Cause I don't live in the United States of Fail.DBBrinson1 wrote:
So why then is health care broken and need to be voted on yesterday??DrunkFace wrote:
The fuck are you on about?SEREMAKER wrote:
we pay up the ass to have it and then pay again when we use it but you get cared for ASAP on the flip side the govt pays for it and you get cared for eventually and if you got something major, well it'll be awhile and you may like one doctor but the bill payer(govt) wants you to go see whom they like ..... oh and if you have out-lived your usefullness, goodbye
The longest I have ever had to wait to see a doctor is about 20 minutes, and I have always had the option to choose which ever doctor I wanted.
This will lead to rationing.
Why healtchare is expensive in America: Drop that cheeseburger fatty.
No, but in a choice between something you're forced to pay for by law, or paying for something private on top of that, what are people going to choose?CameronPoe wrote:
UHC does not prohibit competition
It is not a matter of adequate, it is a matter of choice. Americans by and large have money, and they are willing to spend discretionary income on healthcare.CameronPoe wrote:
Healthcare here is of a perfectly adequate quality. And look at the paragon of world healthcare UHC or otherwise - Canada. Any problems that beset any of the other developed nations with UHC pale in comparison to those in the US, from what I gather (I'm not Mr. Expert on USA).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You have to prove the quality of care is equal or better as well.
Because Denmark has like 10 people living there? Because Denmark does not grow or innovate? Because Denmark is like vanilla, and America is like rocky fuckin road?CameronPoe wrote:
Denmark's taxation levels are astronomical in comparison to that of the US and yet they can fully fund a UHC system that is fantastic from cradle to grave and enjoy considerable prosperity - nobody needs to worry about their health in a downturn there. They still have positive economic growth in this shitfest we are currently experiencing. Why can't this be like that in the US?
Living under a tyranny of the majority is the positively best way to get nothing done.CameronPoe wrote:
Your haves-have nots is not borne out in the reality experienced by Danish, Canadian, Irish, Swedish, Swiss, Norwegian, German people, etc. Your take is a socially irresponsible one, with some kind of blind faith in the responsibility of individuals when you know damn well that we all live in a society together, we all affect each other (and the irresponsibility of others does affect everyone - see banking/housing crisis) and when inequality reaches a certain point people change the way they vote to rein that in or simply revolt (that is the ultimate extreme example however). Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.
Man you have to have some numbers, or at least logic to back up that ballsy claim. I can't take that on good faith, and of course, that is what your whole claim rests on. The fact that money grubbing assholes ran the numbers wrong and are missing out on a brilliant opportunity here.Turquoise wrote:
While it is true that Americans aren't the healthiest people in general, there are more than enough healthy young people in the population that would pay into the system and would require very little service other than preventive care.
People, by and large, taken as a whole, are short-sighted and don't see the bigger picture. That's why governments sometimes have to be responsible for them. In any case, people chose Obama - who was quite forthright with respect to what he was going to do with healthcare and if I recall correctly healthcare was a major election issue. So in answer to your question, in the current American context: forced to pay for by law.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, but in a choice between something you're forced to pay for by law, or paying for something private on top of that, what are people going to choose?
Like I said I don't have very in-depth knowledge of American healthcare but from what I gather the following are facts:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is not a matter of adequate, it is a matter of choice. Americans by and large have money, and they are willing to spend discretionary income on healthcare.
- Premiums for employer-provided healthcare schemes have risen four times faster than wages and now cost double what they did nine years ago.
- The US spent 16.2% of GDP on healthcare in 2007 - twice the average amount spent by developed nations that have UHC.
- 47 million Americans do not have medical insurance.
- 25 million Americans are regarded as being 'underinsured'.
Basically, healthcare costs are spiralling in America and people have to make a choice between foregoing treatment and financial ruin.
So where did it all go wrong? Why is the system you decry working and the system you have failing?
