| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States43758 Posts
I'm more amused by him to be honest. He's like a traveller from a small town in the countryside who has gone to a big city and is bragging about the two storey buildings where he comes from which are made of stone. Rather quaint. Also apparently we practice Sharia Law in Britain and there was no civilisation in Europe until after America. Oh, and the USSR wasn't even involved in the defeat of Nazi Germany. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:33 InsideTheBox wrote: Just a couple of points; (1 to Aegraen) life expectancy is lower in the US compared with those Eurozone nations that have socialized healthcare, (2 to Aegraen) your definition of "freedom and liberty" is pretty loose, there are no allusions to a citizen's "right" to such things, just as we don't have a "right" to exempt ourselves from paying taxes or any sort of social program for that matter, (3 to Kwark) your stats are extremely biased; the bureaucratic cost of most, if not all, "universal" healthcare schemes in the US would be huge. The fact that we have private healthcare providers insures the competitive need to drive these costs down, whereas with a single entity that incentive would not exist. It's pretty obvious that there doesn't exist any consistent manner in which we can weigh the benefits of healthcare provisions for those in the lower socioeconomic rung against the cost of running such a program. One can blow platitudes about the "value of human life," the right to choose, benefits of competition, etc out of their asses, but in the end most people with a strong view point just will not change their minds. though i don't have a problem with much of what you wrote, especially your last statement, i would just say that in our current privatized system healthcare costs have been rising dramatically over the years. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:37 Kwark wrote: God, you'd have fucking loved Victorian Britain. If you were one of the minority on top that is. Absolute belief in cultural and moral superiority over the unenlightened - check Unregulated free market - check No form of social security, pensions, healthcare etc - check Belief that you deserved your position in society - check Belief that you were the pinacle of civilisation - check Belief that the poor were to blame for being poor and therefore deserved their exploitation - check America is a classless society. Stop pigeon-holing us into a socialistic class caste system. A poor man can become rich, and has. A rich man can become poor, and has. You can achieve whatever you want in America, many have, and do if you strive for it. Government intervention is increasingly making it difficult to become 'rich' and the incentive to make more money has diminished with the gripping tax burdens. Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready. Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea) | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:31 Aegraen wrote: Some. More are of the irresponsible, bad decision making types. Not my fault; I should not get punished for making the right, responsible choices in life. What a backasswards belief system. Reward the irresponsible; punish the responsible. the US is one of the western countries where it's hard to get out of your "class". Born into a rich family you tend to die rich, vice versa for poor people. So people with rich parents are going to get some great care, and people born into poor families won't be able to get treatment. and you can't say that every person is in control of their situation, unless everyone in downtrodden areas like cleveland or detroit managed to collectively make bad descisions. and what about those that where struck by the credit crisis? is it fair to say that they shouldn't have health care because of global economy? and how are you being punished exactly? higher taxes? you're paying for that insurance one way or the other anyways. i guess you loose the choice to not have an insurance as taxes usually are mandatory. in the end a completly privatized health systems just means that you prioritize the lives of the rich over the poor. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43758 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:47 Aegraen wrote: America is a classless society. Stop pigeon-holing us into a socialistic class caste system. A poor man can become rich, and has. A rich man can become poor, and has. You can achieve whatever you want in America, many have, and do if you strive for it. Government intervention is increasingly making it difficult to become 'rich' and the incentive to make more money has diminished with the gripping tax burdens. Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready. Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea) Victorian Britain was full of examples of poor people becoming rich through entrepreneurial spirit and hard work. It was the dream which kept the vast majority working without questioning their position in society. Seriously, this free market American dream obsession of yours, it's been done. Do you really think your country appeared in a vacuum? It was modelled on the dominant power at the time. Free market. Flat tax rates. Non interventionist Government concerned mainly with defence and diplomacy. You're describing Victorian Britain. Accept it. Move on. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
What is Europe's future anyway? In 100 years, Europe will be irrelevant. It has 0 growth potential, but other places are growing fast. Its done, washed up. The centers of innovation and production and energy shifted out of Europe a long time ago, and the weight of that shift is telling. The economies you have now, are simply legacies of the past. The only way Europe can survive is by actually inculcating its immigrants with something of the home countries spirit and culture- you know, the way America works- but they refuse to do that. Why do we as Americans want to emulate this amazing European society that is slowly atrophying and sunk in its own demographic collapse (part of which is certainly related to health care costs and the burden on society of an aging population with a shrinking population of youth)? Thats why I always wonder why the left is so enamored with making us more like Europe. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
 | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On May 16 2009 08:48 Aegraen wrote: 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. Umm I said there were 40 million without health insurance. That is true. You cant say "oh those people don't count cause they are young and could pay for it." They still dont have health insurance. It is really important for young people to have health coverage and it is a travesty that that is not the case in this country. On May 16 2009 12:47 Aegraen wrote: America is a classless society. Stop pigeon-holing us into a socialistic class caste system. A poor man can become rich, and has. A rich man can become poor, and has. You can achieve whatever you want in America, many have, and do if you strive for it. Government intervention is increasingly making it difficult to become 'rich' and the incentive to make more money has diminished with the gripping tax burdens. Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready. Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea) Aegraen lets be honest here. I dont know how much money you think your going to make in your career but Im willing to bet its not going to be over the 250,000 tax bracket. I, however, will most likely fall in that top 2%. If anything I should be complaining about footing the bill for your kids. So please spare us all the talk about stifling tax rates. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
America is a classless society. Pretty sure you don't know what a class is, then. | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
On May 16 2009 13:09 FieryBalrog wrote: Here's the problem, Kwark. British society as it is now, is failing. In fact, all of Europe is failing. The demographics don't lie. The population is aging and increasingly frail with a shrinking population of young people to support society. All Western Europe increasingly depends on immigrants- Muslim, Eastern European and to a lesser extent Asian- but these immigrants don't necessarily share your enlightened European values values and any attempt to assimilate them is "racist" and isn't allowed for by our modern multicultural dogma. What is Europe's future anyway? In 100 years, Europe will be irrelevant. It has 0 growth potential, but other places are growing fast. Its done, washed up. The centers of innovation and production and energy shifted out of Europe a long time ago, and the weight of that shift is telling. The economies you have now, are simply legacies of the past. The only way Europe can survive is by actually inculcating its immigrants with something of the home countries spirit and culture- you know, the way America works- but they refuse to do that. Why do we as Americans want to emulate this amazing European society that is slowly atrophying and sunk in its own demographic collapse (part of which is certainly related to health care costs and the burden on society of an aging population with a shrinking population of youth)? Thats why I always wonder why the left is so enamored with making us more like Europe. woah, a 100 year prognonsis, good luck with that one Nostradamus. and "inculcating its immigrants with something of the home countries spirit and culture", what does this mean actually? is there some active effort to make immigrants more American? | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
wat. | ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19138 Posts
Gogo dutch healthcare. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On May 16 2009 15:08 VIB wrote: I heard that when poor americans have health issues they get in a boat to Cuba to get real treatment. Is that correct? No. The old people in Florida could never make the trip. Besides, retired people are generally covered in medical bills by state or pension depending on their bills. | ||
|
The Raurosaur
198 Posts
On May 16 2009 13:09 FieryBalrog wrote: Here's the problem, Kwark. British society as it is now, is failing. In fact, all of Europe is failing. The demographics don't lie. The population is aging and increasingly frail with a shrinking population of young people to support society. All Western Europe increasingly depends on immigrants- Muslim, Eastern European and to a lesser extent Asian- but these immigrants don't necessarily share your enlightened European values values and any attempt to assimilate them is "racist" and isn't allowed for by our modern multicultural dogma. Why does a demography shift = failing? By that standard, the US has been failing for most of its history, what with all the immigration and cultural melting pots. Many immigrants to Western Europe are only short-term - i.e. they intend to leave after 5, 10 years once they have comfortable savings to take to their families back home. (Also, surely free movement of labour is one of the ideals of the free market?) A more practical question for the Americans - how much does the average person pay for their health insurance? I'm moving to the US later this year and am curious to what a good deal is etc. | ||
|
Syntax Lost
Finland86 Posts
