posted
Bush should be tried for war crimes. The plane that crashed into the IRS was piloted by a universal healthcare supporter. It was a Republican's office that was riddled with bullets today.
There are crazies on all sides. The media is latching onto voice mails all of the sudden? Both parties have voice-mails full of equal nonsense from the other side. There are >300 million people in this country. Are you telling me the words of a few on a voicemail matter that much? Who's to say they are actually conservative? Who's to say they are actually racist? If it only takes one anonymous person's words to benefit the liberals and Sharpton's of the world, why not do it themselves? I've been called a "troll" for my words in this site. Can one person's words from an anonymous source really mean that much?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The only difference is, I'm telling the truth. I understand anyone can say anything online.
That's it? A weenie allegation that I'm lying?
faaail.
Sorry, dude. I've run my own construction company. You haven't. Easy cheap way to win Anecdote Warz, for what it's worth (not much)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Bush should be tried for war crimes. The plane that crashed into the IRS was piloted by a universal healthcare supporter. It was a Republican's office that was riddled with bullets today.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The plane that crashed into the IRS was piloted by a universal healthcare supporter. It was a Republican's office that was riddled with bullets today.
And wow, a lot of shouting. I never saw an AP article get over 42,000 comments in less than an hour!
Edit: Ah, ok. This is an updated article from 3/22. That many comments is still impressive, but no longer shocking.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was Sarah Palin, the Eva Peron of the tea party crowd, who used Facebook to target 20 Democrats who voted for health care reform, indicating their districts' locations on a map with the crosshairs of a rifle scope. It was Palin who wrote on Twitter: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead -- RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page."
quote:At least 10 House Democrats have had to request additional security following Sunday's health care vote. Someone left a coffin on the lawn of Rep. Russ Carnahan's home in Missouri. Glass doors and windows were broken at the district offices of Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. Vandals have damaged Democratic Party offices in Wichita, Rochester, N.Y., and Cincinnati.
And Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose last-minute compromise on abortion funding guaranteed final passage of the reform act, has received a flood of abusive phone calls at his office and home. Someone faxed him a drawing of a noose. One voice mail, subsequently posted on the Internet, was left by a woman who wanted Stupak to know that "there are millions of people across the country who wish you ill." Another caller was more direct: "You're dead. We know where you live. We'll get you."
And from where I grew up:
quote:Some of the vandalism appears to have been inspired by an Alabama blogger, Mike Vanderboegh, who trumpeted the bright idea that opponents of health care reform should throw bricks at Democratic headquarters across the country. After someone did just that in Rochester, a reporter from the Democrat and Chronicle called Vanderboegh for comment. "I guess that guy's one of ours," Vanderboegh said. "Glad to know people read my blog."
posted
The left-wingers have deluded themselves that they are pressing on to "victory," and when conservatives bring reality crashing down on their heads with widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November), there will be factions among the left-wingers who will refuse to accept this reversal peaceably, and will take up arms and resort to fatal force directed first at key conservative targets. The left will stage its Krystalnacht. Whether President Obama approves of this or not, it will likely be done in his name. This will have to be opposed, of course, as the majority defends itself against the blatant lawlessness of the would-be tyrants of the left. The right will ultimately win. Unfortunately, having had to defend itself by force of arms, the right will be looking for vengeance and will take pro-active measures to ensure that the left can never rise again in violent revolution. Thus in over-reaction, the right will create the very tyranny that the left thought they were preventing. In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago. Sadly, I am more convinced than ever that my predictions will come true. My advice: Keep your head down.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The left-wingers have deluded themselves that they are pressing on to "victory," and when conservatives bring reality crashing down on their heads with widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November), there will be factions among the left-wingers who will refuse to accept this reversal peaceably, and will take up arms and resort to fatal force directed first at key conservative targets. The left will stage its Krystalnacht. Whether President Obama approves of this or not, it will likely be done in his name. This will have to be opposed, of course, as the majority defends itself against the blatant lawlessness of the would-be tyrants of the left. The right will ultimately win. Unfortunately, having had to defend itself by force of arms, the right will be looking for vengeance and will take pro-active measures to ensure that the left can never rise again in violent revolution. Thus in over-reaction, the right will create the very tyranny that the left thought they were preventing. In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago.
Your new "The left will rise in violent revolution, get beat up, and America will become a tyrannical government" prediction is distinctly at odds with what you were previously assuring us would happen, which is that Obama would DEFINITELY be impeached with the help of democrats in congress. Remember that? Obama is going to be impeached with the help of Democrats. That this is assuredly going to happen according to your predictions, which apparently 'always come true.' Would you like to revisit that one and tell us exactly which one of your two contradictory 'this will definitely happen' Ron Lambert Predictions should be anticipated, or should we wrap our heads around the fact that your predictions are so stunningly wise that if you have two blatantly contradictory ones it means that we will be living in a quantum future where two non-compatible predictive outcomes will both come true in an entangled, quantum state?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago.
posted
Ron: The only thing remotely accurate in your post is that Republicans will likely make some gains in November. I am sure they will tell themselves it's a national referendum against health care, but in reality it's merely the fact that the American people don't much like having one party in control of the presidency and congress.
I, with every scape of hope I can muster pray we never fight an armed conflict with each other again. But if either side took up arms against the other, right now, it's only the right that is talking about using arms in even a symbolic way.
Tell your side to put your guns away, they're the only ones brandishing them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November)
I just want to stake this one out in advance - midterm elections routinely go against the party in power. We can probably expect 20 seats or so to swing over to Republicans, and as much has been predicted for several months now.
Public opinion on the health care reform bill, after trending down for a few months, has been ticking up in the polls for the past few weeks and saw a bit of a bump immediately after passing. It's about 50/50 for/against right now, which is pretty much the default state of American politics. Not the stuff of a massive revolution at the polls.
Also, a lot can happen between now and November.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republicans now have about a 10 percent chance of taking an outright majority of Senate seats, according to the model, up slightly from before -- and about an 18 percent chance of getting to at least a tie. Democrats still have about an 8 percent chance, on the other hand, of recovering a 60-seat majority -- although obviously this would require a substantial shift in the national political environment. None of our analysis directly reflects any potential impact from the Democrats' passage of their health care bill.
It will be interesting to see the short term and long term poll results from this health care bill.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually anticipating public support at or around 60% by the time we hit the polls. The majority of the institutions of the bill become politically untouchable the second they're instituted as law, the current bubble of non-support is due to the massive wave of FUD appeals relied upon to try to sink the bill (and Obama), and now that it failed, only the most ridiculous politicians are going to want to be known as the guys who worked really hard to bring back things like exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
Oh, and remember the Sensible Conservative? he got fired.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm actually anticipating public support at or around 60% by the time we hit the polls. The majority of the institutions of the bill become politically untouchable the second they're instituted as law, the current bubble of non-support is due to the massive wave of FUD appeals relied upon to try to sink the bill (and Obama), and now that it failed, only the most ridiculous politicians are going to want to be known as the guys who worked really hard to bring back things like exclusion for pre-existing conditions.
Oh, and remember the Sensible Conservative? he got fired.
Not to say that liberals are above selling their moderates out, but National Review did that to Christopher Buckley (The son of the father of modern conservatism who founded the magazine no less.) after Buckley wrote a piece saying he was voting for Obama over McCain.
posted
Ron, do you frequent conspiracy websites like Illuminati.net or the Coast 2 Coast AM website?
The only thing I could see happening (as far as health care is concerned) is the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for all of the payouts they have to pay. Since pre-existing conditions and no dropped coverage are a reality now, the payouts will be higher, thus the rates are going to go up. These go into effect almost imediately, while the exchanges and such will go into effect in 2014. This creates a 3 year gap in which the insurance companies are going to have to come up with the money to cover claims.
What I am afraid of is when these rates go up, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will feign suprise and outrage. "We passed healthcare reform so costs would go down! The evil insurance companies are taking advantage of the people and raising rates! We must do something about this! PH3AR US!" Legislation will be brought forward to try to pass a single payer system, and we will have full blown government run healthcare.
I respect those of you that want a single payer system. It just isn't for me. As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink. That is just my opinion and I may just be freaking out for nothing. The massive taxes we have on alchohol and cigarettes already scare me. I don't want to be taxed an extra dollar on my double cheeseburger from McDonalds. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink.
