Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-11-04 22:33:34
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6918|Finland

BN wrote:

Last tax year I paid $847 "Medicare Levy" for my socialised healthcare.

Now that covers me for virtually unlimited visits to my GP, emergency hospital visits, elective surgery (subject to waiting lists)

Now, $847 broken down to a monthly figure = $70.58


Like any insurance, I may or may not make a claim. Therefore my insurance premium also pays for other members to have medical services.

So, how is socialised medicine different from private really?


We both subsidise other people
We both pay a fee


One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens
In private, you pay just for yourself.
In Public, you pay for others, and others pay for you, giving the possibility of healthcare to people who need it even when they can't afford it.

That's the general idea about it, kind of a utopic concept, but generally functional.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-11-04 22:35:17
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN

LividBovine wrote:

Control Serve the citizens=/=Maximum benefits.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we aren't maximizing benefits then why is everyone bitching about how many people are uninsured?

Socializing healthcare is about extending care to every citizen - that is maximizing the benefits of the system.
I disagree.  Extending coverage to more people =/= maximizing benefits.  More people may be covered, but the level of care may suffer as a result.  I view benefits as the overall effectiveness versus the number of those covered.  This is only looking at the coverage aspect, we could take this into the finance side as well.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-11-04 22:42:08
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6918|Finland

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Control Serve the citizens=/=Maximum benefits.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we aren't maximizing benefits then why is everyone bitching about how many people are uninsured?

Socializing healthcare is about extending care to every citizen - that is maximizing the benefits of the system.
I disagree.  Extending coverage to more people =/= maximizing benefits.  More people may be covered, but the level of care may suffer as a result.  I view benefits as the overall effectiveness versus the number of those covered.  This is only looking at the coverage aspect, we could take this into the finance side as well.
No healthcare system is ever fully effective if it doesn't cover the entire population of a country, hence the symbiotic relationship of private/public E.g. here.

Funny thing is, the private healthcare sectors' point was originally to support the public side, now it's taking over as less money is going into the public side and continuous budget cuts are made, making the private sector stronger, leading to more budget cuts in the public side, etc. This leads to less personnel, more queuing and even future denial of service.

This is supposed to work over here.
I need around tree fiddy.
2009-11-05 01:51:47
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN

DonFck wrote:

No healthcare system is ever fully effective if it doesn't cover the entire population of a country, hence the symbiotic relationship of private/public E.g. here.

Funny thing is, the private healthcare sectors' point was originally to support the public side, now it's taking over as less money is going into the public side and continuous budget cuts are made, making the private sector stronger, leading to more budget cuts in the public side, etc. This leads to less personnel, more queuing and even future denial of service.

This is supposed to work over here.
What people, in general, fail to realize is the total cost of healthcare.  While there is waste and profit in our current system, there would much more waste in the public arena.  Our government simply does not know how to manage spending.  On another point, I am very against our federal government being the one to implement any large social program.  The states could be adopting versions of their own if they choose to.  Many reasons for this BTW.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-11-05 04:26:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/091009_Crazy_Talk.gif

Good news lowing!
Fuck Israel
2009-11-05 04:29:51
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … y_Talk.gif

Good news lowing!
never called him a Nazi, although he is a fascist. Never said anything about him "unplugging grandma" although he is a socialist.

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-05 04:30:08)

2009-11-05 04:35:34
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Its just generic GOP ranting, what he actually said is of no significance.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-05 04:38:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Guess where all the data about waste, fraud, and whatnot in medical care that is being used to justify all this healthcare reform comes from?

The government-run system (Medicare).

Just some perspective.
“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
2009-11-05 05:25:02
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Control Serve the citizens=/=Maximum benefits.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we aren't maximizing benefits then why is everyone bitching about how many people are uninsured?

Socializing healthcare is about extending care to every citizen - that is maximizing the benefits of the system.
I disagree.  Extending coverage to more people =/= maximizing benefits.  More people may be covered, but the level of care may suffer as a result.  I view benefits as the overall effectiveness versus the number of those covered.  This is only looking at the coverage aspect, we could take this into the finance side as well.
I am using benefits in the utilitarian sense. Not individual options.
2009-11-05 07:04:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … y_Talk.gif

Good news lowing!
never called him a Nazi, although he is a fascist. Never said anything about him "unplugging grandma" although he is a socialist.
For the last fucking time there is no universal definition of facist. Calling you might as well call him black, and you'd be more factually right.
accept for the definition of fascism

noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


now to apply to Obama.

