Besides the whopping population difference each country has its own unique set of challenges in terms of health care so what works for the British people won't necessarily work for the United States. I agree that the U.S. system needs an overhaul but taking private business, which equates to 16% of our economy, out of the loop and placing the entire system under the umbrella of a government who currently can best be described as inept would be a disaster.
What's the point you're trying to make? How is state vs federal power related to the for-profit motive of US healthcare?Cybargs wrote:
because how the US is set up with states vs federal powers. Why doesnt the EU provide universal health care for all its members then?Uzique wrote:
why? cause one provides healthcare for everyone and lives up to the humanist tenets of medicine, and the other is run on a business model?
yeah apples and pears. but which tastes better?
The massive intellectual firepower in the that post is overwhelming.Uzique wrote:
ooooh say can you seeeeeeRAIMIUS wrote:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
re: number 1- OK br0
I'm signing up for the military, better read the constitution word for word since i'm defending it herp derp.
but mostly no one else reads it, because they aren't defending it
One would hope the people who take that oath understand the meaning. So, yeah, a bit of reading should be done!
Seriously, it's not that much. Our Constitution is a fairly concise document, considering the government it created.
What'd you expect? FEOS makes some snide remark about how most people don't read the constitution but those that serve do because that's what they're sworn to defend. There's not much you can say to that beyond rolling your eyes and saying, ok dude.
Well, I certainly won't make statements as to ALL US citizens or military members. Such a generalization would be inherently inaccurate.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What'd you expect? FEOS makes some snide remark about how most people don't read the constitution but those that serve do because that's what they're sworn to defend. There's not much you can say to that beyond rolling your eyes and saying, ok dude.
I will say that a higher percentage of my military friends/co-workers seem to have a better understanding of the Constitution than my non-military friends and acquaintances. Perhaps that is due to reading it themselves, or maybe they just pay more attention to news relating to government policy and law.
I have also sat down and read it, in its entirety. Of course that doesn't make one an expert on Constitutional Law, as case law has greatly expanded, clarified, and added to our system.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2011-12-22 14:18:18)
because the eu isn't a federal power. lmao. don't you fucking study politics and international relations? stop being a dumbass.Cybargs wrote:
because how the US is set up with states vs federal powers. Why doesnt the EU provide universal health care for all its members then?Uzique wrote:
why? cause one provides healthcare for everyone and lives up to the humanist tenets of medicine, and the other is run on a business model?
yeah apples and pears. but which tastes better?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
the reason the EU doesn't provide it (which you'd know if you read your shitty course shit textbooks) is that it has literally no political power over member states. it's an economic set-up (as i've said before)- a trade union. it's like NAFTA, not the us government. bad analogy. the only judicial and legislative powers the EU has over member states is in market-based policy and (civil) human-rights. try again cybargs.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible. You would have to rebuild the US government from the ground up in order to make something like universal health care work, and absolutely no one but the most diehard of progressives and neo-cons want that.Ty wrote:
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Universal health care is equated to a tyranical governmemt because if you had such a setup it would mean the government is efficient..
Ok.
Ok.
What are you talking about?Jay wrote:
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible. You would have to rebuild the US government from the ground up in order to make something like universal health care work, and absolutely no one but the most diehard of progressives and neo-cons want that.Ty wrote:
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
How could you possibly come to that conclusion based off jay's response. I don't know what he's trying to say regarding inefficiency and tyranny, but your supposition is just dumbAussieReaper wrote:
Universal health care is equated to a tyranical governmemt because if you had such a setup it would mean the government is efficient..
Ok.
An efficient government makes tyranny possible apparently. So if you have a working national health system, your government is on the road to tyrants ruling.Jay wrote:
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible.
Not surprising that universal health care is such a scary concept when the government that is trying to help you is made to look like the bad guy.
rethink that sentence again, mr. DeducerAussieReaper wrote:
So if you have a working national health system, your government is on the road to tyrants ruling.Jay wrote:
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible.
It sounds crazy I know, but consider what a government would do to your health care if it was suddenly run by tyrants!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
rethink that sentence again, mr. DeducerAussieReaper wrote:
So if you have a working national health system, your government is on the road to tyrants ruling.Jay wrote:
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible.