Aegraen wrote: About 18 million can afford it, are in between the ages of 18-35 and choose not to purchase it(*2). This actually leads to an interesting point. These "young invincibles" end up causing more problems. Relevant articles here and here. The relevant part of one article wrote: A third of 18- to 29-year-olds, a demographic the insurance industry calls "young invincibles," are cigarette smokers. A quarter are obese, as the rates among young adults have tripled in the past three decades. Nearly two-thirds of young adults reported not having regular leisure-time physical activity. "At that age, people tend to be healthy but take it for granted," said Dr. Jennifer Shu, CNNhealth's Living Well expert. "Diabetes and heart disease start at much earlier ages now. The obesity and cigarettes can impact how young you might be when you get a serious illness." The articles also wrote: Instead of paying exorbitant prices, many young people choose to remain uninsured, risking injury while harboring the belief that youth alone can buffer them from illness. A recent study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund, a center for health care policy, found that 13.7 million people ages 19 to 29 did not have health insurance in 2006. The total number of uninsured that year was 47 million, which means "young invincibles" composed almost one-third of all the uninsured in the U.S. Finally, the articles wrote: Meanwhile, other uninsured acquaintances found ways to circumvent the problem of no insurance. "You would hear stories about people giving fake names at the ER or blowing out before being discharged so they wouldn't be responsible for the bill," said McPartland. In New York, Horse says he sees the same thing. But somebody pays, said Emory's Thorpe. "In cases where somebody who doesn't have health insurance shows up in the emergency room, we all end up paying for it. Taxpayers pay for it. People with private insurance pay for it. Somebody's picking up the bill." According to Thorpe, who is also the executive director of an organization called the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, about $50 billion a year is spent to cover medical bills incurred by the uninsured. In other words, the costs are simply too high since they're not means adjusted, so people end up not paying them but the end result is that it costs the system even more money. 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. Your source for this is utterly unreliable. They are neither independent, nor do they conduct any real research. It's also important to note that even those with medical insurance may be inadequately covered which is not being covered by the statistics been discussed above. Relevant article found here. Time wrote: But Pat represents the shadow problem facing an additional 25 million people who spend more than 10% of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs. They are the underinsured, who may be all the more vulnerable because, until a health catastrophe hits, they're often blind to the danger they're in. In a 2005 Harvard University study of more than 1,700 bankruptcies across the country, researchers found that medical problems were behind half of them — and three-quarters of those bankrupt people actually had health insurance. As Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor who helped conduct the study, wrote in the Washington Post, "Nobody's safe ... A comfortable middle-class lifestyle? Good education? Decent job? No safeguards there. Most of the medically bankrupt were middle-class homeowners who had been to college and had responsible jobs — until illness struck." So even those who are insured can find themselves bankrupted by medical bills and destroyed as contributing members to society. Furthermore, there is a wonderful thing in the US called short-term insurance which has a lovely side-effect illustrated in the same article. Time also wrote: Pat's decision to save some money by buying short-term insurance was a big mistake, says Karen Pollitz, project director of Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute and a leading expert on the individual-insurance market. "These short-term policies are a joke," she says. "Nobody should ever buy them. It is false security that is being sold. It's junk." That's because diagnosing and treating an illness may not fall neatly into six-month increments. While Pat had been continuously covered since 2002 by the same company, Assurant Health, each successive policy treated him as a brand-new customer. In looking back over Pat's medical records, the company noticed test results from December, eight months earlier. Though Pat's doctors didn't determine the precise cause of the problem until the following July, his kidney disease was nonetheless judged a "pre-existing condition" — meaning his insurance wouldn't cover it, since he was now under a different six-month policy from the one he had when he got those first tests. So you can be covered by insurance, be treated, but if you require long-term treatment and you're up for renewal, the insurance company can claim that it's a pre-existing condition and therefore deny all claims. You're really shit out of luck under such circumstances. The reality with the US system is that it discourages preventative care through these practices as the care is often more expensive than people can afford, and insurance companies find ways (e.g. short-term contracts) to dump you from the system if you become too much of a liability to them. The irony of it all, is that when you reach the ends of your means and you're in a critical condition, then the state will step in and help. I.e. the state will cover you, but only when it's most urgent (and most expensive). If proper treatment could be afforded earlier, it would cost *everyone* far less in terms of money, health and lost opportunity. Aegraen wrote: Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many. As for life expectancy let's consult the CIA World Factbook again, shall we? US: 78.11 (overall 50th). Canada: 81.23 (overall 8th). Sweden: 80.63 (10th). One of the highest? Really? Seriously, do you think that nobody would call you on your BS? Or did you never do your homework and hope you wouldn't get caught? Which is it? Aegraen continues: Most of the healthcare costs in the US come from the government with their stupid programs. Hmmm... Let's see the overhead costs for the US and compare them to Canada. According to the New England Journal of Medicine back in 2003 The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. Three times higher overhead per capita compared to Canada and its entirely state run system. And we're to suspect that government programmes are responsible for all of this extra cost? Seriously? According to the World Health Organization, the US spent 15.2% of its GDP on healthcare during 2005. Only Somalia and the Marshall Islands spent more as a function of GDP. Canada spent only 9.7% by comparison. Sweden? 9.2%. There's clearly an enormous difference between expenditures between the US and most other first world nations and yet what does the US have to show for it in terms of actual health metrics? It's more expensive and generates worse outcomes across the board. And we're to expect that socialised medicine is bad? On what basis? Aegraen continues: I'm going to be quite frank with you here. I don't give a shit what stats you have, if it any way impedes with my Freedom and Liberty, then it will not happen. Simple as that. There's not even a point to argue with you, because in the end I choose my Freedoms and Liberties and free will over your cost:benefit analysis bullcrap. If I want to live to 105 then I will damn well live to 105 (or at least try). And here we see his true colours. He will stick to his beliefs regardless of what evidence is presented before him. A lot like a religious fanatic in that regard. It doesn't matter what the actual outcome is, he will stick to his beliefs no matter how they're questioned. The reality is, if we're to maintain our freedom, we also must work together as a society. This is why we pool our resources together to support an army to protect. This is also why we should pool our resources in order to protect ourselves in the case of health related emergencies. The strange thing about someone like Aegraen is that they can see how the military is necessary, but they're completely unable to extend that reasoning to something like national healthcare. Even when you really have babies dying as a consequence. Oh yes, you know about 150 years of being a true republic living by the Constitution turned out pretty crappy. Last I checked we took on and wiped out both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan and become the lone world economic superpower after the war. Turned out pretty crappy. You also didn't have your country wrecked in two major world wars due to its geographical isolation. Europe is declining. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me within 5 years that britains are actually a minority in....Britain. You don't even realize it, but you've basically been invaded and taken over without a fight. So what kind of advanced society do you have...with Shar'ia Law being practiced, a 7th century system of laws that allows stoning a woman to death for adultery. Evidence? | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On May 18 2009 01:01 Syntax Lost wrote: Complete fabrication. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United states has an infant mortality of 6.26 per 1000 live births. By comparison, Canada has 5.04, an improvement of 24%. And socialist Sweden? 2.75 per 1000 live births--an improvement of 228%! Overall, the US rates 45th in the world in terms of infant mortality. Lowest? Really? Seriously, check how many first world countries rate worse than the US, there's not many. I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it. I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/ | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
On May 18 2009 01:15 Railz wrote: I'm just going to respond to this portion of the post as I have no feelings one way or the other about the rest of it. I've seen people try to call this number out against the US multiple times without realizing that list never tried to adjust for population. It goes by births/1000 and unfortunately, for the US, when being compared to Canada it has about 10,000 more births/1000 which makes it pretty difficult to make a fair comparison of the 2 when we have so many more chances for complications. Granted, it is still a high number I suppose, but it doesn't knock the original point of being an unfair comparison. The only 2 near population size to the US is Indonesia and Brazil =/ a higher ammount of births are just going to make the average more accurate, not worse. edit: or are you implying that there are much more births per capita in the US? so many that it puts a burden on the healthcare system? | ||
|
ToSs.Bag
United States201 Posts
On May 15 2009 10:53 Mykill wrote: im in canada but i hear that health insurance is a MUST unless your absurdly rich. also i've heard of quite a few scams where those who sign up for health insurance still dont get shit when they claim for it This statement is horrendously false. The extremely rich protect their money however they can. Most rich people have types of insurance I don't even understand, and probably types they don't understand either. As far as cost goes, I don't have health insurance, and a doctors visit and meds for whatever I have, antibiotics or whatever I need, usually runs me 150 total. The visit is about 120, and the meds are about 30 typically for your avegerage "I should go to the doctor for this" sickness. | ||
|
ToSs.Bag
United States201 Posts
Many people pay upwards of 60%+ in taxes between federal, state, localities, and all sorts of crap. Death tax? Cigarette taxes? Gas Taxes? Property Taxes? geeze. Stop suffocating us all ready. Fair tax! (A consumption tax). No income tax. No property taxes. No death tax. Straight consumer tax. Basically, it would be the flat/fair tax rolled into one. A national, say 8% a dollar tax on purchases. Voila, problem solved. Though with this, you couldn't lavishly spend on every governmental amenity and whim at politicians disposal. This would also put on average 8,000$ back into the pockets of every American to spend as they want. Yay for capitalism and competition (Oh, and FREEDOM, you can choose to save as much as you can too, and not be punished...what a remarkable idea) I agree with part two, but the first part...... dude come on we are not that socialist yet.... Obamunism hasn't brought us that far down YET. Calm down good sir. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Calm
Royal vs Mind
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs PianO
Flash vs Speed
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Leta
Queen vs Jaedong
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