No, not so much. At least this isn't the case in the other countries that do have universal care and it hasn't been the case in other areas where the government has assumed some responsibility for our well-being. The police can't, for instance, limit where you travel even if walking through a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night is likely to result in additional cost and danger for them. Similarly, the fire department can't tell you to not use gas appliances or to not smoke near your home.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people trying to draw parallels between food and healthcare are using faulty logic, because obese people do not have nearly as high of an externality cost as people without healthcare impose. The primary reasons behind taxes on cigarettes and alcohol do not largely come from the damage they do to oneself, they come from the fact that both those products impose very high externality costs on society.
Obesity, and unhealthy eating, on the other hand, does not impose nearly as much of an externality cost. The cost that an uninsured person levies on the whole public when he goes into the ER is quite high - this is one of the reasons that the legislation was pushed so much. Uninsured people do carry a high price on all of society just because they are uninsured, but the price isn't nearly as close for obese people.
The government does not intervene in the case of pure internalities. Its only when those internalities potentially affect children do they proceed to do anything, because children are not capable of making effective cost-benefit analysis for an action they take. That's why there has been government pushes to remove non-diet soda from elementary schools, because a child can't really figure out that drinking a regular coke every day is really bad for him, whereas an adult can presumably make that choice for him or herself.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I respect those of you that want a single payer system. It just isn't for me. As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink. That is just my opinion and I may just be freaking out for nothing.
1. The government already has the power to tell you what you can do, eat, or drink.
2. Look at all the countries that have had single payer / nationalized health insurance. Especially the ones that have had these in place as unshakable elements of the government for quite some time now. Ask the people living in these countries if they have any sort of draconian eating/drinking regulations that are markedly unlike the 'freedoms' we have here, apparently (as you assume) perilously maintained only by the lack of a government managed health care system.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel has both longstanding nationalized health insurance and petel. That ought to disprove this theory right there.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is interesting how people talk about what America is going to do once we have govt health care and how awful it is going to be. Considering all the other nations that do it without problems, why is America so different that when we do it, it will be an unparalleled disaster? Is there something so fundamentally flawed with the US that we can't do it right when so many other nations can?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
You do see a perverted form of this in the health care debate. Usually it doesn't manifest itself in quite the way that Republicans have been trying to appropriate it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Ron, do you frequent conspiracy websites like Illuminati.net or the Coast 2 Coast AM website?
The only thing I could see happening (as far as health care is concerned) is the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for all of the payouts they have to pay. Since pre-existing conditions and no dropped coverage are a reality now, the payouts will be higher, thus the rates are going to go up. These go into effect almost imediately, while the exchanges and such will go into effect in 2014. This creates a 3 year gap in which the insurance companies are going to have to come up with the money to cover claims.
What I am afraid of is when these rates go up, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will feign suprise and outrage. "We passed healthcare reform so costs would go down! The evil insurance companies are taking advantage of the people and raising rates! We must do something about this! PH3AR US!" Legislation will be brought forward to try to pass a single payer system, and we will have full blown government run healthcare.
I respect those of you that want a single payer system. It just isn't for me. As soon as the government is paying for my health, they have the power to tell me what I can do, eat, and drink. That is just my opinion and I may just be freaking out for nothing. The massive taxes we have on alchohol and cigarettes already scare me. I don't want to be taxed an extra dollar on my double cheeseburger from McDonalds.
You could always move to every other country in the world... oh snap they all also have single payer systems.
IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone watch the news today. How many major companies are going to lose billions due to this healthcare reform?
What will they do now that they've lost their tax deduction for paying for retiree prescription drugs? You readily accept taxation as a form of behavioral modification when it comes to cigarettes and tanning booths. What does it mean to tax healthcare benefits? What is the objective? They are encouraging private companies to drop healthcare and put the people on medicare. The bulk of taxes in this bill are on insurance companies, employers who provide healthcare benefits, drug manufacturers and medical equipment companies. You can't on one hand argue the cigarette tax will reduce smoking and on the other, taxing the entire medical industry will increase medical coverage. Taxes do not increase the sales of the product...cigars or medicine. Can you tax smokers to pay for poor people's smokes?
The objective is to put private medicine out of business. ATT will drop their retiree drug benefits and the elderly will fall into Medicare. I thought Medicare "savings" were going to pay for this plan? How are they going to save money when millions of private companies are going to drop them onto the Medicare system?
This is the ultimate objective. More medicare is closer to single payer. Before all the private industry is bankrupt, fewer people will have coverage and pay even higher premiums.
Your January 1 2011 statement will be the single largest, year over year, jump in private insurance premium prices. This legislation caused it. Of course they will demonize them for doing it, while their mandates caused it.
Higher prices and less coverage for the American people but in the end, single payer, government controlled care will be the only thing left standing. Exactly according to plan.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some of the vandalism appears to have been inspired by an Alabama blogger, Mike Vanderboegh, who trumpeted the bright idea that opponents of health care reform should throw bricks at Democratic headquarters across the country. After someone did just that in Rochester, a reporter from the Democrat and Chronicle called Vanderboegh for comment. "I guess that guy's one of ours," Vanderboegh said. "Glad to know people read my blog."
quote:According to the Post, he lives off his wife, who works at a forklift company -- and also gets a monthly disability check from our "Marxist" federal government.
Of course.
--j_k, who saw that coming
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The left-wingers have deluded themselves that they are pressing on to "victory," and when conservatives bring reality crashing down on their heads with widespread repudiation at the polls (especially beginning in a major way this November), there will be factions among the left-wingers who will refuse to accept this reversal peaceably, and will take up arms and resort to fatal force directed first at key conservative targets. The left will stage its Krystalnacht. Whether President Obama approves of this or not, it will likely be done in his name. This will have to be opposed, of course, as the majority defends itself against the blatant lawlessness of the would-be tyrants of the left. The right will ultimately win. Unfortunately, having had to defend itself by force of arms, the right will be looking for vengeance and will take pro-active measures to ensure that the left can never rise again in violent revolution. Thus in over-reaction, the right will create the very tyranny that the left thought they were preventing. In summary, we are probably doomed to fall prey to tyranny in a few years, maybe within a year. I think American society may have already gone too far for this fate to be averted. I warned about this over a year ago. Sadly, I am more convinced than ever that my predictions will come true. My advice: Keep your head down.
Ron oh your so adorably crazy, don't ever seek psychotherapy! What would I do for entertainment without your deluded stupidity taking up space?
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: --j_k, who saw that coming
the best irony is that people who are in his sort of health condition (hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure) regularly are debilitated in large part due to medical neglect from lack of regular checkups/coverage that further exacerbate poor diets and genetic issues
so the odds are actually pretty good that vanderhuge here wouldn't be so debilitated and charity-case if he'd lived in a country with health coverage for all. and thus, be less of a drain on taxpayers.
posted
The left, historically is far more prone to violence in the name of their cause.
The greatest mass murderers in our history argued for socialism and killed millions. National Socialist Party (nazi), Mao, Che, Stalin, etc, etc.
History is full of mass murdering leaders and violent uprisings in the name of class warfare. The Soviet constitution guaranteed you a job, a living wage and healthcare. In Cambodia, the Killing Fields, was about working people overthrowing the rich. In America we have PC, in Cambodia at that time, people were afraid to wear glasses. Glasses were only worn by the educated elite, the evil rich. Their government and economy collapsed because everyone was afraid to be anything other than a common field worker. The accountants, bankers and ceo's were murdered. No one wanted to look like an accountant. Wearing glasses was like opposing healthcare in America. You're the crazy, "clinging to their guns and religion", extremist.
Bush was called a baby killer and movies were made about his assassination. Say, "I wish someone would put a bullet in Obama's head" in public and the secret service will haul you away. Will there be any critically acclaimed movies this year about Obama being assassinated?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*pats mal on his head* Take a breath, there, tiger.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Mal, the name for the Nazi party is "The Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party" (Nazi was actually an derogatory term that stuck) in an shrewd attempt by Hitler and his inner circle to appeal to the greatest number of people and deflate the numbers and support of the REAL German Communist and Socialist Parties who had a very large number of seats in the Reichstag, Nazi ideology focused on 'class cooperation' between the upper and lower classes to strengthen the state, the justification to strengthening the State's power apparatus wasn't FOR socialism but AGAINST socialism as the average german owned their own private business, the Nazi's burned the Reichstag and blamed it on a terrorist act BY Socialists and used it to enact the Enabling Act which discarded every constitutional freedom to give Hitler power.
