On August 15 2009 22:49 sdpgposd wrote: fox news is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies so dont listen to a word they say
edit: on pretty much anything actually.
Do you actually know that the major Pharma companies like Pfizer is actually siding with the Goverment in hopes of creating a monopoly (This is called crony capitalism).
Naw, this can't be, all the doctors and Pharma corps must be opposing the Healthcare bill?! Geeze. Such sheeps.
Fox news is essentially propaganda. I said nothing else. Do you think otherwise? lol
I'm not sure you understand the difference between Journalism and commentary. We can all agree each news organization (MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc.) are quite partisan and have shows that cater to each segment of the population, but that is just it, commentary. Hannity, Beck, etc. aren't the ones doing the investigative journalism, they are commentators.
While I hardly watch Fox, except for Beck and occassionaly Hannity, they are by far the most balanced in terms of Journalism. If you want evidence proving this point just look at the Presidential race. In any event, none of the news organizations do an adequate job and the best reporting is done on the internet in blogs and various small organizations. That is where I get most of my information.
In summation, no Fox isn't primarily propaganda. Hell at least there is ONE right-leaning news organization, without them there wouldn't be any, and you can agree that would make the current situation far, far worse.
The thing is, you are so wrong. Especially during the presidential race they were constantly biased and against Obama.
I'm not gonna spend all day linking videos to prove the point, you can look for yourself. Heres a few fairly recent one with a couple from the election:
This one is pretty disgusting:
TYT constantly point out fox BS:
x2:
The amount of shit that comes out of bill o'reilly cant be show in 1 video, but here's one:
On August 15 2009 22:49 sdpgposd wrote: fox news is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies so dont listen to a word they say
edit: on pretty much anything actually.
Do you actually know that the major Pharma companies like Pfizer is actually siding with the Goverment in hopes of creating a monopoly (This is called crony capitalism).
Naw, this can't be, all the doctors and Pharma corps must be opposing the Healthcare bill?! Geeze. Such sheeps.
Fox news is essentially propaganda. I said nothing else. Do you think otherwise? lol
I'm not sure you understand the difference between Journalism and commentary. We can all agree each news organization (MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc.) are quite partisan and have shows that cater to each segment of the population, but that is just it, commentary. Hannity, Beck, etc. aren't the ones doing the investigative journalism, they are commentators.
While I hardly watch Fox, except for Beck and occassionaly Hannity, they are by far the most balanced in terms of Journalism. If you want evidence proving this point just look at the Presidential race. In any event, none of the news organizations do an adequate job and the best reporting is done on the internet in blogs and various small organizations. That is where I get most of my information.
In summation, no Fox isn't primarily propaganda. Hell at least there is ONE right-leaning news organization, without them there wouldn't be any, and you can agree that would make the current situation far, far worse.
Except Beck is an idiot. I love how in like a year he flopped from saying our health care system is a nightmare to saying its the best on earth. The whole healthcare issue is being fought for so passionately its retarded, people just screaming to drown out the real issues.
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people.
And would you also wish that restaurants where run by the government? After all, private restaurants only find the cheapest, most disgusting pieces of meat they can find, serve them raw (heating costs money) and spit in your face when you're done eating.
Right?
I'm eating at a public cantine for civil servants for 5 euros ( in fact 3,90 because i have reductions ) this month and it is >>>>>>>>>>> than any private restaurant < 15 euros.
For 5 euros you get a kebab + some chips here.
The public university restaurant @ 2,80 euros is cool too. Way better than 10+ euros Mc Crap.
Where do you work/go to school, exactly?
I have a shitty summer work ( one month ) in a public administration ( in Toulouse ) and i get access to the cantine of civil servants for this period. It usually cost 5 euros but because i'm in the lowest category of civil servants i get a reduction to 3,90. This is by far the best puclic restaurant i have ever been. Of course if you want real gastronomy you will go to private 20+ euros restaurant. But for 3,90 it is awesome ( but you have to be a civil servant :o )
My lunch at uni ( in Toulouse too ) is 2,80 euros. It is some sort of cantine too and although it is not as good than the civil servant cantine it is even cheaper and decent ( And better than having a sandwich or a Kebab + a drink for 5 euros ).