Again, it seems to provide various socialised services just fine, why not healthcare?Jay wrote:
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible. You would have to rebuild the US government from the ground up in order to make something like universal health care work, and absolutely no one but the most diehard of progressives and neo-cons want that.Ty wrote:
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
'Da Feds' put a man on the moon in 10 years through socialised subscription, why is healthcare unpossible?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I wouldn't say our current government provides social services "just fine." Anytime you have a system where more people draw out than put in then you have a system that's unsustainable, nothing more. With about 50% of our population paying no income tax yet collecting benefits how are we to add universal health care to the tab?
Last edited by HudsonFalcon (2011-12-22 18:35:56)
well i pay more in tax then i 'draw out' so shouldn't I be getting a fat rebate at the end of every year? That statement is an overgeneralization at best, ill-formed at worst.
47% of the population pays zero federal income tax.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well i pay more in tax then i 'draw out' so shouldn't I be getting a fat rebate at the end of every year? That statement is an overgeneralization at best, ill-formed at worst.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Having only 6 states and a few territories usually won't get much of a hassle from state governments and was established very early on since federation.Ty wrote:
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
zique: i know europe isn't a federation, im just saying the difficulty implementing an EU backed NHS, people in Germany already are pissed for bailing out the PIIGS countries, imagine paying taxes to cover their healthcare.
with all the hassle it has to go through in the US, its just best to have it go through each state legislator and let the states decide.
i know. what's your point?Jay wrote:
47% of the population pays zero federal income tax.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well i pay more in tax then i 'draw out' so shouldn't I be getting a fat rebate at the end of every year? That statement is an overgeneralization at best, ill-formed at worst.
42% of the population doesn't work. And it's not that dissimilar in many other countries so come up with your next excuse.Jay wrote:
47% of the population pays zero federal income tax.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
well i pay more in tax then i 'draw out' so shouldn't I be getting a fat rebate at the end of every year? That statement is an overgeneralization at best, ill-formed at worst.
Why are you taking private business out of the loop? A government run universal health care system does not exclude private companies from competing, they just have to do it smarter. Exactly the same with schools, the government provides 'free' education for everyone, yet a pretty large percentage still opt for the private alternative.HudsonFalcon wrote:
Besides the whopping population difference each country has its own unique set of challenges in terms of health care so what works for the British people won't necessarily work for the United States. I agree that the U.S. system needs an overhaul but taking private business, which equates to 16% of our economy, out of the loop and placing the entire system under the umbrella of a government who currently can best be described as inept would be a disaster.
What exactly do they provide 'just fine'? We have an uber bloated military budget that transfers billions of dollars to corrupt contractors every year. We have a medicare system where 20% of every dollar spent is fraud. We have a misallocation of resources when it comes to education that drives up the cost of tuition and forces teachers to teach to standardized tests. Our government is bloated, corrupt, and wasteful in every regard. Every good they try to do turns to ash. Our country is just too damn large to effectively govern with a centralized government.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, it seems to provide various socialised services just fine, why not healthcare?Jay wrote:
Our government is designed to move at a glacial pace and remain inefficient. That is by design. The Constitution is our hedge against tyranny, and an efficient government (lol, oxymoron) would make a tyranny possible. You would have to rebuild the US government from the ground up in order to make something like universal health care work, and absolutely no one but the most diehard of progressives and neo-cons want that.Ty wrote:
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
'Da Feds' put a man on the moon in 10 years through socialised subscription, why is healthcare unpossible?
As I, and every other 'socialized health care' opponent in this thread has stated, do it at the state level, not the federal, and you won't hear a peep out of us (unless it's our own state, then we'll bitch).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So long as you don't live in Tasmania. Then again, they have no money - plus, it's fucking Tasmania.Ty wrote:
The argument that "Universal healthcare works everywhere else but it won't work in the US" is ridiculous and the same logic that has the US using an antiquated system of measurement in favour of one that actually makes sense. It's stubbornness winning out over logic.
Also Cybargs, Australia is set up with state and federal powers and seems to manage healthcare very well.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman