Well the US plan, as proposed, I don't really know much about. Having a single plan for such a large nation seems doomed to fail, hence my bleating on about devolution of powers.Kmarion wrote:
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.
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.
It is true, however WE are not kings, destined by bloodline and NOT be choice. WE decide for ourselves, we are not doomed to peasant status because of a family tree.Turquoise wrote:
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.
Devolution as a country in general wouldn't be a bad idea either. America has grown to be rather unwieldy to be under one federal government.CameronPoe wrote:
Well the US plan, as proposed, I don't really know much about. Having a single plan for such a large nation seems doomed to fail, hence my bleating on about devolution of powers.
Actually, we have some of the worst wealth disparity in the First World, largely because of inheritance and the development of our own aristocracy.lowing wrote:
It is true, however WE are not kings, destined by bloodline and NOT be choice. WE decide for ourselves, we are not doomed to peasant status because of a family tree.Turquoise wrote:
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.
We may have a lot of freedoms, and in some ways, accumulating wealth here is easier than in other countries, but even so, most people fail at business.
The majority of small businesses go under -- this trend will only become more severe as corporations continually dominate most industries to an ever increasing degree.
No necessarily.Turquoise wrote:
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..
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.
All we need to do is stop all of this bullshit. we need to get rid of the notion that money is bad, and profit is evil. We need to come to the realization that profit of companies improves our lives and our society. It keeps the economy flowing.
The ideology that we should all work for one another and not ourselves is not steeped in reality. the fact is, individual achievement by default improves life for everyone.
First highlighted comment - the US is the nation with a more dire healthcare problem than any of those nations listed lowing, hence the comment on the social irresponsibility of the stance. Our healthcare systems apparnetly cost less than yours too.lowing wrote:
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.
Second highlighted comment - entirely valid. It is a logical necessity that man curtailed his self-interest to progress beyond hunter-gatherer level. He didn't, nor does he have to, curtail to a massive extent. Society entails a healthy level of free will, a level that is not too high that society unravels and not too low for obvious reasons. Also, political economy lowing: man working together is more productive than man working alone. Try Adam Smith.
Stop being a sociopath lowing, you just don't get that empathy for other people you don't know that don't help you in any way is more important then personal gain or pleasure.lowing wrote:
All we need to do is stop all of this bullshit. we need to get rid of the notion that money is bad, and profit is evil. We need to come to the realization that profit of companies improves our lives and our society. It keeps the economy flowing.
The ideology that we should all work for one another and not ourselves is not steeped in reality. the fact is, individual achievement by default improves life for everyone.
Before you respond I was being sarcastic and making an allusion to what most people think and say whenever you talk about stuff like that.
I think you fail to realise that the three terms I used are separate. You are governed by a government - which can be brought to its knees (in fact didn't that just happen a few months ago)......I really don't get why you keep referencing bloodlines....lowing wrote:
It is true, however WE are not kings, destined by bloodline and NOT be choice. WE decide for ourselves, we are not doomed to peasant status because of a family tree.Turquoise wrote:
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.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 16:43:24)
If your health care is so much better,why do your rich flock to the US for treatment?CameronPoe wrote:
First highlighted comment - the US is the nation with a more dire healthcare problem than any of those nations listed lowing, hence the comment on the social irresponsibility of the stance. Our healthcare systems apparnetly cost less than yours too.lowing wrote:
Not at all, just reading you and your comparisons of us to kings.CameronPoe wrote:
Absolutist much? Extrapolate things to falsity much? Nice.
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.
Second highlighted comment - entirely valid. It is a logical necessity that man curtailed his self-interest to progress beyond hunter-gatherer level. He didn't, nor does he have to, curtail to a massive extent. Society entails a healthy level of free will, a level that is not too high that society unravels and not too low for obvious reasons. Also, political economy lowing: man working together is more productive than man working alone. Try Adam Smith.
"What else is coming to America? How about tens of thousands of patients a year, including Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. If that socialized medicine is so good then why did he have his 2006 heart surgery at America's Cleveland Clinic, instead of staying at home?"
taken from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533343,00.html
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.lowing wrote:
The ideology that we should all work for one another and not ourselves is not steeped in reality. the fact is, individual achievement by default improves life for everyone.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.
I don't know one single solitary person who has bothered to travel to the US for treatment and I have lived in Europe for approximately 30 years. Oh wait - it's a Fox News Op-ed.... Hooray for Glenn Beck extrapolating a handful of examples into a mirage of reality dolled up with nationalistic rhetoric and hocum.lowing wrote:
If your health care is so much better,why do your rich flock to the US for treatment?
"What else is coming to America? How about tens of thousands of patients a year, including Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. If that socialized medicine is so good then why did he have his 2006 heart surgery at America's Cleveland Clinic, instead of staying at home?"
taken from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533343,00.html
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 16:51:29)
you compared us to greedy kings, entitled, and not earned and that this is our downfall. We are not, we have a choice in the matter, including our govt. which by all indications will be changed in 2 years, then 2 years after that.CameronPoe wrote:
I think you fail to realise that the three terms I used are separate. You are governed by a government - which can be brought to its knees (in fact didn't that just happen a few months ago)......I really don't get why you keep referencing bloodlines....lowing wrote:
It is true, however WE are not kings, destined by bloodline and NOT be choice. WE decide for ourselves, we are not doomed to peasant status because of a family tree.Turquoise wrote:
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.