I think the price is the same in all the unis in France.
Of course you will tell me that those restaurants are highly state/city-subsidized and you are right because... their are owned by the State / city.
But the point i was making is that they offer uber cheap and decent food.
Actually my personal experience of public cantines is: middle school cantine < highschool cantine ( although my second highschool cantine was better than my first ) <<<< university cantine <<<<< civil servant cantine of of my city.
And Cici's offers 4.99$ pizza buffet that is awesome.
I could name 5 local restaurants here in Milwaukee that serve for cheaper and in all likelyhood far better quality food. Hell, there is a cheesesteak place that serves awesome cheesesteaks for 5.99$ and for 1.25$ more you can get chili-cheese fries to die for. Go to Las Vegas and you will get the best food of your life for hilariously cheap prices. Hell, Denny's serves awesome breakfast for 3.99$, and I guarantee you it kicks the shit out of any University or Public Cantina (For less price also). Many a diner throughout the country also serves food at cheaper prices than what you think is cheap. 4 Euros, is about 6$ or so, which is moderately priced lunch / meal in the States.
conservatives can paddle this socialism shit all they want, but ive lived most of my life in taiwan, with everyone guaranteed healthcare, and all the crap the right is saying about "socialized" healthcare is untrue
it is a fact that nearly every first world country in the world has "socialized" healthcare, and their citizens have an average lifespan much longer than americans, and have cheaper healthcare to top it off
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people.
And would you also wish that restaurants where run by the government? After all, private restaurants only find the cheapest, most disgusting pieces of meat they can find, serve them raw (heating costs money) and spit in your face when you're done eating.
Right?
I'm eating at a public cantine for civil servants for 5 euros ( in fact 3,90 because i have reductions ) this month and it is >>>>>>>>>>> than any private restaurant < 15 euros.
For 5 euros you get a kebab + some chips here.
The public university restaurant @ 2,80 euros is cool too. Way better than 10+ euros Mc Crap.
Where do you work/go to school, exactly?
I have a shitty summer work ( one month ) in a public administration ( in Toulouse ) and i get access to the cantine of civil servants for this period. It usually cost 5 euros but because i'm in the lowest category of civil servants i get a reduction to 3,90. This is by far the best puclic restaurant i have ever been. Of course if you want real gastronomy you will go to private 20+ euros restaurant. But for 3,90 it is awesome ( but you have to be a civil servant :o )
My lunch at uni ( in Toulouse too ) is 2,80 euros. It is some sort of cantine too and although it is not as good than the civil servant cantine it is even cheaper and decent ( And better than having a sandwich or a Kebab + a drink for 5 euros ).
I think the price is the same in all the unis in France.
Of course you will tell me that those restaurants are highly state/city-subsidized and you are right because... their are owned by the State / city.
But the point i was making is that they offer uber cheap and decent food.
Actually my personal experience of public cantines is: middle school cantine < highschool cantine ( although my second highschool cantine was better than my first ) <<<< university cantine <<<<< civil servant cantine of of my city.
I wasn't going to say anything, I was just curious. I love kebabs.
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. I'm also quite sure, none of you have either skimmed, nor read the Congressional bill being campaigned for by our oh so beneficent masters up on Capital Hill. (Which, by the way most of America is vehemently opposed to)
This is all on the heels of people actually reading what is being proposed. This isn't reform, this is a total overhaul of the system backed by a hugely bloated and inflated beaurocracy with incredible power never before seen in America, and one in which will if passed essentially make the partisanship seen now a total laughingstock (Basically, the divide will be reminiscent of the mid 1800s). There is no Constitutionality in the first place for such a system.
