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.
What are you talking about. Private enterprise will always overfund projects with negative externalities (e.g., toxic waste), underfund projects with positive externalities, and NEVER support public goods like roads and water. If you get rid of government regulation you would have no clean water/roads and toxic waste in your backyard. Give me a break.
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.
You are missing the point entirely.
Aegraen, you won't find a better restaurant for 5 euros in France.
Anyway you can make all the comparisons you want between different countries it doesn't make sense. Actually for 4$ in Vietnam i had a lunch that would be like 25+ euros in France and probably 25+ $ in the US ( although i don't know enough about the prices there to be 100% sure ) My point was that public cantines aren't all shitty and they can be way cheaper than private restaurants ( well maybe not in the US, but in France definitly ).
The same can be said about public healthcare.
On August 16 2009 00:11 pubbanana wrote: I wasn't going to say anything, I was just curious. I love kebabs.
I love it too but the problem is that they aren't as cheap and i think i won't be able to eat this or a sandwich everyday at uni
On August 16 2009 00:31 XoXiDe wrote: 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.
Read this while you're at it:
GLENN BECK, HOST: Here is comedian and magician, libertarian Penn Jillette, the show "Penn & Teller, B.S." is on Showtime tonight at 10 p.m.; and the co-anchor of ABC's "20/20," John Stossel. Don't miss his upcoming segment on Canada.
Is it a special or a segment?
JOHN STOSSEL, "MYTHS, LIES & DOWNRIGHT STUPIDITY": A segment, unfortunately. Just a segment.
BECK: Just a segment. Well, I mean, you know, you got the whole prime-time, you can carve out maybe a couple of minutes for...
PENN JILLETTE, "PENN & TELLER": You know, we've talked about doing a whole — a whole show on "B.S." on Canada. So, be ready for that.
BECK: What about Canada? I don't have a problem with Canada!
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: Canada doesn't exist!
So, John, let me start with you. Let's start with Canada, the Canadian health care. I am so tired of hearing, because I grew up right across the border, in Bellingham, Washington. I know the people, they built a special part of the hospital just for all the people coming in across the border to escape Canadian health care.
Tell me what you found out in Canada.
STOSSEL: What stuck most with me was the town that had a lottery. So many people were waiting to get a family doctor. They can't get one. Once a month, the town clerk pulls names out of a box and calls the lucky winners — congratulations, you're going to have a family doctor.
BECK: Right. Right.
Penn, insurance really is, I think, the problem, because it — we have no restraint. We have no restraint whatsoever.
JILLETTE: Well, you can also — yes. If you have — if you have food insurance, there's nothing but gourmet shops. But what we have is not really insurance, what we have is pre-paid. And that's a very big difference.
If you had it so that the people could get real honest catastrophic coverage, so they were really covered if they lost a lot of money and had a catastrophic event, but still had control over what they were paying on a smaller level, at least someone who was consuming the service would have some control over the payment.
When it gets really far away from individuals, it seems like a bad thing.
BECK: Well, I don't know either one of you guys if you've ever had this happen to you before, but I know, I've sat in a doctor's office and he'll say, "What kind of insurance do you have?" He'll be writing a prescription, "What kind of insurance do you have?" I'll say "whatever." Hmm, "I'll tell you what, I'm going to give you this instead."
They make different choices based on if somebody else is paying for it. And if you're insured and you're fully insured, you don't care.
STOSSEL: As Penn said, is if you had grocery insurance, you wouldn't care and the grocery store and the incentives that creates to spend more are just insane. And that's the problem with health care.
And yet, the politicians say the solutions are always more insurance.
BECK: Right. And I think, I don't know about you guys, I'm sure — once again, there are three — put all three of us up. There are three libertarians on television — at once. It's like, this is their convention right now.
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: When you — when we talk about...
STOSSEL: Andrew Napolitano is number four.
BECK: I know. He's upstairs. He's watching and going, "Oh, this is neurotic."
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: The thing about — the other argument that people always have is, "Well, then, what are you going to do to fix it? What are you going to do to fix it?"
First of all, I give people — I put people in charge of their own medical care, and then I also cap the attorneys, because the other reason why nobody seems to care is that the doctor is under so much pressure to not get sued that he'll do absolutely every test because he doesn't want somebody to say, "Well, why didn't you do that test?"
