|
On May 18 2009 13:48 Durak wrote:
I'll admit I've only read four of the eight pages in this thread because it was so lengthy. I'll just add in my personal story about Canadian Healthcare.
I was throwing up all night and I thought I had food poisoning. In the morning I called an advisory nurse so she could possibly diagnose what I had without leaving my house. After I described how I'd been over the night she said I should go to ER. At the hospital I let the receptionist know the severity of my illness. I didn't think it was anything bad so I got put pretty low in priority. After an hour or so I got to see a doctor that attempted to diagnose what I had. After answering some questions and the like I was put of morphine. An hour or so later a surgion came in and told me I most likely had appendicitis and asked me if they should take it out. I said absolutely. I was operated on in the next hour.
Overall, it took me like half a day to find out I had appendicitis and to get the fucker out. It didn't cost me or my family anything.
You know besides the taxes that pays for it no? Just a question, if you don't pay taxes is your healthcare still free? If so, enjoy stealing from others?
This fallacy that healthcare is free is absurd.
|
Man, what's wrong with you. It's not so extreme as you like to believe to make yourself feel better about the US healthcare system.
Our country is a big community. We support eachother. I'm receiving free service when I need it and not paying for it. When I'm older, I'll be paying a small portion of my income to support other people in my current situation. It's not stealing from anyone.
Is it stealing when your government gives billions of its taxpayers dollars to foreign countries as aid? Is it stealing when your government spends billions of dollars to prop up industries that the CEOs have run poorly?
Edit: I'll lead you incase you don't follow my questions. There are lots of things that governments spend money on that many people don't agree with. Some of them are a waste of tax dollars and some of them are not. I think that spending money to save your citizens than most. Instead of blowing billions in Iraq you could have been saving lives.
|
On May 18 2009 14:42 Durak wrote:
Man, what's wrong with you. It's not so extreme as you like to believe to make yourself feel better about the US healthcare system.
Our country is a big community. We support eachother. I'm receiving free service when I need it and not paying for it. When I'm older, I'll be paying a small portion of my income to support other people in my current situation. It's not stealing from anyone.
Is it stealing when your government gives billions of its taxpayers dollars to foreign countries as aid? Is it stealing when your government spends billions of dollars to prop up industries that the CEOs have run poorly?
Yes and Yes.
I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately.
They never have the best interest of America.
I'm one of those you know, ol' school Robert Taft/George Washington types.
And yes, you did steal. Did you earn that money? No. What then is it?
Nothing is wrong with me, I am just a hard-working American who doesn't like to see his country heading in the direction of wealth destruction, that and if this continues I'll be sure to pull a John Galt.
|
On May 18 2009 14:47 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 14:42 Durak wrote:
Man, what's wrong with you. It's not so extreme as you like to believe to make yourself feel better about the US healthcare system.
Our country is a big community. We support eachother. I'm receiving free service when I need it and not paying for it. When I'm older, I'll be paying a small portion of my income to support other people in my current situation. It's not stealing from anyone.
Is it stealing when your government gives billions of its taxpayers dollars to foreign countries as aid? Is it stealing when your government spends billions of dollars to prop up industries that the CEOs have run poorly? Yes and Yes. I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately. They never have the best interest of America. I'm one of those you know, ol' school Robert Taft/George Washington types. And yes, you did steal. Did you earn that money? No. What then is it? Nothing is wrong with me, I am just a hard-working American who doesn't like to see his country heading in the direction of wealth destruction, that and if this continues I'll be sure to pull a John Galt.
1. it isnt stealing because in receipt of that service, you are paying it with an IOU note (just like US gov issue debt to pay its bills)
2. the UN mandate is "in best interest of mankind", not "in the best interest of USA". likewise the US constitution is made in the best interst of US citizens, not in the best interest of YOU, citizen!
|
Believing that you can do everything yourself is idiotic, to say the least. Specialization and trade are critical to prosperity. Protectionism is terrible economically.
In addition, treaties have helped protect your way of life. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapon technology protects your own country. You rely on the cooperation of other countries to enforce it. Peace treaties are in the best interest of everyone. Instead of spending billions of tax payer dollars on war you could be helping your people with say, healthcare.