Contrary to what the Media continues to try and tell you; propaganda by the way, America is still the most Conservative nation on this planet. We didn't vote for what we are getting. I've talked to many a democrat who voted for Obama and they are having serious buyers remorse. The people at the town halls, tea parties, and other various functions are not GOP, they come from all backgrounds: Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and GOP.
"The strength of "conservative" over "liberal" in the realm of political labels is vividly apparent in Gallup's state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal."
What does this all mean? It means, that the majority of Americans do not want this. We are a representative constitutional republic. This means that our representatives cannot just do whatever the hell they want against their constituents and not face harsh and severe repercussions (As evidenced by prior US history).
Onto the meat and potatoes.
I'll start off by saying the measure of a countries average life expectancy is in no way indicative of their healthcare system. For one, it is a great fortune that most Americans live to 78 given that the majority of the country is overweight to obese. While the Japanese who live on average to be 82, have one of the lowest overweight populations of any country, and yet only net a 4 year gain. We all know the massive statistics in America on heart related deaths (Which is numbero uno). We have also seen a dramatic decrease every year in the percentage of fatalities, in no small part to our healthcare system.
You must measure the healthcare system on the basis of its treatment once at the facilities. John Stossel has a few good reports on the state of things. I don't think anyone here will argue the fact that the US has the greatest care recieved of any country. I think what many folks want to see is a reduction in the price of their care, not in a government takeover. Right now, the US healthcare system is in fact, heavily Government intervened, run, regulated, and co-opted by Trial lawyers who inflate prices heavily by frivolous suits and a no cap system on the maximum civil winnings.
I am truely curious. What innovations and breakthroughs have come out of a socialized healthcare system? Can you name even five in the last 100 years?
• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option! • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll • Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records. • Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing! • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies! • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN. • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. • Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
You can cross reference these yourselves by going to those pages and reading it for yourselves. What a wonderful and benevolent apparatchiks we have up on the hill. Why wouldn't anyone dare oppose such an efficient, humanizing system?!
Gee, did you copy and paste all of this from your 'white power' websites?
Are you going to dispute any of these facts? Care to try to, when I can paste the parts for every one right from the bill itself.
Oh, hey, forgot about this:
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Another Alinsky radical coming out of the woodwork.
I won't even bother to point to the irony of your post.
Sure. Just look at the first point. There is nothing on page 16 that says anything remotely close to what your 'source' said "• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!":
Here is page 16 which has to do on restrictions on changes to 'grandfathered' health insurance after 2013. I have no idea what this has to do with your propaganda; there is no mention of a government program or having to take a similar plan.
"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT 2 COVERAGE. 3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of 5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health 7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: 10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— 11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll 14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first 16 day of Y1. 17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect 19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an 20 individual who is covered as of such first day. 21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR 22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except 23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any 24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and 25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26 fore the first day of Y1."
By the way, my family makes a ton of money selling Healthcare, so I know the racket. It is the goose that lays golden eggs and nobody wants to give it up, even if it means killing many and bankrupting the country.
Over the past few days I've realized there's no point in arguing with freepers/libertarians/constitutionalists/morons over health care. The facts are plain to see, in every developed nation barring America health care is a right of the people. It works in every nation better than America's system. It's best to just laugh at people who come up with insane reasons to oppose health care reform.
Leaving health care to the free market is fundamentally flawed in that you have no bargaining power when you are on your death bed. It's the equivalent of Firefighters extorting you while your house burns down.
The system itself is undeniably worse than a single payer/UHC system. There is no compelling argument that police services, firefighters, roads, mail, garbage delivery and a slew of other services are provided by the government and health care is not. A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. I'm also quite sure, none of you have either skimmed, nor read the Congressional bill being campaigned for by our oh so beneficent masters up on Capital Hill. (Which, by the way most of America is vehemently opposed to)
This is all on the heels of people actually reading what is being proposed. This isn't reform, this is a total overhaul of the system backed by a hugely bloated and inflated beaurocracy with incredible power never before seen in America, and one in which will if passed essentially make the partisanship seen now a total laughingstock (Basically, the divide will be reminiscent of the mid 1800s). There is no Constitutionality in the first place for such a system.
Contrary to what the Media continues to try and tell you; propaganda by the way, America is still the most Conservative nation on this planet. We didn't vote for what we are getting. I've talked to many a democrat who voted for Obama and they are having serious buyers remorse. The people at the town halls, tea parties, and other various functions are not GOP, they come from all backgrounds: Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and GOP.
"The strength of "conservative" over "liberal" in the realm of political labels is vividly apparent in Gallup's state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal."
What does this all mean? It means, that the majority of Americans do not want this. We are a representative constitutional republic. This means that our representatives cannot just do whatever the hell they want against their constituents and not face harsh and severe repercussions (As evidenced by prior US history).
Onto the meat and potatoes.
I'll start off by saying the measure of a countries average life expectancy is in no way indicative of their healthcare system. For one, it is a great fortune that most Americans live to 78 given that the majority of the country is overweight to obese. While the Japanese who live on average to be 82, have one of the lowest overweight populations of any country, and yet only net a 4 year gain. We all know the massive statistics in America on heart related deaths (Which is numbero uno). We have also seen a dramatic decrease every year in the percentage of fatalities, in no small part to our healthcare system.
You must measure the healthcare system on the basis of its treatment once at the facilities. John Stossel has a few good reports on the state of things. I don't think anyone here will argue the fact that the US has the greatest care recieved of any country. I think what many folks want to see is a reduction in the price of their care, not in a government takeover. Right now, the US healthcare system is in fact, heavily Government intervened, run, regulated, and co-opted by Trial lawyers who inflate prices heavily by frivolous suits and a no cap system on the maximum civil winnings.
I am truely curious. What innovations and breakthroughs have come out of a socialized healthcare system? Can you name even five in the last 100 years?
• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option! • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll • Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records. • Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing! • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies! • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN. • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. • Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
You can cross reference these yourselves by going to those pages and reading it for yourselves. What a wonderful and benevolent apparatchiks we have up on the hill. Why wouldn't anyone dare oppose such an efficient, humanizing system?!
Gee, did you copy and paste all of this from your 'white power' websites?
Are you going to dispute any of these facts? Care to try to, when I can paste the parts for every one right from the bill itself.
Oh, hey, forgot about this:
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Another Alinsky radical coming out of the woodwork.
I won't even bother to point to the irony of your post.
Sure. Just look at the first point. There is nothing on page 16 that says anything remotely close to what your 'source' said "• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!":
Here is page 16 which has to do on restrictions on changes to 'grandfathered' health insurance after 2013. I have no idea what this has to do with your propaganda; there is no mention of a government program or having to take a similar plan.
"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT 2 COVERAGE. 3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of 5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health 7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: 10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— 11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll 14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first 16 day of Y1. 17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect 19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an 20 individual who is covered as of such first day. 21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR 22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except 23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any 24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and 25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26 fore the first day of Y1."
means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage DOES NOT ENROLL ANY INDIVIDUAL IN SUCH COVERAGE IF THE FIRST EFFECTIVE DATE OF COVERAGE IS ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF Y1.
shall not affect 19 the subsequent enrollment of a DEPENDANT of an 20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
Let's think here shall we. So, once this bill takes effect you are grandfathered into your current insurance. This is private. Cool, awesome, right? Well, once the bill takes effect no one (Unless you're a dependant (Child/Spouse)) can opt in to a private insurance plan as evidenced by the huge bolded part above. So, once you lose your private insurance plan, either by being fired, or losing your job (Most Americans get their coverage from their employer), you HAVE to take the Public option, you cannot pick a private option. I'm not sure you even tried to critically read what was in front of you. I think you merely tried to see if what was in the bullet point was the exact wording in the bill. Critical thinking and reading comprehension where is it?
On August 15 2009 22:56 ParasitJonte wrote: The key point is that Swedes just wouldn't accept if someone who's rich can get better care than someone who's poor. Personally I think that's hypocritical because we allow just that when it comes to almost every other aspect of life. But it's the sort of subtle hypocrisy that people can live with, because it's about life and death.
Maybe you are the hypocrite ?
Oh please, do explain.
Healthcare =/= buying goods ?
In some European countries healthcare is considered as a right for even the poor people. Having a M3 or a pool isn't.
ParasitJonte has a point, healthcare is fundamentally very much like many other crafts, you pay for the expertise of the doctor and for the resources they use on helping you (whether through taxes or direct payment). It is only logical that those who are rich are able to get higher quality health care, it just isn't very romantic.
The point is that public healthcare was created in most of the European countries because it is a RIGHT for people. However both you and ParasitJonte are hypocrites because there are also private clinics in the same countries and rich people are free to use those services. They can even get to another country and pay for healthcare if they don't like public hospitals.
So i don't understand what is your problem. You don't want to pay for the healthcare of poor people ?
I don't know about Alur, but from an ideological stand point, no I don't want to pay for anyone's health care (or anything else) unless I choose to do so. Nor do I want other people to pay for mine. Obviously some accidents require health care that is simply to expensive for the average person to afford, so the solution is an insurance system just like we have insurances for other things. That's not being hypocritical at all.
But Alur was exactly right in the point I was trying to make. It's logical, but it's not very romantic. I never stated otherwise.
However, saying that something should be free (of course, there's no such thing as "free" but I digress) for all, and that other things should not, are two propositions in conflict with each other. I agree that we should consider things like health care, education and food to be "rights" that every individual has. I just disagree in the implementation. And to show you why, I tried to compare with other areas in daily life where we don't reason the same way.
On August 16 2009 00:16 floor exercise wrote: Over the past few days I've realized there's no point in arguing with freepers/libertarians/constitutionalists/morons over health care. The facts are plain to see, in every developed nation barring America health care is a right of the people. It works in every nation better than America's system. It's best to just laugh at people who come up with insane reasons to oppose health care reform.
Leaving health care to the free market is fundamentally flawed in that you have no bargaining power when you are on your death bed. It's the equivalent of Firefighters extorting you while your house burns down.
The system itself is undeniably worse than a single payer/UHC system. There is no compelling argument that police services, firefighters, roads, mail, garbage delivery and a slew of other services are provided by the government and health care is not. A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
There's always a point in arguing. Or have you never changed your mind, EVER, when you've been in an argument?
I don't think anybody denies that there's a problem. I wouldn't want Sweden to switch to your system even though I am a liberal (in the true meaning of word), because it seems totally broken.
On August 15 2009 22:56 ParasitJonte wrote: The key point is that Swedes just wouldn't accept if someone who's rich can get better care than someone who's poor. Personally I think that's hypocritical because we allow just that when it comes to almost every other aspect of life. But it's the sort of subtle hypocrisy that people can live with, because it's about life and death.
Maybe you are the hypocrite ?
Oh please, do explain.
Healthcare =/= buying goods ?
In some European countries healthcare is considered as a right for even the poor people. Having a M3 or a pool isn't.
ParasitJonte has a point, healthcare is fundamentally very much like many other crafts, you pay for the expertise of the doctor and for the resources they use on helping you (whether through taxes or direct payment). It is only logical that those who are rich are able to get higher quality health care, it just isn't very romantic.
The point is that public healthcare was created in most of the European countries because it is a RIGHT for people. However both you and ParasitJonte are hypocrites because there are also private clinics in the same countries and rich people are free to use those services. They can even get to another country and pay for healthcare if they don't like public hospitals.
So i don't understand what is your problem. You don't want to pay for the healthcare of poor people ?
I don't know about Alur, but from an ideological stand point, no I don't want to pay for anyone's health care (or anything else) unless I choose to do so. Nor do I want other people to pay for mine.
From an ideological stand point, how do you feel about saving money on healthcare and raising your countries GDP?
On August 16 2009 00:16 floor exercise wrote: Over the past few days I've realized there's no point in arguing with freepers/libertarians/constitutionalists/morons over health care. The facts are plain to see, in every developed nation barring America health care is a right of the people. It works in every nation better than America's system. It's best to just laugh at people who come up with insane reasons to oppose health care reform.
Leaving health care to the free market is fundamentally flawed in that you have no bargaining power when you are on your death bed. It's the equivalent of Firefighters extorting you while your house burns down.
The system itself is undeniably worse than a single payer/UHC system. There is no compelling argument that police services, firefighters, roads, mail, garbage delivery and a slew of other services are provided by the government and health care is not. A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
Except that you have signed a contract with the insurance provider, and they must provide coverage per your contract, so yes you do have "bargaining power" on your death bed. Where do you come up with this? Do you know that insurance policies are legally bound contracts? That you volunteerily choose and sign your contract and that these are legally enforced? The insurance provider cannot just suddenly go, oh shit I don't like this contract and then refuse to abide by it.
We have reason and thought. It's the damn bill itself. READ IT!
Lastly, we aren't opposed to reform (Which this isn't, this is a complete and total rape and destruction of our current system, which isn't reform at all), we are opposed to any Government run healthcare system. We want to reform the system by limiting Government intervention and roles in healthcare thereby reducing costs by eliminating or vastly reducing Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Malpractice Trial Lawyers, allowing across State competition, etc. We want a free-market reformation of the system, not a Government bastardization.
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind. I'm also quite sure, none of you have either skimmed, nor read the Congressional bill being campaigned for by our oh so beneficent masters up on Capital Hill. (Which, by the way most of America is vehemently opposed to)
This is all on the heels of people actually reading what is being proposed. This isn't reform, this is a total overhaul of the system backed by a hugely bloated and inflated beaurocracy with incredible power never before seen in America, and one in which will if passed essentially make the partisanship seen now a total laughingstock (Basically, the divide will be reminiscent of the mid 1800s). There is no Constitutionality in the first place for such a system.
Contrary to what the Media continues to try and tell you; propaganda by the way, America is still the most Conservative nation on this planet. We didn't vote for what we are getting. I've talked to many a democrat who voted for Obama and they are having serious buyers remorse. The people at the town halls, tea parties, and other various functions are not GOP, they come from all backgrounds: Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and GOP.
"The strength of "conservative" over "liberal" in the realm of political labels is vividly apparent in Gallup's state-level data, where a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal."
What does this all mean? It means, that the majority of Americans do not want this. We are a representative constitutional republic. This means that our representatives cannot just do whatever the hell they want against their constituents and not face harsh and severe repercussions (As evidenced by prior US history).
Onto the meat and potatoes.
I'll start off by saying the measure of a countries average life expectancy is in no way indicative of their healthcare system. For one, it is a great fortune that most Americans live to 78 given that the majority of the country is overweight to obese. While the Japanese who live on average to be 82, have one of the lowest overweight populations of any country, and yet only net a 4 year gain. We all know the massive statistics in America on heart related deaths (Which is numbero uno). We have also seen a dramatic decrease every year in the percentage of fatalities, in no small part to our healthcare system.
You must measure the healthcare system on the basis of its treatment once at the facilities. John Stossel has a few good reports on the state of things. I don't think anyone here will argue the fact that the US has the greatest care recieved of any country. I think what many folks want to see is a reduction in the price of their care, not in a government takeover. Right now, the US healthcare system is in fact, heavily Government intervened, run, regulated, and co-opted by Trial lawyers who inflate prices heavily by frivolous suits and a no cap system on the maximum civil winnings.
I am truely curious. What innovations and breakthroughs have come out of a socialized healthcare system? Can you name even five in the last 100 years?
• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option! • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll • Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records. • Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing! • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies! • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN. • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. • Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
You can cross reference these yourselves by going to those pages and reading it for yourselves. What a wonderful and benevolent apparatchiks we have up on the hill. Why wouldn't anyone dare oppose such an efficient, humanizing system?!