No I didn't. I gave successive examples of nations, regimes and governments down through the ages, all brought down when things became too anarchic or inequalities became too great.lowing wrote:
you compared us to greedy kings, entitled, and not earned and that this is our downfall. We are not, we have a choice in the matter, including our govt. which by all indications will be changed in 2 years, then 2 years after that.
lowing - just fully privatise transport, infrastructure, policing, military and education. Be my guest. If we're going to play the absolutist exaggeraters here...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 16:52:48)
oh here we go again, do not attack the facts, attack the source.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't know one single solitary person who has bothered to travel to the US for treatment and I have lived in Europe for approximately 30 years. Oh wait - it's a Fox News Op-ed.... Hooray for Glenn Beck extrapolating a handful of examples into a mirage of reality dolled up with nationalistic rhetoric and hocum.lowing wrote:
If your health care is so much better,why do your rich flock to the US for treatment?
"What else is coming to America? How about tens of thousands of patients a year, including Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. If that socialized medicine is so good then why did he have his 2006 heart surgery at America's Cleveland Clinic, instead of staying at home?"
taken from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533343,00.html
Us leads cancer treatment and survivability Cam. The ultimate yardstick to health care. I mean if you do not survive, what is the point? Get over it.
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.lowing wrote:
The ideology that we should all work for one another and not ourselves is not steeped in reality. the fact is, individual achievement by default improves life for everyone.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.
Can you flesh out for me the reasons as to why the numbers for the US and various European nations differ, or do you just want to stick with the numbers? Are we using rusty saws for amputations, is that it? Can you get back to me with the total numbers of cancer sufferers involved, upon which the stats are based? That might shed some light on why the figures are different. How does the US compare against Canada in this regard? I see Glenn Beck neglected to mention your northern UHC neighbours....lowing wrote:
oh here we go again, do not attack the facts, attack the source.
Us leads cancer treatment and survivability Cam. The ultimate yardstick to health care. I mean if you do not survive, what is the point? Get over it.
WE are NOT a nation of KINGS, the people here have a choice and hope, unlike in old world Europe, where your fate has already been decided before birth, HERE, hard work, ambition, motivation CAN AND DOES improve your life and chances. We all know this, we are in complete control. The only thing that remains, is what we are willing to do with that control.CameronPoe wrote:
No I didn't. I gave successive examples of nations, regimes and governments down through the ages, all brought down when things became too anarchic or inequalities became too great.lowing wrote:
you compared us to greedy kings, entitled, and not earned and that this is our downfall. We are not, we have a choice in the matter, including our govt. which by all indications will be changed in 2 years, then 2 years after that.
lowing - just fully privatise transport, infrastructure, policing, military and education. Be my guest. If we're going to play the absolutist exaggeraters here...
Your comparisons are completely inaccurate and irrelevant.
Well, the transporatation system is privatized, the infrastructure is not built by govt. but by private companies, education would best be served if govt. was not involved. This only leaves security of the nation and the law abiding citizens for the federal govt. as it should be.
We agree Cam.
Yeah, nobody passes on their wealth to offspring that haven't proven their worth or their work ethic...lowing wrote:
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.lowing wrote:
The ideology that we should all work for one another and not ourselves is not steeped in reality. the fact is, individual achievement by default improves life for everyone.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.
Always the short term view too. When 2% of the people control the globe they'd better make sure they've invested in some pretty hardcore fortresses and gatling guns...
Moderation lowing, ever hear of it? Like Germany or Scandinavia - those horrid prison countries with no freedom ...
Personally I don't want my nation heading on a path to gated compounds and high walls (see South Africa).
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_c … hcare.htmlCameronPoe wrote:
Can you flesh out for me the reasons as to why the numbers for the US and various European nations differ, or do you just want to stick with the numbers? Are we using rusty saws for amputations, is that it? Can you get back to me with the total numbers of cancer sufferers involved, upon which the stats are based? That might shed some light on why the figures are different. How does the US compare against Canada in this regard? I see Glenn Beck neglected to mention your northern UHC neighbours....lowing wrote:
oh here we go again, do not attack the facts, attack the source.
Us leads cancer treatment and survivability Cam. The ultimate yardstick to health care. I mean if you do not survive, what is the point? Get over it.
also, Canada has a doctor shortage, and why? Because they move to the US to make a fuckin living.
What do you suggest that a life of building wealth shoulds pass, not to the children but to the govt.? Why does that not surprise me.CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah, nobody passes on their wealth to offspring that haven't proven their worth or their work ethic...lowing wrote:
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.
Always the short term view too. When 2% of the people control the globe they'd better make sure they've invested in some pretty hardcore fortresses and gatling guns...
Moderation lowing, ever hear of it? Like Germany or Scandinavia - those horrid prison countries with no freedom ...
Personally I don't want my nation heading on a path to gated compounds and high walls (see South Africa).
Also , regardless if junior runs the company when daddy dies, the company still EMPLOYS and still PRODUCES and the rest of still benefit from it.
Ireland - Republic, France - Republic, Portugal - Republic, Italy - Republic, Germany - Republic, Austria - Republic, etc., etc.lowing wrote:
WE are NOT a nation of KINGS, the people here have a choice and hope, unlike in old world Europe, where your fate has already been decided before birth, HERE, hard work, ambition, motivation CAN AND DOES improve your life and chances. We all know this, we are in complete control. The only thing that remains, is what we are willing to do with that control.
My fate wasn't decided before birth you reality-vacuum - I was born into a relatively poor household and now I am a highly paid engineer that has the same limits on personal progress that you have. I can say, do, earn whatever I want depending on how much I put in. FACT.
Didn't seem too irrelevant when your closet Muslim buddy became President of America on a textbook Democrat agenda/platform.lowing wrote:
Your comparisons are completely inaccurate and irrelevant.
That's funny, when I lived in Wisconsin I wasn't tolled on any of the streets in the town I stayed in for four months. Come to think of it there weren't any tolls on the highways either. The only tolls I saw were on the interstates and on certain one-off transport projects.lowing wrote:
Well, the transporatation system is privatized, the infrastructure is not built by govt. but by private companies, education would best be served if govt. was not involved. This only leaves security of the nation and the law abiding citizens for the federal govt. as it should be.
We agree Cam.
Oh and if you think I would ever want to be part of any nation where a segment of society could elect to remain uneducated then you got another thing coming. I prefer civilisation.
I never said it shouldn't go to the children. I'm just pointing out that many people of wealth did nothing to earn their wealth save for clambering out of a vagina.lowing wrote:
What do you suggest that a life of building wealth shoulds pass, not to the children but to the govt.? Why does that not surprise me.
Also , regardless if junior runs the company when daddy dies, the company still EMPLOYS and still PRODUCES and the rest of still benefit from it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-07-23 17:16:50)
so what, stop with the wealth envy already. Is someones private wealth really supposed to be any of your business?..........Oh wait, what the fuck am I asking? Never mind already know your answerCameronPoe wrote:
I never said it shouldn't go to the children. I'm just pointing out that many people of wealth did nothing to earn their wealth save for clambering out of a vagina.lowing wrote:
What do you suggest that a life of building wealth shoulds pass, not to the children but to the govt.? Why does that not surprise me.
Also , regardless if junior runs the company when daddy dies, the company still EMPLOYS and still PRODUCES and the rest of still benefit from it.
You did note that I said "old world Europe", right?CameronPoe wrote:
Ireland - Republic, France - Republic, Portugal - Republic, Italy - Republic, Germany - Republic, Austria - Republic, etc., etc.lowing wrote:
WE are NOT a nation of KINGS, the people here have a choice and hope, unlike in old world Europe, where your fate has already been decided before birth, HERE, hard work, ambition, motivation CAN AND DOES improve your life and chances. We all know this, we are in complete control. The only thing that remains, is what we are willing to do with that control.
My fate wasn't decided before birth you reality-vacuum - I was born into a relatively poor household and now I am a highly paid engineer that has the same limits on personal progress that you have. I can say, do, earn whatever I want depending on how much I put in. FACT.Didn't seem too irrelevant when your closet Muslim buddy became President of America on a textbook Democrat agenda/platform.lowing wrote:
Your comparisons are completely inaccurate and irrelevant.That's funny, when I lived in Wisconsin I wasn't tolled on any of the streets in the town I stayed in for four months. Come to think of it there weren't any tolls on the highways either. The only tolls I saw were on the interstates and on certain one-off transport projects.lowing wrote:
Well, the transporatation system is privatized, the infrastructure is not built by govt. but by private companies, education would best be served if govt. was not involved. This only leaves security of the nation and the law abiding citizens for the federal govt. as it should be.
We agree Cam.
Oh and if you think I would ever want to be part of any nation where a segment of society could elect to remain uneducated then you got another thing coming. I prefer civilisation.
Yup still irrelevant since his presidency is finite
sorry, the govt. did not build shit, the govt. hired private companies to build EVERYTHING
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-23 17:42:36)
The Gilded Age disproves that assumption.lowing wrote:
No. GREATER wealth may accumulate at the top and why shouldn't it, they took the risks, and invested the money, but over all, ALL our lives improve, and we all have more for it.Turquoise wrote:
It can... but as you said, not necessarily.lowing wrote:
The ideology that we should all work for one another and not ourselves is not steeped in reality. the fact is, individual achievement by default improves life for everyone.
Regardless of societal structure, wealth tends to accumulate at the top. I don't see any reason why this trend would reverse itself. The logical expectation of globalization is the development of a globally evened out standard of living for the majority of the world's population while a small but extremely wealthy aristocracy develops. This means the average First World citizen will see a considerable drop in the quality of life, while the average Third World citizen will experience a rise. This process has already begun for many countries.