Denmark does grow and does innovate (Bang & Olufsen, Maersk, Vestas, etc.) Denmark is the world leader in wind farm technology. It is actually not even in recession right now, whereas the US is. Ever hear the parable of the hare and the tortoise? Ignore successful examples of running a country if you wish, but a wise man will look at all examples out there and see how he can apply successful examples to his own. Your nation is made up of 50 states right? Most of which are European nation sized right? Ever think of each state implementing this in the fashion of the Scandinavians? That would be too much for you to handle I guess.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because Denmark has like 10 people living there? Because Denmark does not grow or innovate? Because Denmark is like vanilla, and America is like rocky fuckin road?
On a side note the centralisation of power in the context of the size of the US is one of your major flaws. Sadly I can see Europe, through the EU, drifting towards the suicide that is heavily centralised government too. There is an optimum nation size to devolution of power ratio out there, as recognised long ago by the likes of Rousseau, and Europe is hell bent on ignoring it.
lol. 'Living under tyranny'. What planet are you on? I live in a representative democracy as do all other Europeans bar Belarus and Transnistria. Tyranny. lol. You need to learn to deal with the fact that you don't live on an island occupied solely by yourself, you live in a society and living in a society is the reason man progressed beyond hunting boar with spears to make ends meet.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Living under a tyranny of the majority is the positively best way to get nothing done.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 03:10:18)
But I thought private insurance was the bane of all existence and must be eradicated to ensure the survival of society as we know it.CameronPoe wrote:
Private insurance. Not all segments of society can afford that domestically never mind for travel, hence that being an issue during the Obama election campaign. When I go on holiday I always get travel insurance now to cover me should anything untoward befall me.FEOS wrote:
Our private insurance DOES cover us (normally) in other countries.
But it sucks and should be done away with and replaced with something else.
Hmmm...maybe not.
The issue was (and still is) the 11% of the American people who are unhappy with their health coverage. Some of them can't get access to insurance they feel is adequate. Unfortunately, we don't know how many of them actually look/shop around for coverage that will work. Many in this country simply say "I don't like it" and wait for someone to fix their problem instead of actively looking for other options.
Keeping in mind that within that 11% is a group that wouldn't get coverage regardless of the adequacy of it because they simply choose (for whatever reason) not to get coverage. That's the great thing about this country...we still have freedom of choice in many aspects of our lives. For the time being, at least.
So...there is a non-UHC option that provides coverage for those who truly need it and can't get it. And it costs a ridiculously small fraction in comparison. Throw in tort reform and some of the regulatory improvements being considered in the current legislation (minus the shit-poor coverage idea), where you might actually realize some real cost management (thereby keeping Medicare/Medicaid in the black), and you fix the problem. Without adding to the already ballooning deficit and national debt. Without killing 1/6 of our GDP. Without removing a significant portion of the income tax base, thereby reducing revenue needed to pay for the increased spending.Rasmussen wrote:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, we don't have 47 million folks who are truly uninsured. When you take out college kids plus those earning $75,000 or more who choose not to sign up for a health-care plan, roughly 20 million people are removed from the list of uninsured. After that, you can remove the 10 million who are not U.S. citizens and the 11 million who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but for some reason have not signed up for those programs.
So that leaves only 10 million to 15 million people among the long-term uninsured.
Yes, they need help. And yes, they should get it. But not with mandatory universal coverage, or new government-backed insurance plans, or massive tax increases. And certainly not with the Canadian-European-style nationalization that has always been the true goal of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.
Instead, we can give the truly uninsured vouchers or debit cards that will allow for choice and coverage, and even health savings accounts for retirement wealth. According to expert Betsy McCaughey, rather than several trillion dollars and socialized medicine, this voucher approach would cost only $25 billion a year -- with no socialized medicine.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Erm...... what now? When did I say anything of the sort.....?? Confused. I have health insurance for private care because I have lots of disposable income and want more than just the basic level of care.FEOS wrote:
But I thought private insurance was the bane of all existence and must be eradicated to ensure the survival of society as we know it.
Hmmm...maybe not.