Your definition of stealing must be rediculous. Somehow paying taxes which in turn pays for my healthcare is stealing. Can you follow the system? Maybe the government is stealing from you when you pay taxes, you decide.
I don't know what "wealth destruction" you're talking about. To reiterate, the US makes a large portion of its GDP from operating internationally. "They have never been in the best interest of America?" Don't make me laugh.
|
On May 18 2009 14:47 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 14:42 Durak wrote:
Man, what's wrong with you. It's not so extreme as you like to believe to make yourself feel better about the US healthcare system.
Our country is a big community. We support eachother. I'm receiving free service when I need it and not paying for it. When I'm older, I'll be paying a small portion of my income to support other people in my current situation. It's not stealing from anyone.
Is it stealing when your government gives billions of its taxpayers dollars to foreign countries as aid? Is it stealing when your government spends billions of dollars to prop up industries that the CEOs have run poorly? Yes and Yes. I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately. They never have the best interest of America.
yeah pretty strange how an organisation made up of several nations doesn't focus on the benefit of just a single country.
I'm one of those you know, ol' school Robert Taft/George Washington types.
And yes, you did steal. Did you earn that money? No. What then is it?
everybody pitching in to get better healthcare for everyone.
you know, helping eachother to get something all of you alone couldn't.
but going by your defenition of stealing you could probably put someone in jail for asking his neighbour for help.
Nothing is wrong with me, I am just a hard-working American who doesn't like to see his country heading in the direction of wealth destruction, that and if this continues I'll be sure to pull a John Galt.
oh no, please don't blackmail the world with your absence! whatever will we do without you?
maybe we can get an answer from another work of fiction...
+ Show Spoiler +quickly! reforge the blade of isildur!
|
INTERNET, SRS BIZNS, seriously guys, smarted the fuck up.
??
stop posting, you know who you are
|
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
Insurance is cheap in america and yea, there are a lot of hidden things with insurance that you assume is covered but really isn't. Lots of shady mother fuckers here.
|
On May 18 2009 14:47 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 14:42 Durak wrote:
Man, what's wrong with you. It's not so extreme as you like to believe to make yourself feel better about the US healthcare system.
Our country is a big community. We support eachother. I'm receiving free service when I need it and not paying for it. When I'm older, I'll be paying a small portion of my income to support other people in my current situation. It's not stealing from anyone.
Is it stealing when your government gives billions of its taxpayers dollars to foreign countries as aid? Is it stealing when your government spends billions of dollars to prop up industries that the CEOs have run poorly? Yes and Yes. I am against foreign obligations. This means no Alliances, aid, treaties, etc. UN is so ridiculously corrupt and asinine, we should leave that corruptocrat place immediately.
The hell is wrong with you. You call yourself a good old fashion American yet completely turn a blind eye to the fact this country was founded on international alliances and making legal contracts with foreign nations?
|
I find it interesting that if you take most arguments against government control of healthcare and replace the word government with "private insurance", you get a more lucid critique of the current american system which criticizes the businesses which benefit the most.
Feel free to look at who benefits the most from the current system. Doctors? Lawyers? Insurance company workers? Insurance company owners? Nurses? Other healthcare workers? You be the judge.
|
Aside from the ethical and moral arguments for a national health care system which have largely gone unmentioned in this thread, the best argument for a single payer system is the control administrative cost. Maintaining efficiency and controlling cost are ideas that stark national health care critics such as Aegraen and Headbanga can embrace. They are wise to despise the government’s current role in health administration. It is a blatantly inefficient, wasteful, and cost accumulating bureaucracy. But the problem isn't sheer government involvement, rather the way the government is involved in health care.
The current problems with the US health care system relating to government involvement have been mentioned in previous posts of Aegraen and Headbanga. I will now explain the benefits of a single payer system and how this system won't impact health care quality to the extent many national health care critics fear.
Before I start understand that I’m not advocating universal coverage or any particular system that determines who has access to health care. I have my own beliefs on this matter which don’t relate to the reasons for a single payer system. I am only making an argument for the system that has been adopted by the rest of the industrialized world. I hope, you will come to see, they have good reason for doing so.