STOSSEL: It's safer to do a thousand tests when somebody else is paying, so they do many more. I don't know if capping is all that fair or that libertarian. If somebody behaves truly and egregiously, maybe a trial lawyer should back out of them.
BECK: Well, OK, how about this?
STOSSEL: How about saying "loser pays"?
BECK: Absolutely. How about that?
STOSSEL: Reduce the number of suits.
BECK: Right. If you have — if you are putting, if the person that comes and brings this ridiculous lawsuit loses, they pay for it, I'm all for it.
STOSSEL: And then the parasite class can't just go suing everybody for bad reasons and when they're proven wrong, they don't even have to say they're sorry.
BECK: So, Penn, how would you fix health care?
JILLETTE: Well, one of the things is all this pretending that we're going towards socialized medicine. We're not going towards it. We're already there. And one of the problems is that people are pretty happy with Medicaid and Medicare, and I'm not.
I think that morally, philosophically, individuals having more choice and more control over what they do is a really good thing. So, I'm afraid that I'm really in that position, I would like to get insurance away from the employers. I don't know why your boss has to be in charge of your insurance. It should be the individuals who travel with them. And that was only put in, as I understand it, during World War II. It was a work around of wage freezes to be able to give people more stuff.
Stop the employer from being in charge of that and make it individual. Your employer is not in charge of what you eat and eating is as important as medical care.
BECK: Right. Here's the deal in New York — because I'm a small business owner and I have 20 employees. I can't go out and buy a — be part of a plan in the entire country. I can't get a big group plan, but the government can, but they restrict insurance companies from putting a big huge group in. So, it's costing me an arm and a leg. And it's worse in New York than I bet anyplace else.
STOSSEL: And it's illegal for you to buy a policy in New Jersey, say where they may have fewer stupid rules.
BECK: Right.
STOSSEL: So, your policy costs more.
BECK: Exactly right.
By the way, I want to show you a little bit of John Stossel's upcoming g segment on healthcare in Canada and Great Britain. Watch this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, ABC "20/20")
STOSSEL (on camera): If you want innovation and fast treatment? That often comes from people pursuing profits.
And you see that in Canada, because even here, there is one area where they do offer easy access to cutting-edge technology.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: CT scans, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy and arthroscopic procedures to evaluate joints, for cartilage abnormality.
STOSSEL: Available all the time.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Twenty-four hours, seven days a week.
STOSSEL: Patients rarely wait.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I see a patient that has torn cruciate ligament in that patient's knee, we can generally have that patient scheduled within probably a week.
STOSSEL: But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Want a CT scan in Canada? Private bed clinics say they can get a dog in the next day. For people — the waiting list is a month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Unbelievable. It's absolutely unbelievable.
Let me ask you both this question, and, Penn, you said a minute ago that, you know, health care went to the employers back in the 1940s. I went back and I played on the radio show today, a fireside chat by FDR, where he talked about the second Bill of Rights? Are you familiar with the second Bill of Rights?
Yes, I'm going to play it on television, because there's video of it as well. It's practically been erased from our history books. He talked about there was a right to a job, and he actually wanted to change — put this into the Constitution, "a right to a job, a right to a house, and a right to health care."
It was rejected, but if you look at things, he did put the beginnings of health care. He did put the beginnings of — you're never going to have to worry about it with Social Security. He put the beginnings of a right to a house. Right now, about 60 percent of houses are owned by Freddie and Fannie.
And what does Obama do? He says, by the way, we'll just buy your house. If you're going to collapse, if you're going — we'll just buy it and then you can rent from us.
My gosh, our country is being transformed into something that is nothing like what our Founding Fathers laid out. True or false?
STOSSEL: It's certainly going in that direction. I think, today, that platform would win. It's people — it sounds good. Yes, I have a right to a house; I have a right to health care. It's a rich country.
BECK: We don't work for it.
STOSSEL: It sounds good to people. And we have to explain that to people that if you want good houses and good health care, all the innovation comes from that evil capitalism.
BECK: I know, I know. OK. Let me — go ahead, go ahead, real quick.
