no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the lawTurquoise wrote:
In a civilized society, everyone has a right to healthcare. At least, that is the opinion of the majority of the First World, and mine as well.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am saying you do not have a "RIGHT" to a doctors life or career.AussieReaper wrote:
So healthcare should only be given to those with big enough wallets?
Your saying that it's the doctors who can dictate the life and death of someone, for the simple desire for money and materialistic means.
How is that even ethical?
No one is being turned down for health care.
It is? Our nation is made up primarily of middle class, in fact, the middle class, drive our society. So explain to me how we are fucked by the rich poor divide.Cybargs wrote:
Lowing just because healthcare will be nationalized does not mean insurance companies cease to exist. America is so fucked by the rich and poor divide its disgusting. Letting hospitals get better funding from public money is way better to let it crack under pressure.
Most of your middle class just got fucked from the economic crisis.lowing wrote:
It is? Our nation is made up primarily of middle class, in fact, the middle class, drive our society. So explain to me how we are fucked by the rich poor divide.Cybargs wrote:
Lowing just because healthcare will be nationalized does not mean insurance companies cease to exist. America is so fucked by the rich and poor divide its disgusting. Letting hospitals get better funding from public money is way better to let it crack under pressure.
And because of that, it isn't feasible to let the market handle everything, because it results in skyrocketing costs.lowing wrote:
no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the lawTurquoise wrote:
In a civilized society, everyone has a right to healthcare. At least, that is the opinion of the majority of the First World, and mine as well.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am saying you do not have a "RIGHT" to a doctors life or career.
No one is being turned down for health care.
It doesn't make much sense to have hospitals that behave like they are socialized but have a market that doesn't.
I am not saying health care reform is not needed. I am saying turning my health care over to an ALREADY PROVEN inept govt. is not the avenue I would choose to travel.Turquoise wrote:
And because of that, it isn't feasible to let the market handle everything, because it results in skyrocketing costs.lowing wrote:
no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the lawTurquoise wrote:
In a civilized society, everyone has a right to health care. At least, that is the opinion of the majority of the First World, and mine as well.
It doesn't make much sense to have hospitals that behave like they are socialized but have a market that doesn't.
MOST? When did unemployment hit 51%. The only way we are getting fucked is by over taxation to further carry the burden of the leeches in order to make life "fair".Cybargs wrote:
Most of your middle class just got fucked from the economic crisis.lowing wrote:
It is? Our nation is made up primarily of middle class, in fact, the middle class, drive our society. So explain to me how we are fucked by the rich poor divide.Cybargs wrote:
Lowing just because healthcare will be nationalized does not mean insurance companies cease to exist. America is so fucked by the rich and poor divide its disgusting. Letting hospitals get better funding from public money is way better to let it crack under pressure.
Losing your job is one thing. Losing your retirement is another. Well over 51% of us saw major drops in personal investments as a result of the recent market crash. Many have had to put off retirement or just forget about it altogether.lowing wrote:
MOST? When did unemployment hit 51%. The only way we are getting fucked is by over taxation to further carry the burden of the leeches in order to make life "fair".Cybargs wrote:
Most of your middle class just got fucked from the economic crisis.lowing wrote:
It is? Our nation is made up primarily of middle class, in fact, the middle class, drive our society. So explain to me how we are fucked by the rich poor divide.
But if costs are a concern to you, then socialization is a better mechanism for controlling them -- as has been "proven" throughout the rest of the First World.lowing wrote:
I am not saying health care reform is not needed. I am saying turning my health care over to an ALREADY PROVEN inept govt. is not the avenue I would choose to travel.Turquoise wrote:
And because of that, it isn't feasible to let the market handle everything, because it results in skyrocketing costs.lowing wrote:
no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the law
It doesn't make much sense to have hospitals that behave like they are socialized but have a market that doesn't.
The market is up and down this is why stay the course is the name of the game. Are you seriously suggesting investing is to be a sure thing.Turquoise wrote:
Losing your job is one thing. Losing your retirement is another. Well over 51% of us saw major drops in personal investments as a result of the recent market crash. Many have had to put off retirement or just forget about it altogether.lowing wrote:
MOST? When did unemployment hit 51%. The only way we are getting fucked is by over taxation to further carry the burden of the leeches in order to make life "fair".Cybargs wrote:
Most of your middle class just got fucked from the economic crisis.
Investment is a gamble, sometimes you win sometimes you loose. Are you suggesting instead that govt. should coddle us in every aspect of our lives?
If you want govt. to take care of your money, your health, what exactly are you expecting individuals to do for themselves?
