fed workers get. Paying people $60k a year for life after 20 some odd years of service is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
|
On May 16 2009 06:01 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately. It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well. Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1 I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)? I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys. Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot. I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely. I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first. That needs to be changed, and something really needs to be done about the ridiculous pensions that city, state and fed workers get. Paying people $60k a year for life after 20 some odd years of service is absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Are you putting your life in harms way? Police, Federal workers (DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Border Patrol, DoD, DHS, etc.), and other civil service jobs such as firefighters, don't deserve their pensions? That its fucking ridiculous? Sorry, you are 'fucking ridiculous'. If your that jealous, then go do the jobs yourself, then maybe you'll see how 'ridiculous' your statements are, when you try to make GS13-14 and put your life at stake.
|
On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:
I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first.
Medicare and Medicaid are actually slated to go insolvent allot sooner than Social Security. Obama has stated that he plans to address the health care system first.
On May 16 2009 04:06 Aegraen wrote:
Nothing that is ever worth anything is free. There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare. Frankly, I am infinitely more predisposed to spend my own money much more wisely than the Government. That, and philosophically and lawfully, the government has no right to intervene in my healthcare, tell me, what treatments I will get and what I won't, when I will, and when I won't, where I will and where I won't, and basically become a Totalitarian state.
It is not my responsibility to give the fruits of my labor to others because they made poor decisions, are lazy, or have no societal motivations. It is akin to government induced slavery. Tax rates are all ready highly absurd, and providing massive bureaucratic healthcare would easily jump the taxes up even higher. We would be essentially turning the US into a third world country for the benefit of the societal miscreants. Yes, let's punish society as a whole, for the bad decisions of the minority. Sounds like a swell plan.
Now, those who are unable to work, or to provide for themselves should be covered by the Government. These account for about 1-3% of people if that. Easily manageable.
In the end this boils down to my QUOTE. Read, and learn it well. Those who are have-nots are only in the business of voting in those who will take. Stealing is wrong, so is slavery.
As an edit: US Healthcare is the best in the world. That is; the actual care you receive, not on how socialistic the healthcare system is according to WHO (Which actually ranks the countries by this criteria)
Aegraen, you are so misguided about so so so many things. 
Its always interesting when people argue about how long the waits are with socialized medicine. Do you have any idea what that wait is for the 40 million americans without health insurance? Also to demonize the uninsured as lazy is the kind of justification that has lead to some of humanities worst crimes.
|
On May 16 2009 06:18 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 06:01 Hawk wrote:On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately. It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well. Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1 I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)? I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys. Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot. I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely. I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first. That needs to be changed, and something really needs to be done about the ridiculous pensions that city, state and fed workers get. Paying people $60k a year for life after 20 some odd years of service is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Are you putting your life in harms way? Police, Federal workers (DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Border Patrol, DoD, DHS, etc.), and other civil service jobs such as firefighters, don't deserve their pensions? That its fucking ridiculous? Sorry, you are 'fucking ridiculous'. If your that jealous, then go do the jobs yourself, then maybe you'll see how 'ridiculous' your statements are, when you try to make GS13-14 and put your life at stake.
I said nothing about eliminating them, but they need to be reduced. And it's not all people who actually put their lives on the line—stupid ass city employees, politicians (who often stack up their benefits by holding multiple positions) teachers, etc.
Cops, FF, and all those guys got tough jobs, but that doesn't mean the average tax payer should be going broke paying for them for life. There has to be some kind of regulation. Look how much pensions eat up budgets.
|
On May 16 2009 06:22 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:
I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first. Medicare and Medicaid are actually slated to go insolvent allot sooner than Social Security. Obama has stated that he plans to address the health care system first. Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 04:06 Aegraen wrote:
Nothing that is ever worth anything is free. There is no such thing as 'free' healthcare. Frankly, I am infinitely more predisposed to spend my own money much more wisely than the Government. That, and philosophically and lawfully, the government has no right to intervene in my healthcare, tell me, what treatments I will get and what I won't, when I will, and when I won't, where I will and where I won't, and basically become a Totalitarian state.
It is not my responsibility to give the fruits of my labor to others because they made poor decisions, are lazy, or have no societal motivations. It is akin to government induced slavery. Tax rates are all ready highly absurd, and providing massive bureaucratic healthcare would easily jump the taxes up even higher. We would be essentially turning the US into a third world country for the benefit of the societal miscreants. Yes, let's punish society as a whole, for the bad decisions of the minority. Sounds like a swell plan.
Now, those who are unable to work, or to provide for themselves should be covered by the Government. These account for about 1-3% of people if that. Easily manageable.
In the end this boils down to my QUOTE. Read, and learn it well. Those who are have-nots are only in the business of voting in those who will take. Stealing is wrong, so is slavery.
As an edit: US Healthcare is the best in the world. That is; the actual care you receive, not on how socialistic the healthcare system is according to WHO (Which actually ranks the countries by this criteria) Aegraen, you are so misguided about so so so many things. Its always interesting when people argue about how long the waits are with socialized medicine. Do you have any idea what that wait is for the 40 million americans without health insurance? Also to demonize the uninsured as lazy is the kind of justification that has lead to some of humanities worst crimes.
I was waiting for the 40 million number. Actually, the true number of uninsured who can't afford health insurance is actually very low around 1-3 million. About 18 million can afford it, are in between the ages of 18-35 and choose not to purchase it(*2). 9.5 million aren't even US Citizens ! 17 million others live in households that make over 50,000$ a year, and can afford healthcare(*1). Moreover, only 30% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months (*3). Pelosi's description of 47 million, is hugely deceitful, and inaccurate.
You really need to read the chapter 'On the Welfare State' in Mark Levin's: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. It is quite an eye opener. This isn't some opinions thrown about, it is 18 months of exhaustive research with references from and by the government.
PS: It is you who is misguided by your 'feelings' and 'emotions' always wanting to help the 'poor' guy out, but you don't understand you're hurting them, not helping.
*1 - See Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee, US Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the US: 2005," GPO, AUG. 2006, 22 (Table 8), http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf
*2 - US Department of Health and Human Services, "Overview of the Uninsured in the US: An Analysis of the 2005 current population survey," APSE Issue Brief, HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Education, Sept 22, 2005, 4, http://apse.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/ib.pdf
*3 - Conrad F. Meier, "Politicians Using Flawed Data of Uninsured Population," Heartland Institute, DEC 2004, http://heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=16014
|
On May 16 2009 06:39 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 06:18 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:01 Hawk wrote:On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately. It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well. Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1 I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)? I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys. Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot. I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely. I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first. That needs to be changed, and something really needs to be done about the ridiculous pensions that city, state and fed workers get. Paying people $60k a year for life after 20 some odd years of service is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Are you putting your life in harms way? Police, Federal workers (DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Border Patrol, DoD, DHS, etc.), and other civil service jobs such as firefighters, don't deserve their pensions? That its fucking ridiculous? Sorry, you are 'fucking ridiculous'. If your that jealous, then go do the jobs yourself, then maybe you'll see how 'ridiculous' your statements are, when you try to make GS13-14 and put your life at stake. I said nothing about eliminating them, but they need to be reduced. And it's not all people who actually put their lives on the line—stupid ass city employees, politicians (who often stack up their benefits by holding multiple positions) teachers, etc. Cops, FF, and all those guys got tough jobs, but that doesn't mean the average tax payer should be going broke paying for them for life. There has to be some kind of regulation. Look how much pensions eat up budgets.
Are you serious? The Federal government is going broke because of the 90 million people under Medicare and Medicaid, and the huge baby boom explosion into SS, that and they just love to spend money on their fanciful lib delights. Green, Green, Green all! As we wash the wealth and green of the nation down the toilet.
Politicians are voted into office, they actually don't get paid that much, and for what it's worth, they have a very tough job. They don't need to be reduced, if anything many of the civil service workers get paid not enough. It takes 20-30 years, to even approach dreaming of making 60k pension, and for most its not possible. My father, retired USCG Chief (E-7) 24 years, only makes about 31k a year as a pension. Imagine what it takes to make 60k.
Your anger is placed in the wrong direction, look at the huge programs that are bankrupting the country, not the miniscule .5% GDP that federal pensions encompass.
|
On May 16 2009 08:54 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 06:39 Hawk wrote:On May 16 2009 06:18 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 06:01 Hawk wrote:On May 16 2009 05:24 Jibba wrote:On May 16 2009 04:30 Hawk wrote:On May 15 2009 21:28 Jibba wrote:On May 15 2009 11:49 Jonoman92 wrote:
edit: I don't see our health system changing anytime soon. Everyone who has power in society is just fine in the status quo, and it's not like the poor people are gonna unite and actually demand anything. Changing the state of things would take tons of money and that obviously isn't there. Obama isn't some miracle worker, and even though I consider myself liberal I haven't been a fan of the way he's been handling things lately. It will change within the next eight years, for two reasons. First, we're in a crisis period, which is about the only time fundamental changes can be made to a society. If there is an opportunity to install it, it's right now, not 10 or 15 years from now. Second, big businesses want national health insurance as well, because it helps them as well. Insurance companies are now starting to get on board with the national health care plan, probably because they foresee it coming and want to get on the good side of the administration so they can affect policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1 I agree that drastic changes are more likely to happen in a state of crisis, but how can it possibly be done with our given economic state (even if this supposed turn around is true)? I think the socialized care would be more beneficial to small business rather than the large ones. The larger places are typically the more lucrative, more competitive jobs. If one is saying we'll give you good health care, and the other is saying piss off and take the dumpy nationalized option, who are you gonna go to? Plus, I'd imagine that the inevitable tax bump that's coming with this is gonna be placed more on big business rather than the little guys. Small businesses would benefit just based on how friggin much it costs to insure a worker. A guy getting like $35k or so on paper costs the employer close to $45k at the end of the year. Plus, depending on the tax bracket the business falls into, they might miss the tax hike that the bigger guys would get; all the benefits without really kicking in a whole lot. I also could be totally wrong. Who cares. Agree with the NYT article though, definitely. I'm not sure. I honestly expect it to come in his second administration, if he's re-elected. I expect changes to Social Security to come first. That needs to be changed, and something really needs to be done about the ridiculous pensions that city, state and fed workers get. Paying people $60k a year for life after 20 some odd years of service is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Are you putting your life in harms way? Police, Federal workers (DEA, NSA, CIA, FBI, Customs, Border Patrol, DoD, DHS, etc.), and other civil service jobs such as firefighters, don't deserve their pensions? That its fucking ridiculous? Sorry, you are 'fucking ridiculous'. If your that jealous, then go do the jobs yourself, then maybe you'll see how 'ridiculous' your statements are, when you try to make GS13-14 and put your life at stake. I said nothing about eliminating them, but they need to be reduced. And it's not all people who actually put their lives on the line—stupid ass city employees, politicians (who often stack up their benefits by holding multiple positions) teachers, etc. Cops, FF, and all those guys got tough jobs, but that doesn't mean the average tax payer should be going broke paying for them for life. There has to be some kind of regulation. Look how much pensions eat up budgets. Your anger is placed in the wrong direction, look at the huge programs that are bankrupting the country, not the miniscule .5% GDP that federal pensions encompass.
EDIT: Ok, that wasn't at all researched thoroughly. Ignore please 
|
im not understanding, in USA there is no free treatment/public hospitals?
|
I do not know how much US citizents like their health system. As for myself, I will say that I am glad my own country has a public healthcare system. Yes, it is by no means perfect, but at least I am guaruanteed treatment when I need it. Overall, I think it`s qualities outweight any potential flaws.
Also, the notion that "high taxes = totalitarian state" is pure fallacy, especially when one considers that states with some of the highest taxes are also among the most democratic states in the world (like Scandinavian countries, for example). Infact, Nazi Germany, a textbook example of a totalitarian state, had low taxes until late in World War II.
|
On May 16 2009 09:35 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I do not know how much US citizents like their health system. As for myself, I will say that I am glad my own country has a public healthcare system. Yes, it is by no means perfect, but at least I am guaruanteed treatment when I need it. Overall, I think it`s qualities outweight any potential flaws.
Also, the notion that "high taxes = totalitarian state" is pure fallacy, especially when one considers that states with some of the highest taxes are also among the most democratic states in the world (like Scandinavian countries, for example). Infact, Nazi Germany, a textbook example of a totalitarian state, had low taxes until late in World War II.
Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian?
People confuse Democracy and Republicanism so much. This eschewed vision of Democracy is good, needs to be dispelled.
PS: Are you too lazy to budget for your own healthcare, which would be of much higher quality when privatized? Competition breeds improvements; the other way creates and instigates stagnation. No one wants to be responsible for finances any more...Everyone wants government to live their lives for them. Ugh....can we have responsible, hard-working people stand up against this...please...
|
If you get an HMO you can get basically everything at the same hospital at a consistent rate. This is good as long as companies aren't trying to skin you, which they really aren't at this point. If you're really poor you can get medicaid which is pretty efficient and good. Outside of these cases you are in the realm of the wolves that are insurance, big-business doctors, and drug companies.
EDIT: Read a bit of the arguing. LBJ really gets a bad wrap. The great society has been very helpful for America. I recommend reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of LBJ to get a perspective that is not tinted by how he has been made by history.
|
On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:35 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I do not know how much US citizents like their health system. As for myself, I will say that I am glad my own country has a public healthcare system. Yes, it is by no means perfect, but at least I am guaruanteed treatment when I need it. Overall, I think it`s qualities outweight any potential flaws.
Also, the notion that "high taxes = totalitarian state" is pure fallacy, especially when one considers that states with some of the highest taxes are also among the most democratic states in the world (like Scandinavian countries, for example). Infact, Nazi Germany, a textbook example of a totalitarian state, had low taxes until late in World War II. Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian? People confuse Democracy and Republicanism so much. This eschewed vision of Democracy is good, needs to be dispelled. PS: Are you too lazy to budget for your own healthcare, which would be of much higher quality when privatized? Competition breeds improvements; the other way creates and instigates stagnation. No one wants to be responsible for finances any more...Everyone wants government to live their lives for them. Ugh....can we have responsible, hard-working people stand up against this...please...
You do realize that a majority of the american population is in favour of nationalized health care system?
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15715
|
On May 16 2009 09:48 thopol wrote:
If you get an HMO you can get basically everything at the same hospital at a consistent rate. This is good as long as companies aren't trying to skin you, which they really aren't at this point. If you're really poor you can get medicaid which is pretty efficient and good. Outside of these cases you are in the realm of the wolves that are insurance, big-business doctors, and drug companies.
You do know that medicare and medicaid drive up the costs of medical care for everyone else correct? (Medicare and Medicaid only pay 60% of the hospital bill, leaving the other 40% for everyone else to foot; that is why hospitals limit the amount of medicare/medicaid patients because they would literally go bankrupt by providing care for every medicare/medicaid recipient that walks in) If we were to abolish these long overdue systems we could drastically lower the costs for everyone.
|
On May 16 2009 09:48 thopol wrote:
If you get an HMO you can get basically everything at the same hospital at a consistent rate. This is good as long as companies aren't trying to skin you, which they really aren't at this point. If you're really poor you can get medicaid which is pretty efficient and good. Outside of these cases you are in the realm of the wolves that are insurance, big-business doctors, and drug companies.
EDIT: Read a bit of the arguing. LBJ really gets a bad wrap. The great society has been very helpful for America. I recommend reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of LBJ to get a perspective that is not tinted by how he has been made by history.
History by your stance therefore is wrong? Is not his programs bankrupting this country? How in any sense is this good for anyone?
You do know we just monetized our debt and the medicare/medicaid debt alone exceeds 40 trillion. No, in fact, the Great Society has been horrible for America and will be one of the reasons for its eventual downfall. No civilization has monetized their debt and not imploded.
|
On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:35 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I do not know how much US citizents like their health system. As for myself, I will say that I am glad my own country has a public healthcare system. Yes, it is by no means perfect, but at least I am guaruanteed treatment when I need it. Overall, I think it`s qualities outweight any potential flaws.
Also, the notion that "high taxes = totalitarian state" is pure fallacy, especially when one considers that states with some of the highest taxes are also among the most democratic states in the world (like Scandinavian countries, for example). Infact, Nazi Germany, a textbook example of a totalitarian state, had low taxes until late in World War II. Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian?.
Mostly, I would think, because it's not the definition of Totalitarian o.o
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Democracies do not ban other parties. They're not perfect, but the idea is that everyone is supposed to get their say. Not that everyone gets what they want. A totalitarian state is when people are not allowed to speak against the state, and when no other people are allowed to take the place of the state in power (except, of course, by force). Calling democracy totalitarian just shows you have a very limited understanding of politics...
PS: Hurray for America!
|
On May 16 2009 09:53 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote:On May 16 2009 09:35 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I do not know how much US citizents like their health system. As for myself, I will say that I am glad my own country has a public healthcare system. Yes, it is by no means perfect, but at least I am guaruanteed treatment when I need it. Overall, I think it`s qualities outweight any potential flaws.
Also, the notion that "high taxes = totalitarian state" is pure fallacy, especially when one considers that states with some of the highest taxes are also among the most democratic states in the world (like Scandinavian countries, for example). Infact, Nazi Germany, a textbook example of a totalitarian state, had low taxes until late in World War II. Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian?. Mostly, I would think, because it's not the definition of Totalitarian o.o Show nested quote +1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic. Democracies do not ban other parties. They're not perfect, but the idea is that everyone is supposed to get their say. Not that everyone gets what they want. A totalitarian state is when people are not allowed to speak against the state, and when no other people are allowed to take the place of the state in power (except, of course, by force). Calling democracy totalitarian just shows you have a very limited understanding of politics... PS: Hurray for America!
If the majority can take the rights from the minority how is that not Totalitarian? What therefore is it?
Specifically the second here is representative of what I said: "Exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others". This is exactly what Fairness Doctrine is. This is exactly what 'free speech' zones on campus' are. This is exactly what nationalized healthcare is (I have no free will nor freedom to choose who I want to go, how I will receive service, or even if I'm allowed to get any service at all). This is what limiting and abolishing the 2nd amendment is. I could go on, and on.
All governments should strive to be Republics. Not Democracy. Republic is the best form of government yet devised, and as such I do not see a foreseeable system that is better. The rule of law, governed by representatives upholding such law. That is why the Republic that America was founded as, died about 80+ years ago because everyone is out to trash the constitution, save for select few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