Gee, did you copy and paste all of this from your 'white power' websites?
Are you going to dispute any of these facts? Care to try to, when I can paste the parts for every one right from the bill itself.
Oh, hey, forgot about this:
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Another Alinsky radical coming out of the woodwork.
I won't even bother to point to the irony of your post.
Sure. Just look at the first point. There is nothing on page 16 that says anything remotely close to what your 'source' said "• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!":
Here is page 16 which has to do on restrictions on changes to 'grandfathered' health insurance after 2013. I have no idea what this has to do with your propaganda; there is no mention of a government program or having to take a similar plan.
"SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT 2 COVERAGE. 3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of 5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health 7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: 10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— 11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll 14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first 16 day of Y1. 17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect 19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an 20 individual who is covered as of such first day. 21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR 22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except 23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any 24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and 25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26 fore the first day of Y1."
means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage DOES NOT ENROLL ANY INDIVIDUAL IN SUCH COVERAGE IF THE FIRST EFFECTIVE DATE OF COVERAGE IS ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF Y1.
shall not affect 19 the subsequent enrollment of a DEPENDANT of an 20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
Let's think here shall we. So, once this bill takes effect you are grandfathered into your current insurance. This is private. Cool, awesome, right? Well, once the bill takes effect no one (Unless you're a dependant (Child/Spouse)) can opt in to a private insurance plan as evidenced by the huge bolded part above. So, once you lose your private insurance plan, either by being fired, or losing your job (Most Americans get their coverage from their employer), you HAVE to take the Public option, you cannot pick a private option. I'm not sure you even tried to critically read what was in front of you. I think you merely tried to see if what was in the bullet point was the exact wording in the bill. Critical thinking and reading comprehension where is it?
Uhh, that's not true. You can't opt into a private health insurance plan that doesn't meet the standards they put forth in the bill after 2013. The reason they have this section is because some people will choose to keep their shitty health insurance plans. If they try to change after 2013 they can buy a new health insurance plan but it CANNOT BE A GRANDFATHERED ONE, because the grandfathered ones do not necessarily meet the standards set forth in the bill. Of course they can buy a new health care plan put forth by a private insurer that meet the standards.
Also, again, no mention of public healthcare being mandatory, no mention of being required to take a 'similar plan'.
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people.
And would you also wish that restaurants where run by the government? After all, private restaurants only find the cheapest, most disgusting pieces of meat they can find, serve them raw (heating costs money) and spit in your face when you're done eating.
Right?
Why do you think bureaucracy somehow would lead to better treatment of individuals? Why would you trust competition and the free market in almost every other area but not this one? Do you think people in the government are some sort of angels? Their priorities lie in themselves. They are people you pay to do a job for you to support them; just like you pay any company for their services. And as you said, government is inefficient, then why hire them!?
Swedish health care is pretty much decentralized to our councils, and merely basic guidelines are decided in our government. Can't you see the very basic distinction between companies with their employees and electees working in our councils?
Councils have a duty to provide equal health care of high quality to all segments of the population, whereas companies are driven only by profit. What conclusions would you draw from this statement?
You also suggest in your op that while it is ethically wrong dividing people into different quality of health care based on their wealth, it would be hypocritical to oppose such a system in a society where wealth determines so many other aspects of life. Well, what would you propose then? Wouldn't the u.s. model as opposed to ours be a step backwards?
On August 16 2009 00:16 floor exercise wrote: A large number of americans however have been indoctrinated to hate and reject anything with the word "socialist" attached to it without thought or reason
This. And the sad part is most of them wouldn't even be able to define the meaning of said "isms".
While I'm for healthcare reform here in the states there are so many bills going around right now, I like the guidelines set out by Obama but it's not so much his plan and he is not writing the bills so until the final bill becomes reconciled between the other plans it's difficult to agree with or criticize it and see if it will have the results we actually need.
WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.
BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--
WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.
BILL MOYERS: And less money on profits?
WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.
BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?
WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.
But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.
And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.
They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: You can cross reference these yourselves by going to those pages and reading it for yourselves.
I checked a few of those claims and every one turned out to be an exaggeration like the "everyone must have a health ID card" one. Or out of context like the "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." one. Or have no basis in the text of the bill like the "free healthcare for non-citizens"
Oppose the bill? Fantastic, but try to do so in an honest way.
On August 15 2009 22:56 Aegraen wrote: I still have no idea why people think more Government intervention especially wielding such incredible and unscrupulous power over their life and limb is a good idea. It really does boggle the mind.
And what boggles my mind is that you prefer trusting your life and limb to corporations, which sole goal is to earn money to its shareholders (and in this case - signing as many people as possible and dropping them as soon as they get sick). Sure goverment doesn't do its job perfectly but atleast it's priorities are in right place - people.
And would you also wish that restaurants where run by the government? After all, private restaurants only find the cheapest, most disgusting pieces of meat they can find, serve them raw (heating costs money) and spit in your face when you're done eating.
Right?
Why do you think bureaucracy somehow would lead to better treatment of individuals? Why would you trust competition and the free market in almost every other area but not this one? Do you think people in the government are some sort of angels? Their priorities lie in themselves. They are people you pay to do a job for you to support them; just like you pay any company for their services. And as you said, government is inefficient, then why hire them!?
Hahaha I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but restaurant health standards and inspectors ARE government run, and yes, without them there'd be a lot more cases of unsanitary food being served.
So I guess you just proved the point you were trying to argue against?
Silliest thing I've read in awhile.
You're making an assumption and except people to believe it on good faith or? Well, perhaps there would be more unsanitary food served, though I wouldn't be visiting those restaurants so what do I care?
I just ate some take-away sushi from a local restaurant run by a japanese woman. It was awesome. Do you think she would sell parasite infected, hideous food if only the bureaucracy would go away? What kind of view of humans do you have?
So no, I'm sorry, I stand by my point (which I'll explain again because you admitted to not getting it): it is ridiculous to claim that people in government would care more about you, me, or anyone else than people working for a company. THERE JUST PEOPLE. The difference between private enterprise and government is that private enterprise often is more efficient and can specialize more so than government can. That is, in general, a distributed system is preferred over a central-governed one. That's the point.
On August 15 2009 22:56 ParasitJonte wrote: The key point is that Swedes just wouldn't accept if someone who's rich can get better care than someone who's poor. Personally I think that's hypocritical because we allow just that when it comes to almost every other aspect of life. But it's the sort of subtle hypocrisy that people can live with, because it's about life and death.
Maybe you are the hypocrite ?
Oh please, do explain.
Healthcare =/= buying goods ?
In some European countries healthcare is considered as a right for even the poor people. Having a M3 or a pool isn't.
ParasitJonte has a point, healthcare is fundamentally very much like many other crafts, you pay for the expertise of the doctor and for the resources they use on helping you (whether through taxes or direct payment). It is only logical that those who are rich are able to get higher quality health care, it just isn't very romantic.
The point is that public healthcare was created in most of the European countries because it is a RIGHT for people. However both you and ParasitJonte are hypocrites because there are also private clinics in the same countries and rich people are free to use those services. They can even get to another country and pay for healthcare if they don't like public hospitals.
So i don't understand what is your problem. You don't want to pay for the healthcare of poor people ?
I don't know about Alur, but from an ideological stand point, no I don't want to pay for anyone's health care (or anything else) unless I choose to do so. Nor do I want other people to pay for mine.
From an ideological stand point, how do you feel about saving money on healthcare and raising your countries GDP?
Of course I prefer cheaper health care if the quality is the same. And yes, I don't have anything against raising GDP of the country I live in. Unsure what you're trying to say.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vje217qvrkiyszedtvznhg.gif)
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ecgidtozp0guwujm07hxmq.gif)