I've already mentioned I'm against SS. I believe retirement is a personal responsibility.lowing wrote:
The market is up and down this is why stay the course is the name of the game. Are you seriously suggesting investing is to be a sure thing.Turquoise wrote:
Losing your job is one thing. Losing your retirement is another. Well over 51% of us saw major drops in personal investments as a result of the recent market crash. Many have had to put off retirement or just forget about it altogether.lowing wrote:
MOST? When did unemployment hit 51%. The only way we are getting fucked is by over taxation to further carry the burden of the leeches in order to make life "fair".
Investment is a gamble, sometimes you win sometimes you loose. Are you suggesting instead that govt. should coddle us in every aspect of our lives?
If you want govt. to take care of your money, your health, what exactly are you expecting individuals to do for themselves?
However, I believe healthcare is a basic right. It's not a matter of coddling -- it's a matter of benefitting the overall economy by having healthier workers.
For the most part, I support letting the market handle everything beyond health, education, defense, civil rights, law enforcement, consumer rights, labor rights, and environmental protection.
Those 8 realms have necessary government components, however.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-05 17:04:29)
Not true.lowing wrote:
no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the lawTurquoise wrote:
In a civilized society, everyone has a right to healthcare. At least, that is the opinion of the majority of the First World, and mine as well.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am saying you do not have a "RIGHT" to a doctors life or career.
No one is being turned down for health care.
I have a medical condition that I am supposed to have a checkup every year to make sure I don't die from it. 1000$ for an APPOINTMENT to a specialist without insurance. I don't have insurance, and I have no money-college student.
Usually, I stay quiet as someone always says what I'm thinking on DAST, but I have to say, as a person in serious need of healthcare, also with a pre-existing condition, with all due respect Lowing. Not true.
IF it is immediately life threatening, they are helped. From a chronic condition, or threatening long term condition, most people are SOL.
The rest of the world is not the USA.Turquoise wrote:
But if costs are a concern to you, then socialization is a better mechanism for controlling them -- as has been "proven" throughout the rest of the First World.lowing wrote:
I am not saying health care reform is not needed. I am saying turning my health care over to an ALREADY PROVEN inept govt. is not the avenue I would choose to travel.Turquoise wrote:
And because of that, it isn't feasible to let the market handle everything, because it results in skyrocketing costs.
It doesn't make much sense to have hospitals that behave like they are socialized but have a market that doesn't.
If you are a college student, why are you not on your parents insurance?RoosterCantrell wrote:
Not true.lowing wrote:
no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the lawTurquoise wrote:
In a civilized society, everyone has a right to healthcare. At least, that is the opinion of the majority of the First World, and mine as well.
I have a medical condition that I am supposed to have a checkup every year to make sure I don't die from it. 1000$ for an APPOINTMENT to a specialist without insurance. I don't have insurance, and I have no money-college student.
Usually, I stay quiet as someone always says what I'm thinking on DAST, but I have to say, as a person in serious need of healthcare, also with a pre-existing condition, with all due respect Lowing. Not true.
IF it is immediately life threatening, they are helped. From a chronic condition, or threatening long term condition, most people are SOL.
I agree with everything except health care and education, because the govt. fails miserably on both countsTurquoise wrote:
I've already mentioned I'm against SS. I believe retirement is a personal responsibility.lowing wrote:
The market is up and down this is why stay the course is the name of the game. Are you seriously suggesting investing is to be a sure thing.Turquoise wrote:
Losing your job is one thing. Losing your retirement is another. Well over 51% of us saw major drops in personal investments as a result of the recent market crash. Many have had to put off retirement or just forget about it altogether.
Investment is a gamble, sometimes you win sometimes you loose. Are you suggesting instead that govt. should coddle us in every aspect of our lives?
If you want govt. to take care of your money, your health, what exactly are you expecting individuals to do for themselves?
However, I believe health care is a basic right. It's not a matter of coddling -- it's a matter of benefitting the overall economy by having healthier workers.
For the most part, I support letting the market handle everything beyond health, education, defense, civil rights, law enforcement, consumer rights, labor rights, and environmental protection.
Those 8 realms have necessary government components, however.
Last edited by lowing (2009-09-06 12:26:13)
But to ignore the outside world is ignorant.lowing wrote:
The rest of the world is not the USA.Turquoise wrote:
But if costs are a concern to you, then socialization is a better mechanism for controlling them -- as has been "proven" throughout the rest of the First World.lowing wrote:
I am not saying health care reform is not needed. I am saying turning my health care over to an ALREADY PROVEN inept govt. is not the avenue I would choose to travel.
Both of which are hindered by factors that are sufficiently controlled in other systems.lowing wrote:
I agree with everything except health care and education, because the govt. fails miserably on both countsTurquoise wrote:
I've already mentioned I'm against SS. I believe retirement is a personal responsibility.lowing wrote:
The market is up and down this is why stay the course is the name of the game. Are you seriously suggesting investing is to be a sure thing.
Investment is a gamble, sometimes you win sometimes you loose. Are you suggesting instead that govt. should coddle us in every aspect of our lives?
If you want govt. to take care of your money, your health, what exactly are you expecting individuals to do for themselves?
However, I believe health care is a basic right. It's not a matter of coddling -- it's a matter of benefitting the overall economy by having healthier workers.
For the most part, I support letting the market handle everything beyond health, education, defense, civil rights, law enforcement, consumer rights, labor rights, and environmental protection.
Those 8 realms have necessary government components, however.
With healthcare, other countries have not let corporate guilds (like the AMA), insurance companies, lawyers, and pharmaceutical lobbyists ruin the market. If we regulated these groups appropriately, then socialization would work just as well here as it does in places like Japan and France.
With education, we have let disparities in local funding render standardization of education a joke. If we equalized funding and the quality of management, tnen education in America overall would be much more consistent and much more effective. We could use Germany's 2-tier system as a model for balancing academic and technical education.
If we regulated all the factors you mention, govt. control would not be required in the first place. How about that for a solution?Turquoise wrote:
Both of which are hindered by factors that are sufficiently controlled in other systems.lowing wrote:
I agree with everything except health care and education, because the govt. fails miserably on both countsTurquoise wrote:
I've already mentioned I'm against SS. I believe retirement is a personal responsibility.
However, I believe health care is a basic right. It's not a matter of coddling -- it's a matter of benefitting the overall economy by having healthier workers.
For the most part, I support letting the market handle everything beyond health, education, defense, civil rights, law enforcement, consumer rights, labor rights, and environmental protection.
Those 8 realms have necessary government components, however.
With healthcare, other countries have not let corporate guilds (like the AMA), insurance companies, lawyers, and pharmaceutical lobbyists ruin the market. If we regulated these groups appropriately, then socialization would work just as well here as it does in places like Japan and France.
With education, we have let disparities in local funding render standardization of education a joke. If we equalized funding and the quality of management, tnen education in America overall would be much more consistent and much more effective. We could use Germany's 2-tier system as a model for balancing academic and technical education.
Education funding is based on the taxes a specific community takes in. Again a govt. function.
If the govt. allowed vouchers equally, there is no need to think that one privatized school would be better or worse than any other. We all get to decide equally where our kids go to school.
It's a good start, and I'd be happy if we simply did that rather than nothing.lowing wrote:
If we regulated all the factors you mention, govt. control would not be required in the first place. How about that for a solution?
The problem I see with school vouchers is that it takes time for the appropriate markets to develop. In order for a suitable number of schools to be built and properly administrated, it would take a few decades of investment.lowing wrote:
Education funding is based on the taxes a specific community takes in. Again a govt. function.
If the govt. allowed vouchers equally, there is no need to think that one privatized school would be better or worse than any other. We all get to decide equally where our kids go to school.
I'm not opposed to taking this route in the long run, but it would require a transition period that would retain a public education system in combination with private schools.
We are in agreement thenTurquoise wrote:
It's a good start, and I'd be happy if we simply did that rather than nothing.lowing wrote:
If we regulated all the factors you mention, govt. control would not be required in the first place. How about that for a solution?The problem I see with school vouchers is that it takes time for the appropriate markets to develop. In order for a suitable number of schools to be built and properly administrated, it would take a few decades of investment.lowing wrote:
Education funding is based on the taxes a specific community takes in. Again a govt. function.
If the govt. allowed vouchers equally, there is no need to think that one privatized school would be better or worse than any other. We all get to decide equally where our kids go to school.
I'm not opposed to taking this route in the long run, but it would require a transition period that would retain a public education system in combination with private schools.
Of course it would require a transition period, however, you will be surprised how fast shit gets done when profit from investment is involved.
Late post... (Been Busy-Engineering classes) anyway.lowing wrote:
If you are a college student, why are you not on your parents insurance?RoosterCantrell wrote:
Not true.lowing wrote:
no one is turned away from medical attention now. It is the already the law
I have a medical condition that I am supposed to have a checkup every year to make sure I don't die from it. 1000$ for an APPOINTMENT to a specialist without insurance. I don't have insurance, and I have no money-college student.
Usually, I stay quiet as someone always says what I'm thinking on DAST, but I have to say, as a person in serious need of healthcare, also with a pre-existing condition, with all due respect Lowing. Not true.
IF it is immediately life threatening, they are helped. From a chronic condition, or threatening long term condition, most people are SOL.
I quit a full time DEAD END job (Im 27) I had for six years to go back to school. I lived on my own for six years. Not possible to go on his insurance.
I see, so although I am not unsympathetic toward your situation, your position is still one of, I can not afford it, so you should be forced to buy it for me. Not a popular postion for those that already pay for their own and have their own problems to deal with, some even worse than yours.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Late post... (Been Busy-Engineering classes) anyway.lowing wrote:
If you are a college student, why are you not on your parents insurance?RoosterCantrell wrote:
Not true.
I have a medical condition that I am supposed to have a checkup every year to make sure I don't die from it. 1000$ for an APPOINTMENT to a specialist without insurance. I don't have insurance, and I have no money-college student.
Usually, I stay quiet as someone always says what I'm thinking on DAST, but I have to say, as a person in serious need of healthcare, also with a pre-existing condition, with all due respect Lowing. Not true.
IF it is immediately life threatening, they are helped. From a chronic condition, or threatening long term condition, most people are SOL.
I quit a full time DEAD END job (Im 27) I had for six years to go back to school. I lived on my own for six years. Not possible to go on his insurance.
Better have tax money going into the health care than invading random countries.lowing wrote:
I see, so although I am not unsympathetic toward your situation, your position is still one of, I can not afford it, so you should be forced to buy it for me. Not a popular postion for those that already pay for their own and have their own problems to deal with, some even worse than yours.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Late post... (Been Busy-Engineering classes) anyway.lowing wrote:
If you are a college student, why are you not on your parents insurance?
I quit a full time DEAD END job (Im 27) I had for six years to go back to school. I lived on my own for six years. Not possible to go on his insurance.
It's just retarded that people's lives get screwed over because of preexisting conditions.
Financially, yes it is better off to companies to handle medical decisions. Ethically, no.
Just take this for example, why do you think the people of countries with public health care praise it so well and are not protesting for more private options, while I see in the US there is a strong debate between the two sides. Obviously a change is necessary. America is the leader of the world, but shit they need to properly take care of their own people first. What happened to give me your hungry, your oppressed and your poor?
You have to consider the ethics of this lowing.
America is the "leader of the world" because it did not follow the footsteps of the Europeans.Cybargs wrote:
Better have tax money going into the health care than invading random countries.lowing wrote:
I see, so although I am not unsympathetic toward your situation, your position is still one of, I can not afford it, so you should be forced to buy it for me. Not a popular postion for those that already pay for their own and have their own problems to deal with, some even worse than yours.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Late post... (Been Busy-Engineering classes) anyway.
I quit a full time DEAD END job (Im 27) I had for six years to go back to school. I lived on my own for six years. Not possible to go on his insurance.
It's just retarded that people's lives get screwed over because of preexisting conditions.
Financially, yes it is better off to companies to handle medical decisions. Ethically, no.
Just take this for example, why do you think the people of countries with public health care praise it so well and are not protesting for more private options, while I see in the US there is a strong debate between the two sides. Obviously a change is necessary. America is the leader of the world, but shit they need to properly take care of their own people first. What happened to give me your hungry, your oppressed and your poor?
You have to consider the ethics of this lowing.
Not really. Mainly because World War 2 fucked over Europe morally and financially. American infrastructure didn't need rebuilding after the war as with most countries, and shit you guys have all the resources you need to sustain yourself.lowing wrote:
America is the "leader of the world" because it did not follow the footsteps of the Europeans.Cybargs wrote:
Better have tax money going into the health care than invading random countries.lowing wrote:
I see, so although I am not unsympathetic toward your situation, your position is still one of, I can not afford it, so you should be forced to buy it for me. Not a popular postion for those that already pay for their own and have their own problems to deal with, some even worse than yours.
It's just retarded that people's lives get screwed over because of preexisting conditions.
Financially, yes it is better off to companies to handle medical decisions. Ethically, no.
Just take this for example, why do you think the people of countries with public health care praise it so well and are not protesting for more private options, while I see in the US there is a strong debate between the two sides. Obviously a change is necessary. America is the leader of the world, but shit they need to properly take care of their own people first. What happened to give me your hungry, your oppressed and your poor?
You have to consider the ethics of this lowing.
Oh very funny.lowing wrote:
America is the "leader of the world" because it did not follow the footsteps of the Europeans.
France was the first Republic, England had the mother of parliaments, how long did it take the US to catch up and abolish slavery and segregation BTW?
Everything the US has done was done by Europe before.
Fuck Israel