"having complete power"..........govt control over retirement, health care, education, communication, and industry. This is Obama


"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism".............check, see fairness doctrine and criticism of news outlets that do their jobs and scrutinize the administration not climb in bed with him.

"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc"...............kinda speaks for itself dontcha think? Or have you been not watching the news?


"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."..........not so much for the nationalism part, however his racism is clear, or are you forgetting his pastor for the past 20 or so years, as well as his buddy Gates, the nutty professor form Harvard.
2009-11-05 08:27:36
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704

Kmarion wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

There are private plans avail to me for around $80 a month or less. It just takes a little investigating.
You should look into those plans a little more. The only good hing about them is the price, I promise you that.
I have been in "those" plans for over 4 years now. I completely disagree. I'm very happy with the service I get.

Let me know if you need help finding one.
How much "service" have you gotten? Surely they are capped, and you probably haven't reached that cap. Most likely you are under-insured. But like I said, the price is good.
2009-11-05 08:38:39
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:


never called him a Nazi, although he is a fascist. Never said anything about him "unplugging grandma" although he is a socialist.
For the last fucking time there is no universal definition of facist. Calling you might as well call him black, and you'd be more factually right.
accept for the definition of fascism

noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


now to apply to Obama.

"having complete power"..........govt control over retirement, health care, education, communication, and industry. This is Obama


"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism".............check, see fairness doctrine and criticism of news outlets that do their jobs and scrutinize the administration not climb in bed with him.

"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc"...............kinda speaks for itself dontcha think? Or have you been not watching the news?


"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."..........not so much for the nationalism part, however his racism is clear, or are you forgetting his pastor for the past 20 or so years, as well as his buddy Gates, the nutty professor form Harvard.
Obama is no a dictator, he was elected, he doesn' have complete control of anything. No opposition has been "forcibly" denied. He has not set up control of anything. No corporate controls (save for policies regarding government bailouts). Reading comprehension ftw Lowing.
2009-11-05 08:42:52
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


For the last fucking time there is no universal definition of facist. Calling you might as well call him black, and you'd be more factually right.
accept for the definition of fascism

noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


now to apply to Obama.

"having complete power"..........govt control over retirement, health care, education, communication, and industry. This is Obama


"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism".............check, see fairness doctrine and criticism of news outlets that do their jobs and scrutinize the administration not climb in bed with him.

"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc"...............kinda speaks for itself dontcha think? Or have you been not watching the news?


"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."..........not so much for the nationalism part, however his racism is clear, or are you forgetting his pastor for the past 20 or so years, as well as his buddy Gates, the nutty professor form Harvard.
Yeah well heres a newsflash to you: There is no universal definition of facism.

Heres a great quote from Orwell himself

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

And no 1984 does is not becoming a reality with Obama. Gov does not control every aspect of your life lowing and yes Obama does not supress news outlet that criticize him. If that was the case explain to me why Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Fox News journalists aren't all "missing" yet?

First you call him a Marxist, now you call him a fascist, make up your damn mind.

Last and final thing, if you don't know how your government works, the executive has little power at all, it is the legislative (Congress) thats has the most amount of power in the American political system.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-11-05 09:58:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


For the last fucking time there is no universal definition of facist. Calling you might as well call him black, and you'd be more factually right.
accept for the definition of fascism

noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


now to apply to Obama.

"having complete power"..........govt control over retirement, health care, education, communication, and industry. This is Obama


"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism".............check, see fairness doctrine and criticism of news outlets that do their jobs and scrutinize the administration not climb in bed with him.

"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc"...............kinda speaks for itself dontcha think? Or have you been not watching the news?


"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."..........not so much for the nationalism part, however his racism is clear, or are you forgetting his pastor for the past 20 or so years, as well as his buddy Gates, the nutty professor form Harvard.
Obama is no a dictator, he was elected, he doesn' have complete control of anything. No opposition has been "forcibly" denied. He has not set up control of anything. No corporate controls (save for policies regarding government bailouts). Reading comprehension ftw Lowing.
Hitlers was also elected. Yet was still a fascist.