The statistics involving health care administration have already been mentioned. Administrative cost (the cost of running insurance companies/HMOs/PPOs, advertizing, reviewing claims, denying or accepting appeals, handling lawsuits, negotiating health care costs) waste 10% of every health care dollar spent. The average insurance company spends 13% of every dollar on administrative cost. The percentage is 3% for Medicare/Medicaid and other national health care programs (such as Canada's system) resulting in a difference of 10%. Considering that the USA spent 2.5 Trillion on health care in 2008, we're talking about 250 Billion dollars used on administrative cost. We could maintain the current health care delivery system (the same drugs, docs, hospitals, and procedures) and reduce costs by 250 Billion annually if we switched. A single payer system could also further reduce health care costs by lower drug prices (which are twice as high in the US than other industrialized nations) resulting in a net annual savings of over 300 billion. There are other ways we could reduce cost as well such as national health care records system, but these are a different topic entirely.
Criticisms of a single payer system are numerous. It is true that Canadian and British health care systems have longer weights, lower 5 year survival rates for cancer therapy, limited access to “alternative medicine,” and they do lose doctors who are frustrated with the system. But, understand Canadians and the British spend far less than the United States does on Health care. We spend $7,439 per person while Canada spends $5170 and the UK spends $4973. The fiscal differences spent per patient are the main reasons for the discrepancies between quality of patient care and access to health care, not the mere presence of a single payer system. This is largely a consequence of the universal coverage applied to all citizens. All too often the single payer system is cited as the reason for health care discrepancies when dollars spent per patient is the genuine culprit. The reason health care in the US is the best for those with insurance is because we spend the most on individuals. Many of the myths of national health care need to be dispelled. Claims of “The government will be picking your medicine,” “you won’t get to pick your doctor,” and “you’ll die waiting in line” may make cogent arguments to the poorly educated and uniformed, but have little place in a serious discussion of health care administration in the US. The first claim is a joke, and the later two have little to no basis in fact, especially if we limit coverage to individuals who choose to pay into a single payer system. Other arguments such as “Why should I have to pay for others people health care” are equally hilarious considering anyone who subscribes with an insurance company is already doing this and would only continue under a single payer system.
Now I don't want to seem naive, I understand that universal coverage for citizens and a single payer system will probably go hand and hand, but any honest individual can admit the government can run organizations efficiently. The US mail, the DOE, the education systems are all extremely well run. Why not health care? After all it saves money and will not necessarily diminish health care quality.
|
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:
Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!
Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?
|
On May 19 2009 00:31 stk01001 wrote:
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:
Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!
Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?
For me the question has all been smart government, not more or less. I completely agree with your sentiment.
|
On May 19 2009 00:31 stk01001 wrote:
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:
Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!
Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?
Do you know what Federalism is?
Secondly, armed services is actually one of the functions of the Federal Government.
Also, please, name me one government run college (JDIC, Military Schools, etc. don't count. I'm talking about civilian schools). Secondly, on this point you know how horrible the US school system is? Yes, let's exalt a failing institution and then mimic it with our healthcare. Very astute.
Everything government run is inefficient. Yes, even the military. There are contracts that are absurd, and the government always pays ludicrous amounts for what they get. What makes you think it is suddenly going to stop....You don't think that with the 'full backing' of the government, the medical suppliers aren't going to raise prices? Do you think bureacrocy is a business? They make horrible 'business' decisions, in fact, none of the decisions they make are based on business models, its all politics.
Haven't we all ready seen time and time again the horrendous effects of government run institutions?!
Lastly, the US cannot afford to spend any more. I'm wondering how many people here railed against Boooooosh and his increasing the spending. Doing the same with Obama are you? I have. We need to lower taxes, get government out of the way, and cut spending.
Libertarian and Conservative movements are growing, and for good reason. Politicians are so far out of reality with the populace its border line twilight zone.
I would recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers sometime.