It's funny because I had the freedom of choice to get private insurance too, in addition to having a nicer society whereby a safety net exists for everyone, that doesn't cost the moon (the US healthcare budget is twice the percentage of GDP spent by most developed nations with full UHC). The fact of the matter is that the Canadian-European system is better, period. We instead have a 'no man left behind' policy akin to the military. Of course it is the prerogative of the American people to choose their path in this regard, I just find it puzzling, especially for such a progressive nation. Most people in the developed world recognise that the health of the nation ultimatley, at the end of the day, is the wealth of the nation. Tens of millions of people one accident away from bankruptcy does not seem appealing from a social and national perspective.FEOS wrote:
The issue was (and still is) the 11% of the American people who are unhappy with their health coverage. Some of them can't get access to insurance they feel is adequate. Unfortunately, we don't know how many of them actually look/shop around for coverage that will work. Many in this country simply say "I don't like it" and wait for someone to fix their problem instead of actively looking for other options.
Keeping in mind that within that 11% is a group that wouldn't get coverage regardless of the adequacy of it because they simply choose (for whatever reason) not to get coverage. That's the great thing about this country...we still have freedom of choice in many aspects of our lives. For the time being, at least.
What puzzles me most actually is how on earth the US can spend more on health per % GDP than UHC systems. Something is awry.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 06:03:04)
I thought that last part was assumed. That was the point I was getting at.CameronPoe wrote:
People, by and large, taken as a whole, are short-sighted and don't see the bigger picture. That's why governments sometimes have to be responsible for them. In any case, people chose Obama - who was quite forthright with respect to what he was going to do with healthcare and if I recall correctly healthcare was a major election issue. So in answer to your question, in the current American context: forced to pay for by law.
Government is run by more short-sighted people and, despite being a republic, is still largely in the hands of the majority. Government doesn't do a better job, just a more clumsy one.
The point of the thread is support for Obama's healthcare package is under 50%. The population is fickle. Don't try and pull some crap like "Obama was for it, they elected Obama, it must be the best option".
This is the third time you have said you don't know what the fuck is going on with America healthcare. I'm not sure why I'm continuing to talk with someone like this.CameronPoe wrote:
Like I said I don't have very in-depth knowledge of American healthcare but from what I gather the following are facts:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is not a matter of adequate, it is a matter of choice. Americans by and large have money, and they are willing to spend discretionary income on healthcare.
- Premiums for employer-provided healthcare schemes have risen four times faster than wages and now cost double what they did nine years ago.
- The US spent 16.2% of GDP on healthcare in 2007 - twice the average amount spent by developed nations that have UHC.
- 47 million Americans do not have medical insurance.
- 25 million Americans are regarded as being 'underinsured'.
Basically, healthcare costs are spiralling in America and people have to make a choice between foregoing treatment and financial ruin.
So where did it all go wrong? Why is the system you decry working and the system you have failing?
and fucking source, all those hard numbers out there like you came up with them yourself.
I laughed out loud a little. Consider this list, then consider the list you could make for the U.S. It's not even comparable.CameronPoe wrote:
Denmark does grow and does innovate (Bang & Olufsen, Maersk, Vestas, etc.) Denmark is the world leader in wind farm technology.
You fail to understand the differences of running a country with 5 million people and a country with 300 million people.CameronPoe wrote:
It is actually not even in recession right now, whereas the US is. Ever hear the parable of the hare and the tortoise? Ignore successful examples of running a country if you wish, but a wise man will look at all examples out there and see how he can apply successful examples to his own.
Very nice commonplace, extremely conservative idea hahaha.CameronPoe wrote:
Your nation is made up of 50 states right? Most of which are European nation sized right?
Ever think of each state implementing this in the fashion of the Scandinavians? That would be too much for you to handle I guess.