JILLETTE: I was going to say — that you always talk about the ambitious people are the ones who want to work hard. You should also stick up for the lazy people.
Capitalism allows people to do just enough to get by and not have government tell them what to do.
BECK: Let me tell you something...
JILLETTE: And that's also a reasonable life choice.
BECK: It is. I have absolutely no problem. There are people...
JILLETTE: And capitalism allows that.
BECK: You know that there are more beds in New York City than there are homeless people. There are more beds in homeless places in New York City, true or false, John Stossel?
STOSSEL: I have no idea.
BECK: OK. Come on, aren't you like — you are like Mister...
STOSSEL: I don't know everything.
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: So, they have more beds, they actually — the city actually hires people to go out, and a lot of times, they know these guys by name and they say, "Please come into a shelter." They choose not to. That's fine. In America, you should be able to do that.
But why is it that we have this nanny state — and again it comes back from the progressive movement in the early 20th century where they talked about, if you — you know, I think it was H.G. Wells, who was a big progressive, who said the state has a right to humanely put you down if you refuse to work or to conform to society.
This is craziness.
STOSSEL: But I had to apologize to Rudy Giuliani because I attacked him for his — we got to stop the squeegee men, we got to get this people off the streets. I, too, felt, if you want to sleep on the streets, who are we to say you can't?
But he made New York a lot more pleasant place to live.
BECK: The squeegee, you don't have a right to harass me and pound on my window and say, "Come on, pay more for spraying water."
STOSSEL: I thought most of them didn't do that. But...
(CROSSTALK)
JILLETTE: But also we're not sure that was Giuliani. There's a lot of stuff and freakonomics and a lot of theory that says, possibly that was just timing. Crime went down maybe not because of what they did, but just because crime went down.
BECK: OK. Let me — let me just — I want to do a rapid fire. Can we put a minute on the clock? You have a minute to answer — this is libertarian rapid fire. Are you are ready?
STOSSEL: Yes.
BECK: OK. John, we're starting with you, OK? A minute on the clock, go! Who is your dream third party candidate?
STOSSEL: I am. You are.
BECK: Yes.
Penn Jillette, spell laissez-faire?
JILLETTE: Oh, no, don't give me spelling.
(LAUGHTER)
JILLETTE: I will not do it!
BECK: Stossel, would you rather be the "American Idol" czar or the "America's Got Talent" czar?
STOSSEL: "America's Got Talent" czar.
BECK: Penn Jillette, what government agency would you get rid of first?
JILLETTE: Social Security.
BECK: John Stossel, would you rather see a doctor in the Dakotas on an Indian reservation or in Canada or in Gitmo?
STOSSEL: Gitmo.
BECK: Me, too.
Penn Jillette, naming your child.
JILLETTE: I think that's an easy one.
BECK: ...naming your child.
STOSSEL: I thought yours were easy.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: ...naming your child, "Ian," is it a great tribute or dooming your child to obscurity?
JILLETTE: I think you should — the only bad thing about naming your children is naming them Dave.
(ALARM)
BECK: All right. Penn, thank you very much. John Stossel, I appreciate it. When is your special on, or when is the...
STOSSEL: A week from tomorrow on Friday.
BECK: A week from tomorrow on Friday. And, Penn, your "B.S." starts tonight.
JILLETTE: Well, tonight at 10:00, and we just got nominated for two Emmys today.
STOSSEL: Congratulations.
BECK: Actually, Penn Jillette, his "B.S." never ends.
(LAUGHTER)
Watch John Stossel's 20/20 report:
Wow, 3 libertarians and a free-market approach and highlighting the fundamental flaws and problems with socialized healthcare.
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.
And what's the difference ? Insurances paying for private clinics ? Lol if they want to make profits they will have to be really expensive and your average poor guy won't be able to afford it...
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
I'm not either.
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
Yea like if saving lives is the same than buying random shit. Those comparisons are just bad. The issues are completly different.
On August 16 2009 00:27 Aegraen wrote: 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.
What a nightmare. I honestly have a hard time imagining how anyone could even begin to want something like that ._. You are actually willing to PAY money to KEEP people sick and poor.
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".