In the end it boils down to this: Do you want to be run by an Oligarchy, or a Republic. It's a philosophical approach, and that is how government should be. There is no more philosophy in politics today, and thats what is causing the downfall. There are no more principles behind politicians anymore. Sad day indeed.
|
I think this thread is getting too polarized. The overwhelming majority of people here (and in the world) believe that healthcare should be provided to all. However, America is a two party system and ususally the only way we make any progress is through compromise.
So lets try and see what common ground we can establish. Aegraen, can we at least agree that healthcare should be provided to all children?
Also, would you support a mandate that requires all citizens to obtain health insurance? This is a very pro-business option that the private sector has recently embraced.
|
On May 19 2009 01:05 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2009 00:31 stk01001 wrote:
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:
Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!
Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?
Do you know what Federalism is? Secondly, armed services is actually one of the functions of the Federal Government. Also, please, name me one government run college (JDIC, Military Schools, etc. don't count. I'm talking about civilian schools). Secondly, on this point you know how horrible the US school system is? Yes, let's exalt a failing institution and then mimic it with our healthcare. Very astute. Everything government run is inefficient. Yes, even the military. There are contracts that are absurd, and the government always pays ludicrous amounts for what they get. What makes you think it is suddenly going to stop....You don't think that with the 'full backing' of the government, the medical suppliers aren't going to raise prices? Do you think bureacrocy is a business? They make horrible 'business' decisions, in fact, none of the decisions they make are based on business models, its all politics. Haven't we all ready seen time and time again the horrendous effects of government run institutions?! Lastly, the US cannot afford to spend any more. I'm wondering how many people here railed against Boooooosh and his increasing the spending. Doing the same with Obama are you? I have. We need to lower taxes, get government out of the way, and cut spending. Libertarian and Conservative movements are growing, and for good reason. Politicians are so far out of reality with the populace its border line twilight zone. I would recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers sometime. In the end it boils down to this: Do you want to be run by an Oligarchy, or a Republic. It's a philosophical approach, and that is how government should be. There is no more philosophy in politics today, and thats what is causing the downfall. There are no more principles behind politicians anymore. Sad day indeed.
I don't think i've read a dumber statement in a long time.. my god it's amazing how retarted people are. You actually think that the military shouldn't be run by the government? I can also name about 1,000 colleges which are funded by state governments. Everything run by government is inefficient? So what do you suggest then, privatize all of these services? Yea that will work!! My god get a clue please, stop pretending you know anything at all about politics...
why don't you move to a country where the government doesn't run anything at all since that seems to be what you would prefer.. oh wait I forgot no industrialized first world country like that even EXISTS ..
Also.. are you actually suggesting they PRIVATIZE the education system?? What planet do you fucking live on? Oh yea the US education system is such a failure.. tell that to the MILLIONS of fucking kids who utlilize US schools every god damn day.. No the education system isn't PERFECT but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of it you fucking moron.
keep running around spouting your "Government is BAD!!! let's just lower taxes and it will fix everything!!" attitude... god you are so dumb... I love morons like you.. all you do is criticize government programs, but you offer NO alternative solutions at all it's so idiotic.
|
On May 19 2009 00:18 aRod wrote:
Aside from the ethical and moral arguments for a national health care system which have largely gone unmentioned in this thread, the best argument for a single payer system is the control administrative cost. Maintaining efficiency and controlling cost are ideas that stark national health care critics such as Aegraen and Headbanga can embrace. They are wise to despise the government’s current role in health administration. It is a blatantly inefficient, wasteful, and cost accumulating bureaucracy. But the problem isn't sheer government involvement, rather the way the government is involved in health care.
The current problems with the US health care system relating to government involvement have been mentioned in previous posts of Aegraen and Headbanga. I will now explain the benefits of a single payer system and how this system won't impact health care quality to the extent many national health care critics fear.
Before I start understand that I’m not advocating universal coverage or any particular system that determines who has access to health care. I have my own beliefs on this matter which don’t relate to the reasons for a single payer system. I am only making an argument for the system that has been adopted by the rest of the industrialized world. I hope, you will come to see, they have good reason for doing so.