Are you not aware of the Federalist system?CameronPoe wrote:
On a side note the centralisation of power in the context of the size of the US is one of your major flaws. Sadly I can see Europe, through the EU, drifting towards the suicide that is heavily centralised government too. There is an optimum nation size to devolution of power ratio out there, as recognised long ago by the likes of Rousseau, and Europe is hell bent on ignoring it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majorityCameronPoe wrote:
lol. 'Living under tyranny'. What planet are you on? I live in a representative democracy as do all other Europeans bar Belarus and Transnistria. Tyranny. lol. You need to learn to deal with the fact that you don't live on an island occupied solely by yourself, you live in a society and living in a society is the reason man progressed beyond hunting boar with spears to make ends meet.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Living under a tyranny of the majority is the positively best way to get nothing done.
particularly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
Reid: No health care vote in Senate until fall
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_ … e_overhaul
WASHINGTON – Senate Democratic leaders on Thursday abandoned plans for a vote on health care before Congress' August recess, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama's ambitious timetable to revamp the nation's $2.4 trillion system of medical care.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delivered the official pronouncement, saying, "It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through."
His words were a near-echo of Republicans who have criticized what they have called a rush to act on complex legislation that affects every American.
Obama shrugged off the delay.
"That's OK, I just want people to keep on working," Obama told a town hall meeting in Cleveland. "I want it done by the end of the year. I want it done by the fall."
This makes sense and i hope they come up with a good solution.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_ … e_overhaul
WASHINGTON – Senate Democratic leaders on Thursday abandoned plans for a vote on health care before Congress' August recess, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama's ambitious timetable to revamp the nation's $2.4 trillion system of medical care.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delivered the official pronouncement, saying, "It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through."
His words were a near-echo of Republicans who have criticized what they have called a rush to act on complex legislation that affects every American.
Obama shrugged off the delay.
"That's OK, I just want people to keep on working," Obama told a town hall meeting in Cleveland. "I want it done by the end of the year. I want it done by the fall."
This makes sense and i hope they come up with a good solution.
Love is the answer
DrunkFace wrote:
Cause I don't live in the United States of Fail.DBBrinson1 wrote:
So why then is health care broken and need to be voted on yesterday??DrunkFace wrote:
The fuck are you on about?
The longest I have ever had to wait to see a doctor is about 20 minutes, and I have always had the option to choose which ever doctor I wanted.
This will lead to rationing.
Well I for one am convinced. Any links?CameronPoe wrote:
People, by and large, taken as a whole, are short-sighted and don't see the bigger picture. That's why governments sometimes have to be responsible for them. In any case, people chose Obama - who was quite forthright with respect to what he was going to do with healthcare and if I recall correctly healthcare was a major election issue. So in answer to your question, in the current American context: forced to pay for by law.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, but in a choice between something you're forced to pay for by law, or paying for something private on top of that, what are people going to choose?Like I said I don't have very in-depth knowledge of American healthcare but from what I gather the following are facts:Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It is not a matter of adequate, it is a matter of choice. Americans by and large have money, and they are willing to spend discretionary income on healthcare.
- Premiums for employer-provided healthcare schemes have risen four times faster than wages and now cost double what they did nine years ago.
- The US spent 16.2% of GDP on healthcare in 2007 - twice the average amount spent by developed nations that have UHC.
- 47 million Americans do not have medical insurance.
- 25 million Americans are regarded as being 'underinsured'.
Basically, healthcare costs are spiralling in America and people have to make a choice between foregoing treatment and financial ruin.
So where did it all go wrong? Why is the system you decry working and the system you have failing?Denmark does grow and does innovate (Bang & Olufsen, Maersk, Vestas, etc.) Denmark is the world leader in wind farm technology. It is actually not even in recession right now, whereas the US is. Ever hear the parable of the hare and the tortoise? Ignore successful examples of running a country if you wish, but a wise man will look at all examples out there and see how he can apply successful examples to his own. Your nation is made up of 50 states right? Most of which are European nation sized right? Ever think of each state implementing this in the fashion of the Scandinavians? That would be too much for you to handle I guess.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because Denmark has like 10 people living there? Because Denmark does not grow or innovate? Because Denmark is like vanilla, and America is like rocky fuckin road?
On a side note the centralisation of power in the context of the size of the US is one of your major flaws. Sadly I can see Europe, through the EU, drifting towards the suicide that is heavily centralised government too. There is an optimum nation size to devolution of power ratio out there, as recognised long ago by the likes of Rousseau, and Europe is hell bent on ignoring it.lol. 'Living under tyranny'. What planet are you on? I live in a representative democracy as do all other Europeans bar Belarus and Transnistria. Tyranny. lol. You need to learn to deal with the fact that you don't live on an island occupied solely by yourself, you live in a society and living in a society is the reason man progressed beyond hunting boar with spears to make ends meet.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Living under a tyranny of the majority is the positively best way to get nothing done.
Basically, it started to fail when Clinton 'overhauled' our health care system, and got the HMOs really working hardcore.CameronPoe wrote:
Basically, healthcare costs are spiralling in America and people have to make a choice between foregoing treatment and financial ruin.
So where did it all go wrong? Why is the system you decry working and the system you have failing?
-It now costs more in get insurance as an idividual than as a large group. A lot more. Prohibitively more.
-Hospitals now have two prices for procedures, treatments, or equipment usage: one for people with insurance, and one for people without insurance. If someone is insured, they get charged nearly triple.
-Insurance companies how pay the hospital based how how long they should be hospitalized for the complaint they went in for. If it takes longer than average, or if there is a complication, you are not covered for the additional time. This leads to hospital administrators pressuring the health care providers to discharge patients before they are really ready to go, or the additional time gets charged to the patient rather than the insurance companies.
What is needed is not to destroy the system and create something else that will not work. The medical insurance system needs to be worked on, yes. Maybe the government sponsoring a non-profit medical insurance company, where profits are turned back into the company for re-investment. For that matter, this system could replace Medicaid AND Medicare. But let people OPT OUT of it if they want to get private insurance. The current plan is an abomination, designed to kill all private health care and end up putting all healthcare workers eventually under government control (through controlling ALL medical insurance).
Americans tend to overreact and create bad legislature. This is no different. But the 'People' (and the Democrats) want something done NOW!, and so they will toss it together and pass it, no matter how bad it is.
You need links to what exactly? You one of these wikipediaoritdidnthappen merchants?Red Forman wrote:
Well I for one am convinced. Any links?
Government is supposed to do a better job, otherwise they don't get elected next time around. They are supposed to be elected on the basis of the fact that they present intelligent, reasoned, sensible ideas and implement them. As we all recognise however, politicians are human and the people who elect them care more about soundbites than substance. A government is not supposed to bend to the will of, as you note, the fickleness of the people, it is supposed to adhere to the manifesto it sought election on (evolving circumstances and new realities taken into account obviously), a manifesto that should have contained a medium to long term strategy that solves problems. The short term pain and backlash generated should be weathered by a politician or group of politicians that have faith in the ideas they intended to implement when in office.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I thought that last part was assumed. That was the point I was getting at.
Government is run by more short-sighted people and, despite being a republic, is still largely in the hands of the majority. Government doesn't do a better job, just a more clumsy one.
The point of the thread is support for Obama's healthcare package is under 50%. The population is fickle. Don't try and pull some crap like "Obama was for it, they elected Obama, it must be the best option".
Source 1: as ever, wikipedia.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This is the third time you have said you don't know what the fuck is going on with America healthcare. I'm not sure why I'm continuing to talk with someone like this.
and fucking source, all those hard numbers out there like you came up with them yourself.
Source 2: BBC article this morning which I will try to find.
Keep on laughing, Denmark has a sum total of 5.5m people, the US has 300m, and Denmark is the world leader in wind farm technology - the business to be in. In a recent study it also came top out of 12 countries tested in terms of social mobility. The US came 9th. The UK incidentally came bottom in this report commissioned by ex-British ministed Alan Milburn.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I laughed out loud a little. Consider this list, then consider the list you could make for the U.S. It's not even comparable.
How surprising that I find myself in another international dick-measuring contest with a Team America pride complex merchant unable to look at other nations objectively.... like I said keep on laughing for all the good it'll do you. I suppose I started it but you are always going to run into comparisons in this kind of debate.
Ever come to realise that your size and the level of states rights and remits might be the issue here.....? The EU has 450m people. That 1.5 times the population of the US. And we all have UHC!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You fail to understand the differences of running a country with 5 million people and a country with 300 million people.
Why are you laughing?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Very nice commonplace, extremely conservative idea hahaha.
Are you unaware of the Lisbon Treaty, halted by an Irish referendum but likely to be passed later this year...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Are you not aware of the Federalist system?
Tyranny of the majority sounds like an emotive phrase to express discontent with universal suffrage. Perhaps a tyranny of the minority might be better, eh?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
particularly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 15:22:14)
But it's not a single plan though cam. Pooling together the whole of Europe and comparing it to a single US plan isn't exactly the same thing. I'm all for an overhaul of the state plan.CameronPoe wrote:
Ever come to realise that your size and the level of states rights and remits might be the issue here.....? The EU has 450m people. That 1.5 times the population of the US. And we all have UHC!
I paid absolutely nothing when I worked at UPS and the coverage was awesome. (PPO) Full medical, dental, vision, and prescriptions. Now as a Realtor, I'm essentially considered contract labor. I carry what is called a one-man group (private) plan.
I just cut my private plan from $280 to $130 a month and the new plan is better. Lower co-pay/deductible, and I can go anywhere I want. The difference? .. I shopped around myself and told my insurance broker to go get lost. My jaw dropped when I saw how relatively low the quotes were for coverage that was at least as good as what I had with my broker. I could have actually gotten a cheaper plan just to have standard coverage for around $50 a month. It was so good and so hard to believe that I thought it was a scam at first. On the news and in the media we hear that getting insurance is a near impossibility. It is my belief that a lot of people just accept this and they don't even try to find insurance. It makes sense that the people who accept everything that the government says without question are the same people who believe that the government can solve all of their problems, health care included.
It took me less than 24 hours to set up new insurance. This was about two months ago and I still have carriers calling me offering to beat my rate (It's actually quite annoying). I also have a pre-existing condition, my back. In some states, like Fl you can't be denied coverage from a pre-existing condition if you have had a plan for at least a year. I had no problem getting my back covered.
We still pay more than we should for quality care. One reason is that we have a sue happy culture. The amount of insurance that providers must carry is extraordinary. What a mess eh? Insurance companies battling insurance companies by taking money from both the Doctor and Patient. These cost are passed down. If we lasso in some of the ambulance chasing lawyers I think it will help. We need reform on many levels though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yer wasting your time, Cam thinks everyone in America is predisposed based on bloodline. He thinks we have no choice in our lives, and that the only way to have a quality life is for govt. to provide us with one. The notion that one has a choice is something obviously alien to him. No one is smart enough to choose, in Cam's world, therefore govt. MUST choose for us, the path govt. feels is best.
You know, I've changed my mind about this whole healthcare thing. It doesn't really matter.
It's kind of like the whole global warming issue. Shit's gonna get worse no matter what option we take, so we might as well just do what we can to stay healthy and prepare for working until we're dead (since retirement is a luxury in most of the world anyway). With the way things are looking with global resources, population growth, pollution, and the repercussions of an aging out population, the world is gonna be a lot more fucked up soon.
It's kind of like the whole global warming issue. Shit's gonna get worse no matter what option we take, so we might as well just do what we can to stay healthy and prepare for working until we're dead (since retirement is a luxury in most of the world anyway). With the way things are looking with global resources, population growth, pollution, and the repercussions of an aging out population, the world is gonna be a lot more fucked up soon.
Absolutist much? Extrapolate things to falsity much? Nice.lowing wrote:
Yer wasting your time, Cam thinks everyone in America is predisposed based on bloodline. He thinks we have no choice in our lives, and that the only way to have a quality life is for govt. to provide us with one. The notion that one has a choice is something obviously alien to him. No one is smart enough to choose, in Cam's world, therefore govt. MUST choose for us, the path govt. feels is best.
retirement has always been a pipe dream anyway, MOST people die within 10 years retiring anyway.Turquoise wrote:
You know, I've changed my mind about this whole healthcare thing. It doesn't really matter.
It's kind of like the whole global warming issue. Shit's gonna get worse no matter what option we take, so we might as well just do what we can to stay healthy and prepare for working until we're dead (since retirement is a luxury in most of the world anyway). With the way things are looking with global resources, population growth, pollution, and the repercussions of an aging out population, the world is gonna be a lot more fucked up soon.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-23 16:24:33)
Pretty much.lowing wrote:
retirement has always been a pipe dream any, MOST people die within 10 years retiring anyway.Turquoise wrote:
You know, I've changed my mind about this whole healthcare thing. It doesn't really matter.
It's kind of like the whole global warming issue. Shit's gonna get worse no matter what option we take, so we might as well just do what we can to stay healthy and prepare for working until we're dead (since retirement is a luxury in most of the world anyway). With the way things are looking with global resources, population growth, pollution, and the repercussions of an aging out population, the world is gonna be a lot more fucked up soon.
Why don't we invest in research to give humans a healing factor? That would solve everyone's problem.
Not at all, just reading you and your comparisons of us to kings.CameronPoe wrote:
Absolutist much? Extrapolate things to falsity much? Nice.lowing wrote:
Yer wasting your time, Cam thinks everyone in America is predisposed based on bloodline. He thinks we have no choice in our lives, and that the only way to have a quality life is for govt. to provide us with one. The notion that one has a choice is something obviously alien to him. No one is smart enough to choose, in Cam's world, therefore govt. MUST choose for us, the path govt. feels is best.
Your haves-have nots is not borne out in the reality experienced by Danish, Canadian, Irish, Swedish, Swiss, Norwegian, German people, etc. Your take is a socially irresponsible one, with some kind of blind faith in the responsibility of individuals when you know damn well that we all live in a society together, we all affect each other (and the irresponsibility of others does affect everyone - see banking/housing crisis) and when inequality reaches a certain point people change the way they vote to rein that in or simply revolt (that is the ultimate extreme example however). Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-23 16:27:04)
We do to some degree. It's called preventative medicine. The flu shot etc..Macbeth wrote:
Why don't we invest in research to give humans a healing factor? That would solve everyone's problem.
Make no mistake though. The pharmaceutical industry makes money by treating you, not curing you. It's the same reason we don't make an affordable tire that can last 200k+ miles. We certainly could.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
and yet we have a high quality, life expectancy. What more do ya want? Imagine the strain if we all lived to 100Kmarion wrote:
We do to some degree. It's called preventative medicine. The flu shot etc..Macbeth wrote:
Why don't we invest in research to give humans a healing factor? That would solve everyone's problem.
Make no mistake though. The pharmaceutical industry makes money by treating you, not curing you. It's the same reason we don't make an affordable tire that can last 200k+ miles. We certainly could.
This is actually true, lowing. Granted, I'm not sure if America falling is such a bad thing in the long run. It would obviously suck for us, but it might result in a little more leveling out of resources if it actually happened. It would just be really shitty in the short run.Our health is our wealth not my health is my wealth. We can't always only think of ourselves - greed has long brought kings, bourgouisies and governments to their knees. You need to stike a balance whereby the imbalance between haves and have nots is of an acceptable level - otherwise that society will fail.
Globalization will fix that all on its own. I'd bet good money that our lifespans will decrease over the next half century. I know our standard of living will fall -- that's pretty much inevitable.lowing wrote:
and yet we have a high quality, life expectancy. What more do ya want? Imagine the strain if we all lived to 100Kmarion wrote:
We do to some degree. It's called preventative medicine. The flu shot etc..Macbeth wrote:
Why don't we invest in research to give humans a healing factor? That would solve everyone's problem.
Make no mistake though. The pharmaceutical industry makes money by treating you, not curing you. It's the same reason we don't make an affordable tire that can last 200k+ miles. We certainly could.