Well, I would prefer companies and their employees over electees for any number of obvious reasons. The companies are driven by profit, so I know they want to do a good job. The electees aren't really driven by anything except staying for another term. The companies are more willing to listen to me and are easily accessible. I can bargain with them more so than I can with electees. Further, there are usually a plethora of companies to choose from and so I can pick the ones I like the best. Diversity = nice. There's only so many political parties in Sweden and you never really know what you're going to get anyway.
I think your second paragraph really explains everything. Councils are driven by some vague duty that cannot be measured and cannot result in a negative result for them unless they really screw up (when politicians are fired, they usually show up someplace else the next day). Companies are driven by profit. That's why I trust them. I have a problem with people who claim "we do this for you, entirely altruistically!" and then beg for my vote. They can't be trusted to the same degree.
Aegraen: Admit that your post about the bill is full of exaggeration and falsehood. I proved that there is nothing on page 16 that suggests what your post said; there is no mandatory government health plan, no requirement of similar plans, and no banning of people buying private health insurance after 2013. You misinterpreted (willfully or unknowingly) the meaning of the text for your own purposes.
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.
What are you talking about. Private enterprise will always overfund projects with negative externalities (e.g., toxic waste), underfund projects with positive externalities, and NEVER support public goods like roads and water. If you get rid of government regulation you would have no clean water/roads and toxic waste in your backyard. Give me a break.
On August 16 2009 00:49 Charlespeirce wrote: Aegraen: Admit that your post about the bill is full of exaggeration and falsehood. I proved that there is nothing on page 16 that suggests what your post said; there is no mandatory government health plan, no requirement of similar plans, and no banning of people buying private health insurance after 2013. You misinterpreted (willfully or unknowingly) the meaning of the text for your own purposes.
lol, that will never happen. He spends like 4 hours a day writing up ridiculously long posts that virtually no one reads.
I'm kind of hoping that the nationalized health care goes through just so I can see how many angry posts Aegraen musters up about it.
I would also like to see what conservatives would say if the big companies werent getting behind the government. Hyyyyypppppooooocrrrrriiiiiiitttttteeeeesssss
US healthcare is not efficient, reliable or friendly. It's a giant money trap that devours the ill and injured and slowly digests even the wealthy. Private insurance is a scam and has always been a scam... it'd have to be to pull a profit out of "providing" insurance to a population that increasingly eats nothing but meat/corn/potato slurry and recreates by sitting in front of a television/computer for 10+ hours a day.
When I was younger and took any job I could get to pay for my college education I had to make hard choices about my health whenever I got sick or injured. Acquire massive debt or tough it out. Drop out of school or tough it out. etc. Contrary to what Republican-talking-heads say on TV about giving the "healthy youth" a choice between paying for health care or living in risk, I'd rather not've had that choice. Afterall, I don't have any choice about paying for military expenditures or subsidizing the US' otherwise unprofitable farming industries. A public option healthcare system would actually benefit me directly, why wouldn't I want that?
I've already made hard choices about my health that involved picking between living in mild pain and living with crushing debt. These choices have given me pre-existing conditions that'll never be covered by any private corporation. If the current system remains in place I fully expect to eventually make the choice between death and bankruptcy and while I'd rather be bankrupt than dead, I'd rather not have to make that choice at all.
I am not a wealthy man, nor terribly savvy when it comes to healthcare options. I'm pretty average in that respect. The best healthcare I ever received was when I was a child, and a dependent of my father, a 20-year army veteran. My health, then, was provided by the US government, and despite being a child that regularly ran temps of 104-105f whenever he got sick; despite being a child that loved to climb trees and break his leg jumping out of them; despite being a child that enjoyed sports and fractured his wrist multiple times playing them; despite being a child that enjoyed candy a little too much and had the teeth to prove it, the US government's healthcare managed to bring me to adulthood in good health. My sister benefited from this care even more than I, as she was born with a genetic defect that would've left her in a wheelchair, unable to walk, if not for the (at the time) experimental surgeries the US government's healthcare paid for in order to correct her problems.
Government provided healthcare is a blessing, not a curse. If you're a libertarian and oppose Obama's plan on principle, please consider expending your energy on ending the taxes that pay for our military r&d, farm subsidies, highway construction, schools, police, firemen, congressional vacations, etc, before destroying a public healthcare option.