The statistics involving health care administration have already been mentioned. Administrative cost (the cost of running insurance companies/HMOs/PPOs, advertizing, reviewing claims, denying or accepting appeals, handling lawsuits, negotiating health care costs) waste 10% of every health care dollar spent. The average insurance company spends 13% of every dollar on administrative cost. The percentage is 3% for Medicare/Medicaid and other national health care programs (such as Canada's system) resulting in a difference of 10%. Considering that the USA spent 2.5 Trillion on health care in 2008, we're talking about 250 Billion dollars used on administrative cost. We could maintain the current health care delivery system (the same drugs, docs, hospitals, and procedures) and reduce costs by 250 Billion annually if we switched. A single payer system could also further reduce health care costs by lower drug prices (which are twice as high in the US than other industrialized nations) resulting in a net annual savings of over 300 billion. There are other ways we could reduce cost as well such as national health care records system, but these are a different topic entirely.
Criticisms of a single payer system are numerous. It is true that Canadian and British health care systems have longer weights, lower 5 year survival rates for cancer therapy, limited access to “alternative medicine,” and they do lose doctors who are frustrated with the system. But, understand Canadians and the British spend far less than the United States does on Health care. We spend $7,439 per person while Canada spends $5170 and the UK spends $4973. The fiscal differences spent per patient are the main reasons for the discrepancies between quality of patient care and access to health care, not the mere presence of a single payer system. This is largely a consequence of the universal coverage applied to all citizens. All too often the single payer system is cited as the reason for health care discrepancies when dollars spent per patient is the genuine culprit. The reason health care in the US is the best for those with insurance is because we spend the most on individuals. Many of the myths of national health care need to be dispelled. Claims of “The government will be picking your medicine,” “you won’t get to pick your doctor,” and “you’ll die waiting in line” may make cogent arguments to the poorly educated and uniformed, but have little place in a serious discussion of health care administration in the US. The first claim is a joke, and the later two have little to no basis in fact, especially if we limit coverage to individuals who choose to pay into a single payer system. Other arguments such as “Why should I have to pay for others people health care” are equally hilarious considering anyone who subscribes with an insurance company is already doing this and would only continue under a single payer system.
Now I don't want to seem naive, I understand that universal coverage for citizens and a single payer system will probably go hand and hand, but any honest individual can admit the government can run organizations efficiently. The US mail, the DOE, the education systems are all extremely well run. Why not health care? After all it saves money and will not necessarily diminish health care quality.
The government doesn't care about controlling costs. The government is politics. They will do what they want to get elected. Government is not a business and does not adhere to business rules.
I am also astonished to note that nearly every single person in this thread advocates a more government approach. Haven't we all ready learned from history what dire consequences this has? Where is the individual spirit anymore....You put more faith into politicians and bureacrats than you do yourselves.
You want to know one way government 'controls costs'? Look at britain and their quota system for dentists. After X amount of patients they don't get paid anymore, so essentially they are working for free. What does this mean? The dentists walk out once the quota is met and everyone else is left to rot. This also means, that more expensive, yet more productive means to treat, cure, etc. will not be used because it costs too much. Essentially, limiting healthcare to archaic boundries that go against progress. What incentive is there to spend R&D into new idea's when even if they work, won't be used.
Human beings need incentives. Do you think the pharma companies are going to continue to do R&D? Nope. Who supplies the worlds new medications, breakthroughs, and medical advances...that's right the USA. With no more incentive, and with all countries being the same stagnant cesspool, we'll be in a eternal state of 'the same'.
The way to lower costs, is to abolish, or suspend HMO's, Medicare, Medicaid, and the archaic bureacratic nightmares that the government plagues medical practices with. It is not a governmental role.
I'm wondering, how do you propose that the prices will be lowered on medication? Is this because they won't be able to conduct R&D anymore? Wow, what a neat little side effect. Yes, lets stunt medical progress because a few people can't afford health insurance (Documented this earlier). This is by comparing it with the current situation. Prices could easily be lowered around the board by governments withdrawal from meddling in the affairs of healthcare.
The money is not the difference between care. It is the professionals and the treatment available.
Those other countries can't afford to spend more on healthcare, because they are all ready covering everything else for the population. If they increased spending, then their GDP growth which is all ready under 1% would become 0, or even worse, negative. You want government to run everything, for everyone and expect it to be efficient. What on this earth has led you to believe any semblance of this..
|
Ok, listen you faggot.
Basically the whole world has goverment run or strongly goverment supportet health insurance systems. They ALL, ALL, ALL are cheaper than your american system.
Why is this? You never will have a healthcare system whiteout goverment involvement, it's not possible, unless you let everyone whiteout money die (i have the feeling you actually would support that...).
|
On May 19 2009 01:15 stk01001 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2009 01:05 Aegraen wrote:On May 19 2009 00:31 stk01001 wrote:
Essential services which are provided by the government for it's citizens:
Civil protection (fire & policemen) - Check
National protection (army & navy) - Check
Transportation (roads, highways, public transportation) - Check
Eduction (schools, colleges) - Check
Communication (postal service) - Check
Social Stability (Laws, justice system, prisons) - Check
Healthcare - NO FUCKING WAY OMG THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!
Seriously, can the people opposed to universal healthcare be any more ignorant?
Do you know what Federalism is? Secondly, armed services is actually one of the functions of the Federal Government. Also, please, name me one government run college (JDIC, Military Schools, etc. don't count. I'm talking about civilian schools). Secondly, on this point you know how horrible the US school system is? Yes, let's exalt a failing institution and then mimic it with our healthcare. Very astute. Everything government run is inefficient. Yes, even the military. There are contracts that are absurd, and the government always pays ludicrous amounts for what they get. What makes you think it is suddenly going to stop....You don't think that with the 'full backing' of the government, the medical suppliers aren't going to raise prices? Do you think bureacrocy is a business? They make horrible 'business' decisions, in fact, none of the decisions they make are based on business models, its all politics. Haven't we all ready seen time and time again the horrendous effects of government run institutions?! Lastly, the US cannot afford to spend any more. I'm wondering how many people here railed against Boooooosh and his increasing the spending. Doing the same with Obama are you? I have. We need to lower taxes, get government out of the way, and cut spending. Libertarian and Conservative movements are growing, and for good reason. Politicians are so far out of reality with the populace its border line twilight zone. I would recommend reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers sometime. In the end it boils down to this: Do you want to be run by an Oligarchy, or a Republic. It's a philosophical approach, and that is how government should be. There is no more philosophy in politics today, and thats what is causing the downfall. There are no more principles behind politicians anymore. Sad day indeed. I don't think i've read a dumber statement in a long time.. my god it's amazing how retarted people are. You actually think that the military shouldn't be run by the government? I can also name about 1,000 colleges which are funded by state governments. Everything run by government is inefficient? So what do you suggest then, privatize all of these services? Yea that will work!! My god get a clue please, stop pretending you know anything at all abot politics.
Where did I say that the military should be privatized? What led you to that conclusion. Please, specifically quote it.
Yes, STATE governments. A founding tenant of Federalism. Notice how everything I was talking about was in regards to FEDERAL.
Mail is all ready privatized and FEDEX, UPS, DHL are vastly superior to USPS. We can see how Fannie and Freddie worked out pretty well, since you know politicians dileneating to them how to service loans, and who to give them to. What a great company they are!
Name me one efficient government (Federal) run entity? Those locality, and state taxes that should be used to fix roads...are they? Nope. What do you think they go to? Local government can and is efficient because those within the services actually have a stake in them. Politics are more personable on the local and state levels, and you can move if you don't agree. Mobility and Federalism.
|
On May 19 2009 01:22 Velr wrote:
Ok, listen you faggot.
Basically the whole world has goverment run or strongly goverment supportet health insurance systems. They ALL, ALL, ALL are cheaper than your american system.
Why is this? You never will have a healthcare system whiteout goverment involvement, it's not possible, unless you let everyone whiteout money die (i have the feeling you actually would support that...).
In case you haven't noticed, but the US government is just as much involved in healthcare as those 'other countries'.
Yes, we will. Hospitals cannot deny you critical care. I don't think you even grasp healthcare in the US. (Do you even know the doctors creed?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