The millions killed by the Nazi's wasn't for socialism or to eliminate class rivals (of which were none under Nazism) but to eliminate enemies of the state and what they considered subhumans.
Of course you and Ron would probably get a stroke if I pointed out that the biggest body count is actually religion.... 68 million in the Taiping uprisings, 80 millions dead in central and south America.... How many Indians died from Manifest Destiny? the 30 Years war? The Reformation? The Crusades?
Then there's the millions killed in South America via the 'updated anti communist' Monroe Doctrine and the dozens of states who had their democratic institutions trampled by right away autocrats supported by Washington.
posted
Religious wars were political wars. A nation led by a premier, president, king, imam or pope, is still a nation. Historical politics was religion. The religious leader was the head of the army and nation. Sharia is political and Jihad is a the attempt to institute a religious state. Just another form of rule. It doesn't matter if the head of a nation wears a robe or a swastika, the nation went to war.
You can go back to the middle ages in a meager attempt to disprove everything that has occurred since. Communism, Fascism and Socialism didn't occur until after the overthrow of theocracies. You may as well bring up the genocide homoerectus performed on the neanderthal.
AFTER, the tyranny of a religiously ruled world we got democracy, socialism, fascism, etc.
The crusaders might have been Christians but the king wanted spices and land. Power is power, politics is politics and nations are nations. Does it matter if you pledge allegiance to a flag or a god?
If you want to know the truth, the United States of America is one of the oldest nations on the face of the Earth. Our system of government is older than China's and most of Europe. In fact, the US government is older than the British government. Eastern European nations are just babies. We don't have "off with their head's" revolutions every fifty years or so in this country. South American governments are lucky to last 30 years.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The United States was founded roughly 1776, the modern conception of 'China' predates that by about 3000 years.
Prior to the United States were British/French colonies, prior to that was the Indian Confederacy.
Parliamentary democracy was developed during the English civil wars and spear headed by Oliver Cromwell.
So how about shutting your mouth until you actually complete a college education or read some of those evil books on history that you claim were revised by the evil left.
Also the modern concept of nation-states doesn't really come into play until around roughly the Treaty of Westphalia in 1653(~) prior to that the 'kingdoms' and republics of various 'states' weren't really 'nations' as nations then didn't really diplomatically recognize each other as 'equal' states but simply as land to be eventually inherited and that they're family had a right to rule. The pope had an overwhelming amount of control over the domestic politics over most of europe until the reformation.
Your post is mindless non substantial assertions of grossly incorrect ignorant view of history easily correct with a 5 minute search of wikipedia.
You also contradict yourself, how can democracy predate theocracy as the oldest government and yet only 'come after' the theocracies fail.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: The only thing I could see happening (as far as health care is concerned) is the insurance companies raising their rates to pay for all of the payouts they have to pay...Legislation will be brought forward to try to pass a single payer system, and we will have full blown government run healthcare.
This is what concerns me about the time line. I also object to the part where, as far as I know, no regulations were added concerning what insurance has to pay for. So they can't drop you entirely, but can they still deny procedures after you've had them and drop a huge bill in your lap? CNN has run quite a few stories along those lines the last few months.
I want more transparency in what you're actually getting from insurance. I'm still disappointed that the bill, again, as far as I know, neglected this entirely. Without clear rules on what has to be paid for, I'm not sure the not dropping people rule will actually accomplish anything.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The United States was founded roughly 1776, the modern conception of 'China' predates that by about 3000 years.
Prior to the United States were British/French colonies, prior to that was the Indian Confederacy.
Parliamentary democracy was developed during the English civil wars and spear headed by Oliver Cromwell.
So how about shutting you goddamn mouth until you actually complete a college education or read some of those evil books on history that you claim were revised by the evil left.
Also the modern concept of nation-states doesn't really come into play until around roughly the Treaty of Westphalia in 1653(~) prior to that the 'kingdoms' and republics of various 'states' weren't really 'nations' as nations then didn't really diplomatically recognize each other as 'equal' states but simply as land to be eventually inherited and that they're family had a right to rule. The pope had an overwhelming amount of control over the domestic politics over most of europe until the reformation.
Your post is mindless non substantial assertions of grossly incorrect ignorant view of history easily correct with a 5 minute search of wikipedia.
You also contradict yourself, how can democracy predate theocracy as the oldest government and yet only 'come after' the theocracies fail.
posted
Blayne, regardless of your feelings for malanthrop or your opinion of his knowledge, and regardless of the number of people with whom that opinion may be shared, your response could be dialed back a bit -- at least the fourth paragraph.
quote:Also as to why you have to pay a fine- you are leaching off the system. Right now, you are healthy and can afford to get away with it. Let's imagine there is something that feels minor that is wrong with you. You don't go to the dr. That minor thing becomes major. Now, it is an emergency. Society pays tens of thousands to fix you- esp since you can qualify for say medicaid because your boss fired you and you lost everything.
The problem with this scenario is that I do go to the doctor and pay out of pocket for all the blood tests, X-rays, etc.
I also research my symptoms ahead of time, keep a health diary, and ask the doctor questions. I'm pretty dogmatic about being healthy.
The problem of people with no insurance is a very real problem--which is why I'm in support of high-deductible catastrophic care, made affordable to those who can't afford it.
I think everyone assumes those of us who don't support this bill don't want poor people to have health care. That's not true. I just don't want it to become a system where people abuse it--which is often the case when it comes to that which we perceive to be "free."
Also--make what you will of this--but I have a friend who lives in the U.K. His father needed a pace-maker. He was put on a 12 month waiting list. He had a stroke while waiting for that pacemaker and has now lost mental function. He will spend the rest of his life in a hospital bed.
On the other hand, my Dad needed a pacemaker. It took exactly two days for him to be admitted and receive the treatment he needed. He's 71-years-old and completely independent. (He fixes up his kids' house during his spare time.)
All those countries with public health care...they're not exactly utopias. Rather than follow in their footsteps and make all the mistakes they've made, why don't we learn from their mistakes and be the first country to offer excellent, affordable, non-rationed care?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Neither. It's also worth noting that you sort of missed part of his point: that while the "country" of China may be over 3000 years old, its government is younger than our own. In fact, as he notes, the American government is older than almost all the other governments on Earth.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:All those countries with public health care...they're not exactly utopias. Rather than follow in their footsteps and make all the mistakes they've made, why don't we learn from their mistakes and be the first country to offer excellent, affordable, non-rationed care?
I'd like it, but something like this is like saying "Why don't we just fix our economy?"
No, none of the world's health care systems are utopias. It's just that single payers and fully nationalized systems are so much better than our actuarial model that we are the last standouts in the developed world, and our performance and unsustainable inflation of costs demonstrates why no nation is yearning to get at what we 'have.'
quote:Also--make what you will of this--but I have a friend who lives in the U.K. His father needed a pace-maker. He was put on a 12 month waiting list. He had a stroke while waiting for that pacemaker and has now lost mental function. He will spend the rest of his life in a hospital bed.
On the other hand, my Dad needed a pacemaker. It took exactly two days for him to be admitted and receive the treatment he needed. He's 71-years-old and completely independent. (He fixes up his kids' house during his spare time.)
Here's what I get out of this, and this is taking at face value an assumption that the stroke was a direct result of not having the pacemaker. I can spreadsheet it into different categories.
UK dad, financially solvent: can be privately insured or pay out-of-pocket to receive pacemaker operation without the waiting list.
UK dad, can't afford pacemaker: Will get put in queue to receive pacemaker, dependent upon diagnosis.
US dad, financially solvent: can be privately insured and/or pay out-of-pocket to receive pacemaker operation without the waiting list.
US dad, can't afford pacemaker: no pacemaker for you, unless you end up in a situation where the pacemaker is observed to be immediately vital and you didn't die from arrhythmia complications up to this point. In which you get it installed, have an insurmountable fee charged to you, and go bankrupt. Other people with medical coverage and/or taxpayers pick up the slack, rates rise, cycle continues.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