Obama's healthcare plan may not be perfect but it's a step in the right direction, and I for one am willing to take that step. We can fine-tune it later, remove inefficiencies, add benefits, eliminate morally questionable elements. What's important, imo, is replacing the status quo, cuz it's a giant scam that fucks with the lives of a quarter-billion people.
God I'd love to see the day the US had health care for everyone. Enough of this big business corporation mentality. If there is any president that will try to make this happen, its Obama. I seriously would pay 50 dollars off every paycheck to have what countries like Canada have, probably even more.
People need to step up to the plate and realize its not all about themselves anymore. This is for the well being of the people, and the country and I just don't know if its possible with all these billion dollar pharmaceutical companies spending billions to make sure this doesn't happen.
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.
What are you talking about. Private enterprise will always overfund projects with negative externalities (e.g., toxic waste), underfund projects with positive externalities, and NEVER support public goods like roads and water. If you get rid of government regulation you would have no clean water/roads and toxic waste in your backyard. Give me a break.
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.
And what's the difference ? Insurances paying for private clinics ? Lol if they want to make profits they will have to be really expensive and your average poor guy won't be able to afford it...
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
Yea like if saving lives is the same than buying random shit. Those comparisons are just bad. The issues are completly different.
You may call it "buying random shit" but in the end, what do you live for? What's the point in being healthy if you can't do anything. The issues are not completely different. It's just that food is cheap enough for most people to afford it in our nations. When Sweden was poor and people starved, that wasn't true. How can you say that that analogy is not valid?
Well, the difference would firstly be an increase in freedom as there would be less government control. The end result qualitywise is too hard for me to reason about on a friday evening . I just started a discussion in this thread questioning why people view health care as a different matter entirely than other areas.
The only answer I've gotten so far seems to be "it's so, because it is so" with a sort of patronizing underpinning that I should know better.
Healthcare reform or not, the US is not in the condition in terms of finace or economics capable of sustaining more burden of government spending, u guys are already sitting on a national debt of nearly 12 Trillion( twelve zero) dollars, and here comes Obama on a spending crusade to get more into debt.
Personally, i think that the government is like... a plague, anything that they get themself involved in the private sector gets butt fucked, look at educations/healthcare/auto industry/banks in the US, I agree with most of what Daniel Hannan said, the arguments of having bad healthcare is better than no healthcare at all is the epitome of socialist mind set,
Oh btw, before u guys made up ur mind on whether or not to support Obama on socialising ur healthcare system, at the very least, find out what are the beauracracy involved in getting in ur so called FREE health care plans. There's something he's not telling u about the this deal...
And sorry to break ur bubbles of socialist fantasy, NOTHING IS FREE, u wouldn't happen to think that Obama can fart out all these Free service without taxing it from somewhere? the cost is not only as simple as taxation mind u.
That might be the most coherent thing I've ever seen him say. If he's actually like that I see why he was deputy PM, as opposed to just being a joke figure who eats excessive pies, drives excessive jags and has excessive affairs. My respect for him just went up a lot.
a former new zealand prime minister David Lange could eat 6 pies in the time his coworker would eat 1. Moral of the story: don't judge politicians by their pie eating skills!
On August 16 2009 01:10 Shizuru~ wrote: Healthcare reform or not, the US is not in the condition in terms of finace or economics capable of sustaining more burden of government spending, u guys are already sitting on a national debt of nearly 12 Trillion( twelve zero) dollars, and here comes Obama on a spending crusade to get more into debt.
Personally, i think that the government is like... a plague, anything that they get themself involved in the private sector gets butt fucked, look at educations/healthcare/auto industry/banks in the US, I agree with most of what Daniel Hannan said, the arguments of having bad healthcare is better than no healthcare at all is the epitome of socialist mind set,
Oh btw, before u guys made up ur mind on whether or not to support Obama on socialising ur healthcare system, at the very least, find out what are the beauracracy involved in getting in ur so called FREE health care plans. There's something he's not telling u about the this deal...
And sorry to break ur bubbles of socialist fantasy, NOTHING IS FREE, u wouldn't happen to think that Obama can fart out all these Free service without taxing it from somewhere? the cost is not only as simple as taxation mind u.
The question is not whether the plan is costly. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and how this cost-benefit analysis compares to the current situation. If benefits outweigh the costs to a greater degree for one course of action over another, it should be taken.
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.
And what's the difference ? Insurances paying for private clinics ? Lol if they want to make profits they will have to be really expensive and your average poor guy won't be able to afford it...
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
I'm not either.
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: 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.
Yea like if saving lives is the same than buying random shit. Those comparisons are just bad. The issues are completly different.
You may call it "buying random shit" but in the end, what do you live for?
I definitly don't live only to have the coolest car or a large house. Yea for sure i would definitly like it like many other people but well i don't think that the governement has to give me this. If i want to buy stuff like that i have to earn my own money. I'm fine taking bus/metro so far. However i don't want to die like a bum if i get a cancer or something like that. I think i deserve a free healthcare.
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: What's the point in being healthy if you can't do anything. The issues are not completely different.
You can already go to private clinics. There are private clinics in every European countries. You can even travel to the US or other European countries if you want another kind of healthcare.
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: It's just that food is cheap enough for most people to afford it in our nations. When Sweden was poor and people starved, that wasn't true. How can you say that that analogy is not valid?
That's a good comparison there. "hey look when Sweden was poor and people starved there were no healthcare nor Welfare State ".
First healthcare was always more expensive than food ( only rich people and nobles could afford it ) and was terrible during until the late 19th century ( bleeding bs etc .... ). Moreover i think you should understand that if Sweden isn't a shitty country anymore it has maybe also something to do with government intervention. If governement is always evil and inefficient, Sweden would be a third world country with shitty GDP/people, life expeciency and HDI. Guess what it isnt !
On August 16 2009 00:22 ParasitJonte wrote: Well, the difference would firstly be an increase in freedom as there would be less government control. The end result qualitywise is too hard for me to reason about on a friday evening . I just started a discussion in this thread questioning why people view health care as a different matter entirely than other areas.
Again you are already free to got to private clinics.
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.
I think Obama's crew already bought out Pharma, thats why they are supporting the reform.
I understand that most young people tend to be liberal, since they haven't had a chance to make it in the real world or understand how everything works. Since most Starcraft players are young here, there is a good chance they are liberal, which the poll shows.
Most poor people in the US have Medicaid, so they get free healthcare anyways. The emergency room cannot turn anyone away, its against the law (trust me, i was there a few days ago).
I know you think its cool to bash Fox News because they are the #1 news network (but its only because "dumb" people like me watch it, right?).
Anyways, back to my observations in the emergency room. Most of the people there were poor with minor injuries/sickness. They were complaining about how long they were waiting, and I wanted to say STFU b/c you arent paying anyways. It was funny that they happened to be poor, because each person sounded like they had the IQ of a squirrel and also had 2-3 kids a piece. No one MAKES you poor, or holds you down, or whatever bullcrap excuse you want to insert there. Its usually your own fault, but most people won't admit that.
Its obvious that not everyone can have healthcare exactly when they need it, so it will have to be rationed. So who decides who gets what? The government. Screw that. So instead of providing health care by severity/ability to pay(for smaller things), etc, its going to be for everyone, even the people who chose not to get educated or are just plain lazy.
Why give benefits to someone who hasn't earned it from someone who has? Does it make me a bad person for thinking this way? I know for liberals its probably yes since I don't share your views, but anyways, let me know what you think.
Disclaimer: I probably don't share your views, so I must have been paid off by the evil insurance companies or pharmaceuticals.
On August 16 2009 01:27 imabossdude wrote: No one MAKES you poor, or holds you down, or whatever bullcrap excuse you want to insert there. Its usually your own fault, but most people won't admit that.
Well i disagree. It is way more difficult to get rich if you are born in a poor family imo. Maybe not impossible but 10x harder yes definitly. Saying that it is their own fault to be born poor is really stupid.
On August 15 2009 23:15 Jusciax wrote: 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.
Umm, those people 'just doing it for the money' will do what they can to satisfy us, because if not, they don't get the money (or they could get sued and loose the money). The government... if they don't fulfill our needs, so what? I have no recourse, and they all get there paychecks.
EPT
. I just started a discussion in this thread questioning why people view health care as a different matter entirely than other areas.