I made my points by each phrase. Hitler was also elected, fairness doctrine, govt control over healthcare, bailouts are also govt. controlled.

Aww and the cute little smart ass insult at the end, I love those.
2009-11-05 10:02:58
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:


accept for the definition of fascism

noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


now to apply to Obama.

"having complete power"..........govt control over retirement, health care, education, communication, and industry. This is Obama


"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism".............check, see fairness doctrine and criticism of news outlets that do their jobs and scrutinize the administration not climb in bed with him.

"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc"...............kinda speaks for itself dontcha think? Or have you been not watching the news?


"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."..........not so much for the nationalism part, however his racism is clear, or are you forgetting his pastor for the past 20 or so years, as well as his buddy Gates, the nutty professor form Harvard.
Yeah well heres a newsflash to you: There is no universal definition of facism.

Heres a great quote from Orwell himself

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

And no 1984 does is not becoming a reality with Obama. Gov does not control every aspect of your life lowing and yes Obama does not supress news outlet that criticize him. If that was the case explain to me why Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Fox News journalists aren't all "missing" yet?

First you call him a Marxist, now you call him a fascist, make up your damn mind.

Last and final thing, if you don't know how your government works, the executive has little power at all, it is the legislative (Congress) thats has the most amount of power in the American political system.
you have no argument. I am using the term fascist as it is defined, and then I disected it to show its application to Obama.

I also told you in my quote to look up the fairness doctrine. and yes with bigger govt. comes bigger govt. control.

You argument is akin to Clinton's famous, "define IS". It isa desperate to say the least.
2009-11-05 10:44:26
nlsme1
Member
+32|5704

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Yeah well heres a newsflash to you: There is no universal definition of facism.

Heres a great quote from Orwell himself

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

And no 1984 does is not becoming a reality with Obama. Gov does not control every aspect of your life lowing and yes Obama does not supress news outlet that criticize him. If that was the case explain to me why Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Fox News journalists aren't all "missing" yet?

First you call him a Marxist, now you call him a fascist, make up your damn mind.

Last and final thing, if you don't know how your government works, the executive has little power at all, it is the legislative (Congress) thats has the most amount of power in the American political system.
you have no argument. I am using the term fascist as it is defined, and then I disected it to show its application to Obama.

I also told you in my quote to look up the fairness doctrine. and yes with bigger govt. comes bigger govt. control.

You argument is akin to Clinton's famous, "define IS". It isa desperate to say the least.
But that is not what you did, you disectected it then TWISTED it to fit Obama. Obama does NOT have complete control over anything. Obama did not bring the fairness doctrine to the table. Nor has he forcibly stop any opposition to his views. You are reaching Lowing. Hence the cute little comment at the end of my previous post. You can read but you seem to have trouble with the comprehension. Take the definition as a whole, Obama in no way fits.

Last edited by nlsme1 (2009-11-05 10:48:24)

2009-11-06 03:06:06
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7003

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:


accept for the definition of fascism

noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


now to apply to Obama.

"having complete power"..........govt control over retirement, health care, education, communication, and industry. This is Obama


"forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism".............check, see fairness doctrine and criticism of news outlets that do their jobs and scrutinize the administration not climb in bed with him.

"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc"...............kinda speaks for itself dontcha think? Or have you been not watching the news?


"and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."..........not so much for the nationalism part, however his racism is clear, or are you forgetting his pastor for the past 20 or so years, as well as his buddy Gates, the nutty professor form Harvard.
Obama is no a dictator, he was elected, he doesn' have complete control of anything. No opposition has been "forcibly" denied. He has not set up control of anything. No corporate controls (save for policies regarding government bailouts). Reading comprehension ftw Lowing.
Hitlers was also elected. Yet was still a fascist.



I made my points by each phrase. Hitler was also elected, fairness doctrine, govt control over healthcare, bailouts are also govt. controlled.

Aww and the cute little smart ass insult at the end, I love those.
Did Obama suggest to "cleanse" congress as you suggested?

You are twisting the definition of Facism as the word HAS NO UNIVERSAL definition. You have to look at the origin of the word itself, which just means "banded together."

You talk about the evils of gov control and fucking people over. What about corporate control? People have less power over corporations than they do over the government, and I doubt Obama is the second coming of Hitler, and comparing him to Hitler is an insult to those who died and escaped the horrors of world war 2 in Europe.

You spit out the Reagan rhetoric on how government PROVIDED, not CONTROLLED healthcare, is somehow going to turn America into a Stalin loving nation. Lowing, you do realize that private insurance won't be gone even with a public health care option, people STILL have the choice of private insurance if they choose so.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-11-07 06:17:46
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|7054

DonFck wrote:

BN wrote:

Last tax year I paid $847 "Medicare Levy" for my socialised healthcare.

Now that covers me for virtually unlimited visits to my GP, emergency hospital visits, elective surgery (subject to waiting lists)

Now, $847 broken down to a monthly figure = $70.58


Like any insurance, I may or may not make a claim. Therefore my insurance premium also pays for other members to have medical services.

So, how is socialised medicine different from private really?


We both subsidise other people
We both pay a fee


One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens
In private, you pay just for yourself.
Not true: Like any insurance, I may or may not make a claim. Therefore my insurance premium also pays for other members to have medical services.
2009-11-07 06:38:13
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

BN wrote:

One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens
That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Privatised insurance doesn't maximise efficiency.

Which is why when you get your car repaired under insurance it is much, much more expensive than getting it repaired privately. This is true for the entire insurance industry. This is why it's all far more expensive in the US. The insurers there pay much more for drugs and equipment than alternative nationalised schemes do.
2009-11-07 06:46:18
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Another way of looking at it is private insurance is run to maximise income and minimise benefits.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-07 07:13:32
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:

Another way of looking at it is private insurance is run to maximise income and minimise benefits.
Yes, it's run to maximise the income of all those involved in the system - not to minimise the cost to the consumer.
2009-11-07 10:25:56
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Bertster7 wrote:

Which is why when you get your car repaired under insurance it is much, much more expensive than getting it repaired privately.
...what?

You go get your car repaired. It costs x dollars. If insurance accepts the claim, they pay y of x dollars.

?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Another way of looking at it is private insurance is run to maximise income and minimise benefits.
They maximize income and maximize benefits at whatever price point they are selling at. People always pay attention to what they are denied, but how the hell is an insurance policy that you pay $20 a month for supposed to cover an MRI? Companies are willing to give you what you paid for...so long as they didn't fuck up the numbers, their business model is centered around taking your money and giving you what you paid for. People bitch because they want and/or think they deserve more than they paid for.
2009-11-08 03:40:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Which is why when you get your car repaired under insurance it is much, much more expensive than getting it repaired privately.
...what?

You go get your car repaired. It costs x dollars. If insurance accepts the claim, they pay y of x dollars.
You get your car repaired it costs X dollars. You get your car repaired under insurance it costs you nothing (unless you have an excess to pay) and it costs the insurance company X + Y dollars.

Insurance repair centres charge 2-3 times the amount a normal garage would. The same is true for all insurance costs.

I know when I've been working at places doing repairs for insurance, the quotes for anything being paid for through insurance are always inflated.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-11-08 03:42:25)

2009-11-08 03:48:43
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6868|SE London

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … y_Talk.gif

Good news lowing!
never called him a Nazi, although he is a fascist.
In what way is he a fascist?

fascist noun 1 an exponent or supporter of Fascism or (loosely) anyone with extreme right-wing nationalistic, etc views. 2 (Fascist) a member of the ruling party in Italy from 1922-43, or a similar party elsewhere, in particular the Nazi party in Germany. adj belonging or relating to Fascism. fascistic adj.
I hadn't noticed he had extremely right-wing nationalist views....

Maybe you just don't understand the word (like so many other words in the past that you haven't understood the meaning of, like Islamophobe).
2009-11-08 04:08:05
some_random_panda
Flamesuit essential
+454|6677

lowing wrote:

Hitlers was also elected. Yet was still a fascist.



I made my points by each phrase. Hitler was also elected, fairness doctrine, govt control over healthcare, bailouts are also govt. controlled.

Aww and the cute little smart ass insult at the end, I love those.
If it hasn't been said already, yes, Hitler was elected, but he then went to ban every other political party in Germany.  Hence he was a fascist.  I haven't seen Obama attempt to assassinate the Republicans yet.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard