PDA

View Full Version : APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"



Pages : [1] 2

tinfoil
12-23-2009, 09:44 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6009356.shtml

LOL crooks

evince
12-23-2009, 09:47 AM
Have you never watched congress make law before?

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 09:48 AM
Have you never watched congress make law before?

SO you're saying corruption should be accepted by all and embraced?

evince
12-23-2009, 09:53 AM
has anyone proven anything illegal happened?

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 09:55 AM
has anyone proven anything illegal happened?

So you want us to embrace corruption through favoritism in legislation?

evince
12-23-2009, 09:56 AM
Was anything illegal done?

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 10:00 AM
Was anything illegal done?

So we SHOULD accept bribing through legislative favoritism?

Damocles
12-23-2009, 10:05 AM
So we SHOULD accept bribing through legislative favoritism?
Well, it's Desh. I'll channel her for you...

"Well, you SHOULD because he's a Democrat!"

evince
12-23-2009, 10:05 AM
You do realize that all compromises in any endevor involve negociation right?

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 10:11 AM
You do realize that all compromises in any endevor involve negociation right?

Negotiation maybe, favoritism and payoffs? NO. not all endeavors need payola based on craven selfishness.

apple0154
12-23-2009, 10:16 AM
So we SHOULD accept bribing through legislative favoritism?

As Senator Harkin so eloquently put it, "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line. On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."

That's one small step for members of Congress, one giant leap for the American people. :)

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 10:18 AM
As Senator Harkin so eloquently put it, "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line. On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."

That's one small step for members of Congress, one giant leap for the American people. :)

yes, we understand your zealotry for big brother knows no moral bounds.

tinfoil
12-23-2009, 10:26 AM
there is no excuse a liberal will not buy

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 12:11 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6009356.shtml

LOL crooks


lol "bribes"

I should have known when I saw TinPot's name on this thing it was going to be just another partisan hack job...

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 12:27 PM
has anyone proven anything illegal happened?

not sure this particular argument is about legalities, but more about ethics and, lets face it, there aren't a handful of lawmakers in office nowadays that have any of that.

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 12:28 PM
That's one small campaign contribution for members of Congress, one giant payoff for the health insurance industry :)

fixed that for you.


As Senator Harkin so eloquently put it, "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line.

translation - "we're trying to change the constitution through legislation and judicial tyranny, screw the amendment process"

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 12:31 PM
not sure this particular argument is about legalities, but more about ethics and, lets face it, there aren't a handful of lawmakers in office nowadays that have any of that.


What's hilarious is the whining being done right now. The kind of give and take that went on between Democrats in the House and Senate to get this bill where it is has been taking place in DC since the days of Washington and Adams, and to SUDDENLY have a problem with the way they themselves have done business in the past is just sad.

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 12:33 PM
What's hilarious is the whining being done right now. The kind of give and take that went on between Democrats in the House and Senate to get this bill where it is has been taking place in DC since the days of Washington and Adams, and to SUDDENLY have a problem with the way they themselves have done business in the past is just sad.

None of this is sudden. I have believed the democracy is broken for some time now, so has SMY, I believe. He's way smarter than you, Douchey McChimp.

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 12:37 PM
not sure this particular argument is about legalities, but more about ethics and, lets face it, there aren't a handful of lawmakers in office nowadays that have any of that.


SUDDENLY the party of Vitter, Sanford and Ensign are worried about ETHICS?!?!

Oh that is too rich!!

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 12:47 PM
None of this is sudden. I have believed the democracy is broken for some time now, so has SMY, I believe. He's way smarter than you, Douchey McChimp.

Maybe he is...you definitely aren't. Have someone smarter than you (heh heh heh STY heh heh heh) diagram the second sentence in your previous post and tell you all the ways it is wrong...

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 12:51 PM
Maybe he is...you definitely aren't. Have someone smarter than you (heh heh heh STY heh heh heh) diagram the second sentence in your previous post and tell you all the ways it is wrong...

You do it.

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 01:34 PM
SUDDENLY the party of Vitter, Sanford and Ensign are worried about ETHICS?!?!

Oh that is too rich!!

Where'd everybody go??

I thought we wanted to talk ethics?

I guess Senators Vitter, Sanford and Ensign had bigger things to worry about.

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 01:35 PM
SUDDENLY the party of Vitter, Sanford and Ensign are worried about ETHICS?!?!

Oh that is too rich!!

who's party would that be?

Hermes Thoth
12-23-2009, 02:15 PM
Im waiting for my diagrammed sentence goddamit. I want to learn, fucker.

Damocles
12-23-2009, 02:21 PM
Where'd everybody go??

I thought we wanted to talk ethics?

I guess Senators Vitter, Sanford and Ensign had bigger things to worry about.
Can you tell me what those Senators now do for a living?

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 02:30 PM
who's party would that be?

Why, that would be the very same party screaming about the "ethics violations" of Senator Nelson.

ZappasGuitar
12-23-2009, 02:32 PM
Can you tell me what those Senators now do for a living?

Unless one of them quit in the past day or two...

They are all CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN SENATORS

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 03:04 PM
Why, that would be the very same party screaming about the "ethics violations" of Senator Nelson.

are we talking about the GOP? or are we talking about MY party, that American Libertarian party, that curses the ethics of lawmakers like Sen Nelson, Sen Hutchinson, Tom Delay, and william jefferson clinton?

I'd like to know, because if you're calling me a hack, man have I got some news for you.

evince
12-23-2009, 04:01 PM
It has been done since the day they first convened the congress.

Its how these deals have always been made and to pretend its something NEW is horseshit.

Damocles
12-23-2009, 04:12 PM
Unless one of them quit in the past day or two...

They are all CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN SENATORS
So, you are saying that an extramarital affair is something Ensign and Vitter should have been removed from office over? That their personal tribulations are the same as backroom deals in the supposedly open negotiations that Obama insisted would be on CSPAN is the same thing as sleeping around on your wife?

And are you talking about James Terry Sanford? He's not a current Senator and hasn't been for a while it is hard to do that when you are dead. Methinks you mean Governor Sanford who is not a "Conservative Senator" who also had marriage issues.

Has any of those three said that their affairs were "nothing new" and should be ignored? I don't think so. When times come that the people get to see the proverbial sausage being made on the floor of the Senate, we should take advantage of it. Pretending that we should ignore it because it happened in the past is ridiculous. It isn't something we want our leaders to be doing, we should pay attention when something brings the roaches into the light.

Damocles
12-23-2009, 04:20 PM
It has been done since the day they first convened the congress.

Its how these deals have always been made and to pretend its something NEW is horseshit.
The field apples are found in those who are pretending that because it happened before it must be "good".

apple0154
12-23-2009, 04:25 PM
translation - "we're trying to change the constitution through legislation and judicial tyranny, screw the amendment process"

The very first words dealing with the Constitution are as follows.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Take note of "promote the general welfare". When you think of a person's welfare, when you ask how a person is, when you say, "How are you?" are you not asking about a person's health?

Put another way have you ever asked someone how they are and they replied, "I'm doing great! Just found out last week I'm a diabetic." Or "Life is good. I finally broke my leg last month." Or "Things are fantastic! My oncologist said my cancer has spread so I won't have to worry about finances six months from now."

How can anyone separate health from "general welfare"? Isn't health number one on the "general welfare" list?

Damocles
12-23-2009, 04:27 PM
The very first words dealing with the Constitution are as follows.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Take note of "promote the general welfare". When you think of a person's welfare, when you ask how a person is, when you say, "How are you?" are you not asking about a person's health?

Put another way have you ever asked someone how they are and they replied, "I'm doing great! Just found out last week I'm a diabetic." Or "Life is good. I finally broke my leg last month." Or "Things are fantastic! My oncologist said my cancer has spread so I won't have to worry about finances six months from now."

How can anyone separate health from "general welfare"? Isn't health number one on the "general welfare" list?
Do you know the difference between the word promote and that of provide?

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 04:27 PM
The very first words dealing with the Constitution are as follows.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Take note of "promote the general welfare". When you think of a person's welfare, when you ask how a person is, when you say, "How are you?" are you not asking about a person's health?

Put another way have you ever asked someone how they are and they replied, "I'm doing great! Just found out last week I'm a diabetic." Or "Life is good. I finally broke my leg last month." Or "Things are fantastic! My oncologist said my cancer has spread so I won't have to worry about finances six months from now."

How can anyone separate health from "general welfare"? Isn't health number one on the "general welfare" list?

PROMOTE, not PROVIDE FOR OR MANDATE.

HUGE difference. and you're also stretching the general welfare clause like the new deal dems stretched the commerce clause. apparently you didn't learn the lesson of unintended consequences regarding that total fuck up.

Good Luck
12-23-2009, 04:38 PM
That the democratic party would go to the lengths they have to pass a piece of shit like this is amazing. We're not talking about the usual pork and earmarks found in the normal legislation process here. It's way above and beyond, and anyone with a genuine brain can see that plainly.

But what is even more disgusting is the blind lemming brain dead partisan hacks that are supporting it. Do you fucking assholes truly believe a piece of legislation that is going to make the rest of the states pick up Nebraska's tab for healthcare in order to secure the vote of a Nebraska senator is a GOOD bill? Get your heads out of the fucking donkey's ass for once in your pathetic little lemming like lives. It is a piece of shit bill in the first place that does nothing more for health care than give a few hundred billion dollars in profits to the very insurance companies you have been denigrating the last couple decades as a source of our health care problems. How the FUCK can you brain dead pustules not see that? And then to resort to outright bribery to get it passed - and it's perfectly fine with you jack asses because it is the jackass party doing it.

I'd say "may you assholes get what you deserve", but the problem is you fuck ups and your entire fucking party are taking the rest of us down the gutter with you. Not even Bush's administration was this outright in-your-face corrupt. And that is saying a lot.

apple0154
12-23-2009, 04:47 PM
Do you know the difference between the word promote and that of provide?

No one is giving something for nothing if that's what you mean by provide. Under universal plans people pay according to their ability, through taxes.

As for promote when one sees the per capita expenditures on medical compared with countries with a universal plan it is always less expensive to cover everyone. To allow the current ways to continue while ignoring people without coverage is more akin to discouraging the general welfare of the citizens.

Damocles
12-23-2009, 04:52 PM
No one is giving something for nothing if that's what you mean by provide. Under universal plans people pay according to their ability, through taxes.

As for promote when one sees the per capita expenditures on medical compared with countries with a universal plan it is always less expensive to cover everyone. To allow the current ways to continue while ignoring people without coverage is more akin to discouraging the general welfare of the citizens.
Absolutely ridiculous. When rejoicing in the "first step towards single payer (read government provided) health care" you sit here and tell me that nobody is working towards that?

Just stunningly and absolutely hacktacularly unfortunate.

apple0154
12-23-2009, 04:53 PM
PROMOTE, not PROVIDE FOR OR MANDATE.

HUGE difference. and you're also stretching the general welfare clause like the new deal dems stretched the commerce clause. apparently you didn't learn the lesson of unintended consequences regarding that total fuck up.

Stretching? If you care about the general welfare of family members or friends isn't their health your number one concern? Maybe it's not. Just asking.

Damocles
12-23-2009, 04:54 PM
Stretching? If you care about the general welfare of family members or friends isn't their health your number one concern? Maybe it's not. Just asking.
Again, providing or mandating is not promoting. Not even close.

And their ability to choose so long as they cause no harm to another is my main concern. I know some people are very willing to give up choice for more government provided "benefits", but I really am not security from the government is almost never worth the cost IMO. My beliefs are not pretended or hypocritically given up at the drop of a hat, and I have and always will firmly contend that just because the government can do something doesn't mean it should, it is not always conducive to freedom. I don't like even the first step along this path, let alone this step.

From the beginning of this I have spoken with you about this. I believe that the US can and should create something that would be incredible, that would actually improve rather than drag equally at the health care of everybody here, instead we simply and willfully follow others into mediocrity.

apple0154
12-23-2009, 05:14 PM
That the democratic party would go to the lengths they have to pass a piece of shit like this is amazing. We're not talking about the usual pork and earmarks found in the normal legislation process here. It's way above and beyond, and anyone with a genuine brain can see that plainly.

But what is even more disgusting is the blind lemming brain dead partisan hacks that are supporting it. Do you fucking assholes truly believe a piece of legislation that is going to make the rest of the states pick up Nebraska's tab for healthcare in order to secure the vote of a Nebraska senator is a GOOD bill? Get your heads out of the fucking donkey's ass for once in your pathetic little lemming like lives. It is a piece of shit bill in the first place that does nothing more for health care than give a few hundred billion dollars in profits to the very insurance companies you have been denigrating the last couple decades as a source of our health care problems. How the FUCK can you brain dead pustules not see that? And then to resort to outright bribery to get it passed - and it's perfectly fine with you jack asses because it is the jackass party doing it.

I'd say "may you assholes get what you deserve", but the problem is you fuck ups and your entire fucking party are taking the rest of us down the gutter with you. Not even Bush's administration was this outright in-your-face corrupt. And that is saying a lot.

Unfortunately, the people have been misled by all the bullshit put out by the opponents of a universal plan. How many US citizens have first hand knowledge of how a universal plan works?

Someone dies in the UK or someone waits in Canada or someone can't find a family doctor in France and it's blown up and presented as the norm.

Every industrialized country has a universal plan and the citizens in those countries insist on keeping their universal plan and, most important, every country started out with a plan just like the US has now. A "pay or suffer" plan. There isn't one example to the contrary. Not ONE example. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Whatever.

Yes, sometimes one has to do whatever is necessary. But this will pass. The people will see they were lied to, deceived, terrorized by a party that thrived on fear for eight years.

I suppose, in a sense, one can not blame the Repub representatives. They know their party is dying and once people experience the freedom and the liberty and the overall peace of mind comprehensive medical coverage offers the Repub will never be the party it was.

NOVA
12-23-2009, 05:15 PM
It has been done since the day they first convened the congress.

Its how these deals have always been made and to pretend its something NEW is horseshit.

Yeah...since the first day they convened a Democrat congress....they are so fucking corrupt, its beyond belief....and with "in your face" arrogance....

How far up you anus must your head go to not see it...?

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 05:19 PM
Stretching? If you care about the general welfare of family members or friends isn't their health your number one concern? Maybe it's not. Just asking.

This is the problem with you liberals. you are so damned and determined to force people to live life according to your own wants or needs, that you don't give a damn about anyone elses choices if they dont align with yours. THAT is not freedom. What you're doing is taking away peoples freedom.

Keep it up, this is what I say.

Squeeze, baby. Squeeze. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/neill2.html)

apple0154
12-23-2009, 05:20 PM
Absolutely ridiculous. When rejoicing in the "first step towards single payer (read government provided) health care" you sit here and tell me that nobody is working towards that?

Just stunningly and absolutely hacktacularly unfortunate.

Of course they're working towards that. It has been proven the world over it is a superior arrangement and people pay according to what taxes they can pay.

It's no different than the military or Police protecting the citizens. People are not protected according to the amount they pay in taxes. They are all protected.

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 05:31 PM
Of course they're working towards that. It has been proven the world over it is a superior arrangement and people pay according to what taxes they can pay.

It's no different than the military or Police protecting the citizens. People are not protected according to the amount they pay in taxes. They are all protected.

how many people die because the police didn't get there on time. how many people die because the police use excessive and deadly force?

bad analogy if you're trying to equate police protection with universal health care.

Canceled1
12-23-2009, 07:06 PM
Maybe he is...you definitely aren't. Have someone smarter than you (heh heh heh STY heh heh heh) diagram the second sentence in your previous post and tell you all the ways it is wrong...

There ain't a diagram in the world that's big enough to sketch your lard ass you latent wussie whiney biatch.

You are so tough here Zapless. You'd probably mess your elastic waisted sweat pants if you ever had to put your money where your fat stuffed mouth is.

You are a perfect example of the Pussy Boys that jumped up and down and yelled and taunted from the sidelines at a school fight. As soon as the fight got too close to you, you screamed like a girl and ran away all sweaty and hysterical, you pathetic joke!

apple0154
12-23-2009, 07:10 PM
Again, providing or mandating is not promoting. Not even close.

And their ability to choose so long as they cause no harm to another is my main concern. I know some people are very willing to give up choice for more government provided "benefits", but I really am not security from the government is almost never worth the cost IMO. My beliefs are not pretended or hypocritically given up at the drop of a hat, and I have and always will firmly contend that just because the government can do something doesn't mean it should, it is not always conducive to freedom. I don't like even the first step along this path, let alone this step.

From the beginning of this I have spoken with you about this. I believe that the US can and should create something that would be incredible, that would actually improve rather than drag equally at the health care of everybody here, instead we simply and willfully follow others into mediocrity.

They had over 60 years to discuss and negotiate and come up with something. Over those years country by country have adopted universal plans. The need was always apparent but nothing was done. A consensus can never be reached if one side doesn't want/believe in what the consensus is concerning.

Senator Harkin expressed it perfectly when he said, "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line. On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."

Until that line is crossed there can't be any consensus, let alone anything incredible, because the two sides are not aiming for the same result. It's like two people trying to agree on the best route to take when they have different destinations in mind. There will never be a consensus. It's impossible.

All I can say to soothe the fears of others is there isn't one country that has changed to a universal plan and their citizens have regretted it. Not one country. The odds of the US government not being able to ensure adequate medical care for it's citizens is not a reasonable concern.

apple0154
12-23-2009, 07:19 PM
This is the problem with you liberals. you are so damned and determined to force people to live life according to your own wants or needs, that you don't give a damn about anyone elses choices if they dont align with yours. THAT is not freedom. What you're doing is taking away peoples freedom.

Keep it up, this is what I say.

Squeeze, baby. Squeeze. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/neill2.html)

How is ensuring a person has the right to health care denying them freedom? It doesn't make any sense.

No one is compelled to receive health care. Universal health care allows the freedom to choose.

apple0154
12-23-2009, 07:26 PM
how many people die because the police didn't get there on time. how many people die because the police use excessive and deadly force?

bad analogy if you're trying to equate police protection with universal health care.

How many people advocate getting rid of the Police?

NOVA
12-23-2009, 07:27 PM
How is ensuring a person has the right to health care denying them freedom? It doesn't make any sense.

No one is compelled to receive health care. Universal health care allows the freedom to choose.

You have a right to health care the same way you have a right to a plasma TV.....you take your money and go pay for it....its you right to buy what you need.....its not your right to have me buy you what you need....

apple0154
12-23-2009, 07:29 PM
There ain't a diagram in the world that's big enough to sketch your lard ass you latent wussie whiney biatch.

You are so tough here Zapless. You'd probably mess your elastic waisted sweat pants if you ever had to put your money where your fat stuffed mouth is.

You are a perfect example of the Pussy Boys that jumped up and down and yelled and taunted from the sidelines at a school fight. As soon as the fight got too close to you, you screamed like a girl and ran away all sweaty and hysterical, you pathetic joke!

Not to interject but I have to say I have watched the occasional cat fight that left me sweaty. :)

apple0154
12-23-2009, 07:39 PM
You have a right to health care the same way you have a right to a plasma TV.....you take your money and go pay for it....its you right to buy what you need.....its not your right to have me buy you what you need....

I think you're forgetting that universal health care plans cost about half per capita of what the US spends. That means there will be people, many people, paying less than they currently do.

Think of it this way. For every $1000.00 you currently spend you may end up spending $500.00 with $400.00 being for you and $100.00 going towards helping someone else. Isn't that a better deal or are you against spending $100.00 for someone else regardless of your savings?

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 07:44 PM
How many people advocate getting rid of the Police?

Are police officers constitutional? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

apple0154
12-23-2009, 07:58 PM
Are police officers constitutional? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

I would imagine so.

Not sure the point you're trying to make.

SmarterthanYou
12-23-2009, 08:20 PM
I would imagine so.

Not sure the point you're trying to make.

that's actually a link to an article. I've got to remember to underline my links.

NOVA
12-23-2009, 10:15 PM
I think you're forgetting that universal health care plans cost about half per capita of what the US spends. That means there will be people, many people, paying less than they currently do.

Think of it this way. For every $1000.00 you currently spend you may end up spending $500.00 with $400.00 being for you and $100.00 going towards helping someone else. Isn't that a better deal or are you against spending $100.00 for someone else regardless of your savings?

I'll go out on a limb and guess you believe GW is gonna melt the ice and Hawaii and is going to be submerged too....and I don't even wanna get into Santa and Easter bunny....ignorance is not bliss...ignorance is dangerous

Good Luck
12-24-2009, 12:16 AM
Unfortunately, the people have been misled by all the bullshit put out by the opponents of a universal plan. How many US citizens have first hand knowledge of how a universal plan works?

Someone dies in the UK or someone waits in Canada or someone can't find a family doctor in France and it's blown up and presented as the norm.

Every industrialized country has a universal plan and the citizens in those countries insist on keeping their universal plan and, most important, every country started out with a plan just like the US has now. A "pay or suffer" plan. There isn't one example to the contrary. Not ONE example. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Whatever.

Yes, sometimes one has to do whatever is necessary. But this will pass. The people will see they were lied to, deceived, terrorized by a party that thrived on fear for eight years.

I suppose, in a sense, one can not blame the Repub representatives. They know their party is dying and once people experience the freedom and the liberty and the overall peace of mind comprehensive medical coverage offers the Repub will never be the party it was.
Right. You do understand, do you not, that the piece of shit they are fucking us with bears the same resemblance to universal care as cow dung resembles a traditional holiday dinner?

And speaking of lies, the OFFICIAL position is they are not trying to force universal care on us. Yet you fully admit that universal care is the ultimate goal, and this is a first step in that direction - which is what opposition has been saying all along, and being called liars for it. Does that not make your side as big of liars, if not more so?

But I should know better to say anything to you. You have proven yourself multiple times to have your head permanently implanted up the donkey's ass. Do you let the DNC tell you what to have for breakfast, too?

As for universal care being the best way to go, when you can point out how the U.S. is like any other country in size, population, diversity, economy, etc. etc. etc., THEN you can point out why what works (kind of) for others will automatically work for us.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 05:42 AM
I'll go out on a limb and guess you believe GW is gonna melt the ice and Hawaii and is going to be submerged too....and I don't even wanna get into Santa and Easter bunny....ignorance is not bliss...ignorance is dangerous

Yes, ignorance is dangerous.

Surely you know how to Google. Google countries with universal plans and check the costs. See how many have lower costs.

Try it. You might like it.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 06:35 AM
Right. You do understand, do you not, that the piece of shit they are fucking us with bears the same resemblance to universal care as cow dung resembles a traditional holiday dinner?

And speaking of lies, the OFFICIAL position is they are not trying to force universal care on us. Yet you fully admit that universal care is the ultimate goal, and this is a first step in that direction - which is what opposition has been saying all along, and being called liars for it. Does that not make your side as big of liars, if not more so?

But I should know better to say anything to you. You have proven yourself multiple times to have your head permanently implanted up the donkey's ass. Do you let the DNC tell you what to have for breakfast, too?

As for universal care being the best way to go, when you can point out how the U.S. is like any other country in size, population, diversity, economy, etc. etc. etc., THEN you can point out why what works (kind of) for others will automatically work for us.

As Senator Harkin said, "We're trying to cross a demarcation line." Is health care a privilege or a right?

I and the civilized world believe it's a right. Call it a universal plan. A government plan. A government rebate. A one payer system. A co-pay system based on ones ability to pay. The point is everyone is entitled to medical care.

As I mentioned before there are a number of ways that could be accomplished. We could keep the present system and if a member of ones community is unable to pay for their medical care the town simply levies a surtax on property the following year and that money is used to pay the medical bill. Everyone keeps their own plan. Everything stays the same. Would that be acceptable?

It has little to do with government control of medical care, of limited choices, of rationed care. That's the lie. Why don't the opponents just come out and say they don't give a damn about others and don't want to help them. Then, at least we could have an honest discussion.

As for the US being unlike any other country that argument doesn't work. Universal plans have been implemented in countries with large and small populations, large and small land sizes, large populations with a small land size and small populations with a large land size and everything in between.

Rich and poor countries. Mixed populations. Countries with one official language and countries with two official languages. Countries with populations holding differing customs and cultures and religions.

Each country fine tuned their plans but the bottom line is all those countries have successfully implemented plans.

Finding a suitable plan is not going to happen until the people agree a plan is necessary and that can only happen by putting out some sort of plan and letting the people experience it. We'll see if the people want the plan adjusted or scrapped altogether but reality has shown that once a country adopts a plan the citizens prefer to keep it and adjust it rather than scrap it.

That's why this fight has been so virulent. It has nothing to do with the efficiency of such plans.The opponents know the people will never want to change back to the old way of doing things once they get used to having a plan.

There's not one country that reverted to the old way. Not one. The opponents know that. Whether it's a small step or a giant leap towards comprehensive medical care once it starts that's the end of the old ways. If that wasn't the case the opponents would just revert the next time they're elected but they know, just as every politician in every country with a universal plan knows, the population will not tolerate that. They will insist on improving the current plan rather than scrapping it.

That has been shown to be case the world over.

Change. It's long overdue.

cawacko
12-24-2009, 06:38 AM
As Senator Harkin said, "We're trying to cross a demarcation line." .

In other words by any means necessary.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 08:09 AM
In other words by any means necessary.

Unfortunately, it's pretty much come to that. It took 20 years, from 1940s to the '60s, to get medicare for the old folks. From what I've seen they like their medicare.

It's over 40 years later. It's stretches credulity to suggest anything is going to happen by sitting down and chatting about it. I'm sure even Job would have run out of patience. :)

Hermes Thoth
12-24-2009, 08:09 AM
Of course they're working towards that. It has been proven the world over it is a superior arrangement and people pay according to what taxes they can pay.

It's no different than the military or Police protecting the citizens. People are not protected according to the amount they pay in taxes. They are all protected.

And then they get to die on the government waiting list. Glorious!

Hermes Thoth
12-24-2009, 08:10 AM
monopolies never serve the consumer well.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 08:10 AM
And then they get to die on the government waiting list. Glorious!

Take a number, please.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 08:12 AM
monopolies never serve the consumer well.

They do when it's the government. The military is a good example.

Hermes Thoth
12-24-2009, 09:36 AM
They do when it's the government. The military is a good example.

you mean 900$ hammers? or whatever it was?

monopolies work when it's government? That's fucking insane.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 10:29 AM
you mean 900$ hammers? or whatever it was?

monopolies work when it's government? That's fucking insane.

I suppose we could always have a private company look after defense. Maybe an Enron type operation. Should a war break out they could always ask the aggressor if they could postpone the attack until they restructured financially.

What do you think about that idea?

ZappasGuitar
12-24-2009, 10:33 AM
That the democratic party would go to the lengths they have to pass a piece of shit like this is amazing. We're not talking about the usual pork and earmarks found in the normal legislation process here. It's way above and beyond, and anyone with a genuine brain can see that plainly.

But what is even more disgusting is the blind lemming brain dead partisan hacks that are supporting it. Do you fucking assholes truly believe a piece of legislation that is going to make the rest of the states pick up Nebraska's tab for healthcare in order to secure the vote of a Nebraska senator is a GOOD bill? Get your heads out of the fucking donkey's ass for once in your pathetic little lemming like lives. It is a piece of shit bill in the first place that does nothing more for health care than give a few hundred billion dollars in profits to the very insurance companies you have been denigrating the last couple decades as a source of our health care problems. How the FUCK can you brain dead pustules not see that? And then to resort to outright bribery to get it passed - and it's perfectly fine with you jack asses because it is the jackass party doing it.

I'd say "may you assholes get what you deserve", but the problem is you fuck ups and your entire fucking party are taking the rest of us down the gutter with you. Not even Bush's administration was this outright in-your-face corrupt. And that is saying a lot.

Too bad you didn't say "a lot" when Dubya was President, your righteous outrage might mean something other than the standard Rightie Hypocricy at this point.

Oh I know, here's where you tell me you were the most outspoken, vociferous conservtive who never gave Dyba an inch let alone anything like the Democrats give Obama, but you know what?

NO ONE BELIEVES YOU.

Maybe idf you had mustered a couple of stinging " blind lemming brain dead partisan hacks" or "Get your heads out of the fucking donkey's ass for once in your pathetic little lemming like lives"...then maybe we'd buy the meadowmuffins you are peddling.

Sorry though, now it's too little, too late.

ZappasGuitar
12-24-2009, 10:35 AM
Absolutely ridiculous. When rejoicing in the "first step towards single payer (read government provided) health care" you sit here and tell me that nobody is working towards that?

Just stunningly and absolutely hacktacularly unfortunate.

Zoinks...it's no wonder you can lecture me on posting, seeing as how you provide litterally SCADS on information to back up your putdowns.

I am humbled...

SmarterthanYou
12-24-2009, 10:36 AM
They do when it's the government. The military is a good example.

LOL I see you've never served.

ZappasGuitar
12-24-2009, 10:41 AM
Yes, ignorance is dangerous.

Surely you know how to Google. Google countries with universal plans and check the costs. See how many have lower costs.

Try it. You might like it.

You noticed it too?

Ignorance is bliss, maybe, but I still stay away from bravo lest his ignorance rub off on me.

Hermes Thoth
12-24-2009, 10:47 AM
I suppose we could always have a private company look after defense. Maybe an Enron type operation. Should a war break out they could always ask the aggressor if they could postpone the attack until they restructured financially.

What do you think about that idea?

We do that. They're called defense contractors. It's a fairly corrupt process and there is an obvious risk of creating a self perpetuating monster, especially when you throw fiat currency into the mix. This is why the government should handle as few functions as feasibly possible.

Good Luck
12-24-2009, 11:00 AM
Too bad you didn't say "a lot" when Dubya was President, your righteous outrage might mean something other than the standard Rightie Hypocricy at this point.

Oh I know, here's where you tell me you were the most outspoken, vociferous conservtive who never gave Dyba an inch let alone anything like the Democrats give Obama, but you know what?

NO ONE BELIEVES YOU.

Maybe idf you had mustered a couple of stinging " blind lemming brain dead partisan hacks" or "Get your heads out of the fucking donkey's ass for once in your pathetic little lemming like lives"...then maybe we'd buy the meadowmuffins you are peddling.

Sorry though, now it's too little, too late.
Since I was not involved with this board while Bush was still president, you haven't a foggy clue what I said about that son of a bitch and the puss headed morons that supported whatever he did.

I do not give one fucking whit whether you believe it or not. You have your head up the ass of the donkey so far you will never believe anything except what the donkey tells you to believe. So go find your political masters for some more mindless talking points. No one bothers to listen to you either. We can get your opinions straight from the DNC.

Good Luck
12-24-2009, 11:19 AM
Unfortunately, it's pretty much come to that. It took 20 years, from 1940s to the '60s, to get medicare for the old folks. From what I've seen they like their medicare.

It's over 40 years later. It's stretches credulity to suggest anything is going to happen by sitting down and chatting about it. I'm sure even Job would have run out of patience. :)
How can anything brought about by illicit means be a good thing? Since when did liberals subscribe to "the end justifies the means" philosophy? That is the philosophy of totalitarianism.

And then the liberals actually BLAME others for the way this piece of shit doesn't even come close to what they want. The democrats have a large majority if the HOR, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and somehow it is the obstructionists' fault they cannot write a piece of legislation the way they want it.

So how about coming out from behind the lies and admit your donkey masters don't actually give a shit any more than the republicans you despise? This piece of legislation still leaves millions of people without coverage. It does nothing what so ever to address the continued rapid rise in health care costs - which is why health care is an issue in the first place. What it does do is spend hundreds of billions of dollars doing, essentially, nothing except screwing even worse that which is already screwed.

And then they pass it through a series of quite literal bribes, the acceptance of which does not speak well either of the party nor the recipients.

Thankfully the mindless donkey worshipers are not the majority. Go ahead and trumpet this crap as "doing good". Free thinking people are abandoning your movement in droves, as is witnessed by Obama having the worst rating of a first year president in history. Keep up the crap, and he plus the democratic majority in congress will be the shortest lived "mandate of the people" in history.

apple0154
12-24-2009, 12:07 PM
How can anything brought about by illicit means be a good thing? Since when did liberals subscribe to "the end justifies the means" philosophy? That is the philosophy of totalitarianism..

No, it is the work of common sense. Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system. What is there about that statement you don't understand?

Universal medical plans have been proven in dozens of countries, some for over half a century. Various combinations of politics and population and land mass have been tested and proven viable. There is no credible opposition. Dissension has become a farce.


And then the liberals actually BLAME others for the way this piece of shit doesn't even come close to what they want. The democrats have a large majority if the HOR, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and somehow it is the obstructionists' fault they cannot write a piece of legislation the way they want it.

Not every last Democrat is an honorable individual. One would have hoped a few Republicans would have taken their place and voted for the legislation but such is life.

Regardless, they are out of the starting gate. The march towards medical coverage has begun.


So how about coming out from behind the lies and admit your donkey masters don't actually give a shit any more than the republicans you despise? This piece of legislation still leaves millions of people without coverage. It does nothing what so ever to address the continued rapid rise in health care costs - which is why health care is an issue in the first place. What it does do is spend hundreds of billions of dollars doing, essentially, nothing except screwing even worse that which is already screwed.

And then they pass it through a series of quite literal bribes, the acceptance of which does not speak well either of the party nor the recipients.

Thankfully the mindless donkey worshipers are not the majority. Go ahead and trumpet this crap as "doing good". Free thinking people are abandoning your movement in droves, as is witnessed by Obama having the worst rating of a first year president in history. Keep up the crap, and he plus the democratic majority in congress will be the shortest lived "mandate of the people" in history.

I'll reserve judgment at the end of four years.

NOVA
12-24-2009, 01:20 PM
No, it is the work of common sense. Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system. What is there about that statement you don't understand?

Socialism has not worked anywhere its been tryed...what about that fact is so difficult for you...??

Universal medical plans have been proven in dozens of countries, some for over half a century. Various combinations of politics and population and land mass have been tested and proven viable. There is no credible opposition. Dissension has become a farce.

Instead of 80+% getting superior healthcare, now 100% of us will get less than the very best care....and as the tax money dries up,(as it surly will) the care will only get worse...

Not every last Democrat is an honorable individual. One would have hoped a few Republicans would have taken their place and voted for the legislation but such is life.

If Republicans vote for socialist and marxist programs, they will no longer be Reupblicans, they will have become Democrats

Regardless, they are out of the starting gate. The march towards medical coverage has begun.


I'll reserve judgment at the end of four years..

apple0154
12-24-2009, 04:53 PM
No, it is the work of common sense. Once again, there is not one country that has reverted to the "pay or suffer" system. What is there about that statement you don't understand?

Socialism has not worked anywhere its been tryed...what about that fact is so difficult for you...??


Considering universal medical plans have been in existence for over half a century and not one country has reverted to the old system you're left with two choices. Pick one.
1. Universal medical is not socialism.
2. Universal medical is socialism and socialism works.

Universal medical plans have been proven in dozens of countries, some for over half a century. Various combinations of politics and population and land mass have been tested and proven viable. There is no credible opposition. Dissension has become a farce.

Instead of 80+% getting superior healthcare, now 100% of us will get less than the very best care....and as the tax money dries up,(as it surly will) the care will only get worse...


Again, that's contrary to facts. Universal plans cost, on average, half of what the US currently spends, per capita, on medical services. Consider the impact on the average universal plan if the budget was increased 100% to the level currently spent on medical in the US.

Not every last Democrat is an honorable individual. One would have hoped a few Republicans would have taken their place and voted for the legislation but such is life.

If Republicans vote for socialist and marxist programs, they will no longer be Reupblicans, they will have become Democrats

They will have become logical assuming they know the difference.

Regardless, they are out of the starting gate. The march towards medical coverage has begun.


I'll reserve judgment at the end of four years....

Hermes Thoth
12-25-2009, 07:50 AM
..

Apple. You're not factoring in that the quality of care is overall shitty. With waitlists, rationing, and treatment denied. Please join actual reality when thinking.

apple0154
12-25-2009, 09:19 AM
Apple. You're not factoring in that the quality of care is overall shitty. With waitlists, rationing, and treatment denied. Please join actual reality when thinking.

The quality of health care isn't shitty. Any universal plan is superior to a private plan because the universal plan has to cover illnesses contracted by a vast number of people from different cultures and ways-of-life. By virtue of it being universal it has to cover more illnesses.

If a person contracts cancer under a universal plan there is no cap on the cost of medical care which many private plans have. There are no individual exclusions. Either the entire population is covered or no one is covered. Considering a universal plan covers the entire population what are the chances of contracting a unique illness that would not be covered?

Wait lists and rationing has a lot to do with people demanding their local hospital provide the same treatment options as a hospital in a big city. Even under a "pay or suffer" system they wouldn't have the options as there wouldn't be enough patients to make it a viable enterprise.

Some machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. No business enterprise is going to buy such a machine if there are not sufficient "customers". The same applies to universal plans. The government is not going to supply every hospital with a machine when a person can drive to the nearest large hospital and receive treatment.

When people say they had to wait or couldn't receive treatment in a timely manner what they're saying is they refused to go to a different treatment center. They demanded the same services as one would get in a big city while living in a small town.

Hermes Thoth
12-25-2009, 12:10 PM
The quality of health care isn't shitty. Any universal plan is superior to a private plan because the universal plan has to cover illnesses contracted by a vast number of people from different cultures and ways-of-life. By virtue of it being universal it has to cover more illnesses.

If a person contracts cancer under a universal plan there is no cap on the cost of medical care which many private plans have. There are no individual exclusions. Either the entire population is covered or no one is covered. Considering a universal plan covers the entire population what are the chances of contracting a unique illness that would not be covered?

Wait lists and rationing has a lot to do with people demanding their local hospital provide the same treatment options as a hospital in a big city. Even under a "pay or suffer" system they wouldn't have the options as there wouldn't be enough patients to make it a viable enterprise.

Some machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. No business enterprise is going to buy such a machine if there are not sufficient "customers". The same applies to universal plans. The government is not going to supply every hospital with a machine when a person can drive to the nearest large hospital and receive treatment.

When people say they had to wait or couldn't receive treatment in a timely manner what they're saying is they refused to go to a different treatment center. They demanded the same services as one would get in a big city while living in a small town.

With the most expensive things it becomes "noone gets covered", as you metnioned. You're beginning to understand.

You can't dismiss the very reality of rationing by calling people lazy.

apple0154
12-25-2009, 12:53 PM
With the most expensive things it becomes "noone gets covered", as you metnioned. You're beginning to understand.

You can't dismiss the very reality of rationing by calling people lazy.

They are covered.

I posted a story before about a Canadian guy who had cancer and wanted treatment at the local hospital. Because he lived in a small town he had to drive to a facility that had the machine I previously mentioned. The drive was less than 40 miles each way. Two weekly treatments. Total 160 miles per week.

He ranted to the local papers and TV station demanding the government pay his gas because, as a taxpayer, he was entitled to free medical care. Plus, his wife was available to drive him. It was strictly a matter of money, money for gas.

That is what constituted his claim he was being denied medical treatment.

However, the government did suggest a place he could go. :rofl:.

Hermes Thoth
12-25-2009, 01:17 PM
They are covered.

I posted a story before about a Canadian guy who had cancer and wanted treatment at the local hospital. Because he lived in a small town he had to drive to a facility that had the machine I previously mentioned. The drive was less than 40 miles each way. Two weekly treatments. Total 160 miles per week.

He ranted to the local papers and TV station demanding the government pay his gas because, as a taxpayer, he was entitled to free medical care. Plus, his wife was available to drive him. It was strictly a matter of money, money for gas.

That is what constituted his claim he was being denied medical treatment.

However, the government did suggest a place he could go. :rofl:.

You're just in denial about rationing.

apple0154
12-25-2009, 01:56 PM
You're just in denial about rationing.

Don't believe the gossip. Do a Google. Check for yourself.

Hermes Thoth
12-25-2009, 02:35 PM
Don't believe the gossip. Do a Google. Check for yourself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588779662250705.html

President Obama objects when people use the word "rationing" in regards to government-run health care. But rationing is inevitable if we simply expand government control without fixing the way health care is reimbursed so that doctors and patients become sensitive to issues of price and quality.

Like Medicare's recent decisions to curtail the use of virtual colonoscopies, certain wound-healing devices, and even a branded asthma drug, the board's decisions will be one-size-fits-all restrictions. Such restrictions don't respect variation in preferences and disease, which make costly products suitable for some even if they are wasteful when prescribed to everyone.

Moreover, these health boards prove that policy makers know they'll need to ration care but want to absolve themselves of responsibility. Some in Congress and the Obama administration recently tipped their hand on this goal by proposing to make recommendations of the current Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) legally binding rather than mere advice to Congress. Any new health board's mission will also expand over time, just as MedPAC's mandate grew to encompass medical practice issues not envisioned when it was created.

The idea of an omnipotent board that makes unpopular decisions on access and price isn't a new construct. It's a European import. In countries such as France and Germany, layers of bureaucracy like health boards have been specifically engineered to delay the adoption of new medical products and services, thus lowering spending.

In France, assessment of medical products is done by the Committee for the Evaluation of Medicines. Reimbursement rates are set by the National Union of Sickness Insurance Funds, a group that also negotiates pay to doctors.

In Germany, the Federal Joint Committee regulates reimbursement and restrictions on prescribing, while the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare does formal cost-effectiveness analysis. The Social Insurance Organization, technically a part of the Federal Joint Committee, is in charge of setting prices through a defined formula that monitors doctors' prescribing behavior and sets their practice budgets. In the past 12 months, the 15 medical products and services that cleared this process spent an average 35 months under review. (The shortest review was 19 months, the longest 51.)

In short, other countries where government plays a large role in health care aren't shy about rationing. Mr. Obama's budget director has acknowledged that rationing reduces costs. Peter Orszag told Congress last year when he headed the Congressional Budget Office that spending can be "moderated" if "diffusion of existing costly services were slowed."

Medicare can already be painstakingly slow. Appealing to it takes patients an average 21 months according to a 2003 Government Accountability Office report (17 months involve administrative processing). Layers of commissions and health boards would delay access still further.

When asked to judge the constitutionality of the Senate HELP committee proposal, there's a reason why the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the proposed Medical Advisory Council "raises potentially significant constitutional concerns." Our Founders thought politicians should be accountable when it comes to citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of heart surgery.

apple0154
12-25-2009, 04:27 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588779662250705.html

President Obama objects when people use the word "rationing" in regards to government-run health care. But rationing is inevitable if we simply expand government control without fixing the way health care is reimbursed so that doctors and patients become sensitive to issues of price and quality.

Like Medicare's recent decisions to curtail the use of virtual colonoscopies, certain wound-healing devices, and even a branded asthma drug, the board's decisions will be one-size-fits-all restrictions. Such restrictions don't respect variation in preferences and disease, which make costly products suitable for some even if they are wasteful when prescribed to everyone.

Moreover, these health boards prove that policy makers know they'll need to ration care but want to absolve themselves of responsibility. Some in Congress and the Obama administration recently tipped their hand on this goal by proposing to make recommendations of the current Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC) legally binding rather than mere advice to Congress. Any new health board's mission will also expand over time, just as MedPAC's mandate grew to encompass medical practice issues not envisioned when it was created.

The idea of an omnipotent board that makes unpopular decisions on access and price isn't a new construct. It's a European import. In countries such as France and Germany, layers of bureaucracy like health boards have been specifically engineered to delay the adoption of new medical products and services, thus lowering spending.

In France, assessment of medical products is done by the Committee for the Evaluation of Medicines. Reimbursement rates are set by the National Union of Sickness Insurance Funds, a group that also negotiates pay to doctors.

In Germany, the Federal Joint Committee regulates reimbursement and restrictions on prescribing, while the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare does formal cost-effectiveness analysis. The Social Insurance Organization, technically a part of the Federal Joint Committee, is in charge of setting prices through a defined formula that monitors doctors' prescribing behavior and sets their practice budgets. In the past 12 months, the 15 medical products and services that cleared this process spent an average 35 months under review. (The shortest review was 19 months, the longest 51.)

In short, other countries where government plays a large role in health care aren't shy about rationing. Mr. Obama's budget director has acknowledged that rationing reduces costs. Peter Orszag told Congress last year when he headed the Congressional Budget Office that spending can be "moderated" if "diffusion of existing costly services were slowed."

Medicare can already be painstakingly slow. Appealing to it takes patients an average 21 months according to a 2003 Government Accountability Office report (17 months involve administrative processing). Layers of commissions and health boards would delay access still further.

When asked to judge the constitutionality of the Senate HELP committee proposal, there's a reason why the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the proposed Medical Advisory Council "raises potentially significant constitutional concerns." Our Founders thought politicians should be accountable when it comes to citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of heart surgery.

I did get the punch line. The author "Dr. Gottlieb....is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies." :)

While emotions and philosophical views tend to dominate discussions one must take a logical look. Every country he mentions spend half of what the US spends per capita. So, logically speaking, if we are going to compare medical services we have to compare costs and in order to make a logical comparison we have to take into account what medical services would be available in those countries if their budgets were increased 100%.

It's like comparing a $50,000 automobile to a $25,000 automobile and telling the owner of the cheaper car he got ripped off because he didn't get a leather interior or an eight speaker stereo system.

If the people wanted the most expensive medical services available they would vote for the politician who campaigned on that and they would be willing to pay the appropriate taxes.

Looked at another way if the US adopted any of those plans medical costs would drop 50%.

It all depends on what the people want. We can easily see what one gets for 50% less than what is currently being spent. Obviously, if people want to continue the current spending they will get a plan much superior to any of those countries.

Hermes Thoth
12-25-2009, 04:34 PM
I did get the punch line. The author "Dr. Gottlieb....is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies." :)

While emotions and philosophical views tend to dominate discussions one must take a logical look. Every country he mentions spend half of what the US spends per capita. So, logically speaking, if we are going to compare medical services we have to compare costs and in order to make a logical comparison we have to take into account what medical services would be available in those countries if their budgets were increased 100%.

It's like comparing a $50,000 automobile to a $25,000 automobile and telling the owner of the cheaper car he got ripped off because he didn't get a leather interior or an eight speaker stereo system.

If the people wanted the most expensive medical services available they would vote for the politician who campaigned on that and they would be willing to pay the appropriate taxes.

Looked at another way if the US adopted any of those plans medical costs would drop 50%.

It all depends on what the people want. We can easily see what one gets for 50% less than what is currently being spent. Obviously, if people want to continue the current spending they will get a plan much superior to any of those countries.

What you have is bureaucratic boards decidign who lives and dies.

Death panels are true.

apple0154
12-25-2009, 04:53 PM
What you have is bureaucratic boards decidign who lives and dies.

Death panels are true.

No they're not true.

Try and understand decisions are not made on a case by case basis like typical insurance companies. That's why doctors phone and consult with insurance companies to see if a certain individual is covered for a certain procedure. That does not occur with universal plans.

NOVA
12-25-2009, 08:29 PM
Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose Chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress which hasn't read it, signed by a President who smokes, funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

apple0154
12-25-2009, 08:45 PM
Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose Chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress which hasn't read it, signed by a President who smokes, funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Hmmm. Well, when you put it that way.............

USFREEDOM911
12-25-2009, 08:56 PM
Of course they're working towards that. It has been proven the world over it is a superior arrangement and people pay according to what taxes they can pay.

It's no different than the military or Police protecting the citizens. People are not protected according to the amount they pay in taxes. They are all protected.

Then how come you aren't for our elected officials signing up for it?? :palm:

USFREEDOM911
12-25-2009, 09:07 PM
Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose Chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress which hasn't read it, signed by a President who smokes, funded by a Treasury Chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?


:good4u:

apple0154
12-25-2009, 09:24 PM
Then how come you aren't for our elected officials signing up for it?? :palm:

Because their employer offers additional benefits.

USFREEDOM911
12-25-2009, 09:35 PM
Because their employer offers additional benefits.

I can't understand why you're so against having our elected officials use the very plan they promoted and then voted on!! :palm:

apple0154
12-25-2009, 09:38 PM
I can't understand why you're so against having our elected officials use the very plan they promoted and then voted on!! :palm:

Who said I was against it?

USFREEDOM911
12-25-2009, 09:46 PM
Who said I was against it?

You didn't present it on this thread; but you haven't supported it, on another thread.

apple0154
12-25-2009, 09:58 PM
You didn't present it on this thread; but you haven't supported it, on another thread.

Why would I either support it or be against it? It's up to the Senators.

USFREEDOM911
12-25-2009, 10:10 PM
Why would I either support it or be against it? It's up to the Senators.

You mean you were lying about all the earlier comments you were making, regarding the Insurance Reform plan?? :palm:

apple0154
12-25-2009, 10:16 PM
You mean you were lying about all the earlier comments you were making, regarding the Insurance Reform plan?? :palm:

Huh? Not sure what you mean?

USFREEDOM911
12-25-2009, 10:46 PM
Huh? Not sure what you mean?

Comments you've been making in support of the Insurance Reform bill.

apple0154
12-26-2009, 06:27 AM
Comments you've been making in support of the Insurance Reform bill.

I neither support nor am against the Senators joining the plan. Was that the question?

Good Luck
12-26-2009, 10:24 AM
No they're not true.

Try and understand decisions are not made on a case by case basis like typical insurance companies. That's why doctors phone and consult with insurance companies to see if a certain individual is covered for a certain procedure. That does not occur with universal plans.
Are you making the claim that universal plans cover anything and everything? Are you suggesting that there are no limits on what types of treatments are paid for under which circumstances? Because if you truly believe such is true, then you are deluded beyond belief what exactly is entailed in a universal care system.

ANY system whose purpose it is to allocate limited resources among a population does so by determining who gets what under what circumstances. The recent fiasco dealing with H1N1 is a prime example. Limited resources and sudden high demand resulted in GOVERNMENT policies that stated, quite unequivocally, who was to receive the vaccine and who would have to wait for supply to catch up with demand. That is the REALITY of health care that liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge. Health care is a LIMITED resource. There are only so many doctors, medicines, hospital beds, xray machines, etc. etc. etc. As such, reality dictates there must be a method of distribution which includes rationing when demand outstrips supply. And following this reality to the only available conclusion, SOMEONE, somewhere, will be making the decisions guiding distribution, allocation, and rationing.

There are limits what is paid for under universal care, and therefore there is a system in place for all universal care system in which decisions are made to determine those limits. To deny this only indicates either and extreme ignorance of reality, or one willing to lie in order to support their position on the topic.

Damocles
12-26-2009, 10:27 AM
They had over 60 years to discuss and negotiate and come up with something. Over those years country by country have adopted universal plans. The need was always apparent but nothing was done. A consensus can never be reached if one side doesn't want/believe in what the consensus is concerning.

Senator Harkin expressed it perfectly when he said, "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line. On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."

Until that line is crossed there can't be any consensus, let alone anything incredible, because the two sides are not aiming for the same result. It's like two people trying to agree on the best route to take when they have different destinations in mind. There will never be a consensus. It's impossible.

All I can say to soothe the fears of others is there isn't one country that has changed to a universal plan and their citizens have regretted it. Not one country. The odds of the US government not being able to ensure adequate medical care for it's citizens is not a reasonable concern.
Yet they only spent weeks discussing, had to buy votes with direct violation of the equal taxation clause, and passed it by once again disallowing members to have meetings with constituency beforehand. Yeah, all signs that they are passing some real well-thought legislation that doesn't need to be passed in the early hours or dead of night in order to get the stink past the unwilling populace...

Again. What "works" barely elsewhere can be improved upon by the US without centralizing the solution in government. You have a right to bear arms, all without universal arms coverage forced upon you by the government. We do a good job at gaining full coverage of things like that....

Good Luck
12-26-2009, 10:30 AM
I neither support nor am against the Senators joining the plan. Was that the question?
Yes, you merely question why they should bother when they have a better plan available to them. You don't bother to question why those who are supposed to be working for the people are quite literally setting themselves above the people. You blindly accept the elitism and class distinctions between government leadership and we muddling commoners that comes with moving farther and farther leftward in economic policies.

USFREEDOM911
12-26-2009, 11:59 AM
I neither support nor am against the Senators joining the plan. Was that the question?

So you don't care that the elected officials have a insurance program, that no regular voter will ever be able to have??

But since the Insurnace Reform Bill is so great; why wouldn't you want the elected officials to support it, by using it themselves??

Damocles
12-26-2009, 02:24 PM
Zoinks...it's no wonder you can lecture me on posting, seeing as how you provide litterally SCADS on information to back up your putdowns.

I am humbled...
Why would you think that was a put down?

As for the information "lack"... It's probably because we have written reams worth of information on this subject on this very board, as you actually were sometimes a participant in. It seems you seek out chances to promptly "forget" any conversation you participated in, in order to try to "protect" others from perceived "putdowns". We'll pretend your post doesn't exist so we don't have to look embarrassed for your apparent lack of memory.

Damocles
12-26-2009, 02:38 PM
Why would I either support it or be against it? It's up to the Senators.
Yeah! We should just ignore everything they do and say, "Well... They're the Senator."

Minister of Truth
12-26-2009, 04:59 PM
You do realize that all compromises in any endevor involve negociation right?

They never involve negociation, only negotiation.

apple0154
12-26-2009, 05:33 PM
Are you making the claim that universal plans cover anything and everything? Are you suggesting that there are no limits on what types of treatments are paid for under which circumstances? Because if you truly believe such is true, then you are deluded beyond belief what exactly is entailed in a universal care system.

ANY system whose purpose it is to allocate limited resources among a population does so by determining who gets what under what circumstances. The recent fiasco dealing with H1N1 is a prime example. Limited resources and sudden high demand resulted in GOVERNMENT policies that stated, quite unequivocally, who was to receive the vaccine and who would have to wait for supply to catch up with demand. That is the REALITY of health care that liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge. Health care is a LIMITED resource. There are only so many doctors, medicines, hospital beds, xray machines, etc. etc. etc. As such, reality dictates there must be a method of distribution which includes rationing when demand outstrips supply. And following this reality to the only available conclusion, SOMEONE, somewhere, will be making the decisions guiding distribution, allocation, and rationing.

There are limits what is paid for under universal care, and therefore there is a system in place for all universal care system in which decisions are made to determine those limits. To deny this only indicates either and extreme ignorance of reality, or one willing to lie in order to support their position on the topic.

First, the shortage of the vaccine was not due to government incompetence. The shortage was due to the manufacturing of it by private companies.

Second, of course the government decided who would receive the vaccine. Pregnant women, children, etc.

I'm not sure what you're implying but if you feel some dude with a fat wallet should be able to buy medication that is in short supply while a pregnant woman or a child goes without we're definitely on a different page.

As for limited resources we come back to the same nonsense that was and is spouted about a lack of housing for the homeless. Did you notice how many houses and condos and apartments were built in recent years?

In the last five to seven years in my neighborhood literally blocks of treed land were cleared and homes and apartment buildings were built. Where did all that material come from? How could they get so many cement trucks to pour foundations? Where did all the roofing material come from? The doors and windows? How did we go from "there just isn't enough homes available" to "buy an extra one as an investment"?

If health care is a limited resource it can be corrected just as easily as limited housing was corrected. Medicines, hospital beds and xray machines can be built. Yes, even additional doctors can be added if the government decides to subsidize the outrageous educational costs and have the graduating doctors work under a government plan for a period of time after graduation. Intelligent, financially strapped young people would jump at the chance to train as a doctor even if they would have to work at a limited salary for a period of time after graduation because they wouldn't have a mountain of debt to pay off.

Finally, universal plans do not cover everything and anything. Of course, neither do the most comprehensive insurance policies but you can bet universal plans cover more than any private plan regarding actual medical procedures.

No, universal plans do not cover private rooms and private nurses and someone to tell you a story before bed. They cover medical procedures and if a broken arm is covered it's covered for babies as well as old men and it's covered regardless of how it was broken.

When it comes to limited resources who should do without remembering the "limited" was due to private companies, not the government? The private companies miscalculated/had problems with the incubation stage. Then, again, there's nothing like producing just a little too little to drive up the price of anything.

As I previously noted countries with universal plans spend approximately half of what the US spends. Consider all the rants about waiting and a lack of doctors and then consider what the plan would be like if the budgets were doubled.

The majority of the citizens in those countries balance waiting with costs. If the waiting was a bad as the RW propaganda espouses the people would vote for an increase in expenditure with a corresponding increase in tax.

There is no unmanageable shortage. There are no lies. There is no mystery. It couldn't be more straight forward. That is the reality.

NOVA
12-26-2009, 06:04 PM
It is wrong to take away one persons property and give it to another person...
Healthcare is a commodity...not a right.

You (the customer), barters with a professional (whoever) for his knowledge or talent, THAT is your right..........
as it is your right to barter your talents and knowledge with those that need what you have....

apple0154
12-26-2009, 06:25 PM
What "works" barely elsewhere can be improved upon by the US without centralizing the solution in government.

How did you come to that conclusion? Considering the history of negotiations and the length of time that has passed since the topic was brought up for discussion what leads you to believe it's possible? When/where did you see any sign of hope?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Yet they only spent weeks discussing, had to buy votes with direct violation of the equal taxation clause, and passed it by once again disallowing members to have meetings with constituency beforehand. Yeah, all signs that they are passing some real well-thought legislation that doesn't need to be passed in the early hours or dead of night in order to get the stink past the unwilling populace...

Again. What "works" barely elsewhere can be improved upon by the US without centralizing the solution in government. You have a right to bear arms, all without universal arms coverage forced upon you by the government. We do a good job at gaining full coverage of things like that....

Minister of Truth
12-26-2009, 08:12 PM
I want a $2 Million bribe to do absolutely nothing. Anyone?

Good Luck
12-26-2009, 11:13 PM
First, the shortage of the vaccine was not due to government incompetence. The shortage was due to the manufacturing of it by private companies.

Second, of course the government decided who would receive the vaccine. Pregnant women, children, etc.

I'm not sure what you're implying but if you feel some dude with a fat wallet should be able to buy medication that is in short supply while a pregnant woman or a child goes without we're definitely on a different page.

As for limited resources we come back to the same nonsense that was and is spouted about a lack of housing for the homeless. Did you notice how many houses and condos and apartments were built in recent years?

In the last five to seven years in my neighborhood literally blocks of treed land were cleared and homes and apartment buildings were built. Where did all that material come from? How could they get so many cement trucks to pour foundations? Where did all the roofing material come from? The doors and windows? How did we go from "there just isn't enough homes available" to "buy an extra one as an investment"?

If health care is a limited resource it can be corrected just as easily as limited housing was corrected. Medicines, hospital beds and xray machines can be built. Yes, even additional doctors can be added if the government decides to subsidize the outrageous educational costs and have the graduating doctors work under a government plan for a period of time after graduation. Intelligent, financially strapped young people would jump at the chance to train as a doctor even if they would have to work at a limited salary for a period of time after graduation because they wouldn't have a mountain of debt to pay off.

Finally, universal plans do not cover everything and anything. Of course, neither do the most comprehensive insurance policies but you can bet universal plans cover more than any private plan regarding actual medical procedures.

No, universal plans do not cover private rooms and private nurses and someone to tell you a story before bed. They cover medical procedures and if a broken arm is covered it's covered for babies as well as old men and it's covered regardless of how it was broken.

When it comes to limited resources who should do without remembering the "limited" was due to private companies, not the government? The private companies miscalculated/had problems with the incubation stage. Then, again, there's nothing like producing just a little too little to drive up the price of anything.

As I previously noted countries with universal plans spend approximately half of what the US spends. Consider all the rants about waiting and a lack of doctors and then consider what the plan would be like if the budgets were doubled.

The majority of the citizens in those countries balance waiting with costs. If the waiting was a bad as the RW propaganda espouses the people would vote for an increase in expenditure with a corresponding increase in tax.

There is no unmanageable shortage. There are no lies. There is no mystery. It couldn't be more straight forward. That is the reality.
You haven't a foggy clue what reality is. Reality is it does not matter who is in charge, health care is NOT an unlimited resource. Blaming companies for not providing enough is typical socialist crap.

And the point of it all flies right by you. You admit that universal care will not cover everything. But you do not acknowledge, refuse to even discuss, that in not covering everything, SOMEONE MAKES THOSE DECISIONS! That means that under your desired government plan those decisions will be made by government bureaucrats. There is a big section of the health care bill devoted to describing the who, what their powers will be, etc. And the FOCUS of these all-powerful decision makers who determine what will and will not be paid for, to include what coverage makes a private carrier acceptable to the insurance clearing house, will be keeping costs down. This overriding concern of cost control is by MANDATE contained in the very bill that creates the decision making body.

Now, tell me how that will be functionally different from an insurance company who also bases their decisions on keeping costs down? At least with insurance companies there is the added incentive of balancing cost cutting with offering types of coverage that make their policies desirable over a competitor's policies.

Damocles
12-27-2009, 12:54 AM
How did you come to that conclusion? Considering the history of negotiations and the length of time that has passed since the topic was brought up for discussion what leads you to believe it's possible? When/where did you see any sign of hope?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Where did I come to this conclusion? Seriously, this is weak.

First, there was clearly no rush as evinced by the five year wait for it to even begin. Since we had five years we had time to come up with something far better than a weak copy of mediocre European systems. Instead what we got was a desperate drive towards any destination because they believed they could later change it to what they "really wanted."

One line of hope still survives, this mess barely passed by one vote in the House, it may get ugly during reconciliation.

My hope is that wiping the board clean will get people to start actual compromise legislation that actually allows real ideas from all comers like Obama mentioned and actually can be done openly (again promised, CSPAN was constantly mentioned by the Great One) because the legislation is good enough for constituents to understand the benefit and it won't begin from "Government Central" as the starting and ending point.

apple0154
12-27-2009, 06:37 AM
You haven't a foggy clue what reality is. Reality is it does not matter who is in charge, health care is NOT an unlimited resource. Blaming companies for not providing enough is typical socialist crap.

It was a problem with private companies that delayed the vaccine. Check it out. They miscalculated the incubation stage so it has nothing to do with government incompetence.

As for health care being an unlimited resource there are enough resources to adequately look after the ill. To imply dozens of countries can do it and their citizens are happy but, somehow, the US couldn't manage it is just silliness.


And the point of it all flies right by you. You admit that universal care will not cover everything. But you do not acknowledge, refuse to even discuss, that in not covering everything, SOMEONE MAKES THOSE DECISIONS! That means that under your desired government plan those decisions will be made by government bureaucrats. There is a big section of the health care bill devoted to describing the who, what their powers will be, etc. And the FOCUS of these all-powerful decision makers who determine what will and will not be paid for, to include what coverage makes a private carrier acceptable to the insurance clearing house, will be keeping costs down. This overriding concern of cost control is by MANDATE contained in the very bill that creates the decision making body.

I explained some of the things the "everything" may include. Private rooms. Private nurses. The non-essentials.

Here's an example to do with car insurance. I was watching an AD and the policy includes a provision that should one be involved in an accident and are injured to the point where they can not walk their dog, should they have a dog, the insurance will cover the cost of a dog-walker. I kid you not.

Are you able to vote out the CEO of an insurance company if you don't like the policy? You can with the government. Also, government insurance has to offer broad coverage because it includes so many different people in different circumstances.

Take cancer, for example. Because it is so prevalent the people will insist on adequate coverage. Put another way there is a large cancer voting block. Either one has cancer or knows someone who has. A universal plan has to cover the various cancers and treatment.

The same applies to other illnesses. Universal plans have to, by their universal nature, cover more treatments than the majority of private plans. It is not just cheaper coverage. It is more coverage.


Now, tell me how that will be functionally different from an insurance company who also bases their decisions on keeping costs down? At least with insurance companies there is the added incentive of balancing cost cutting with offering types of coverage that make their policies desirable over a competitor's policies.

Types of coverage. How does one determine the medical coverage they'll need let alone the treatments for diseases and injuries they may encounter? The reality is the majority of people take whatever they can afford and hope if something does happen that they're covered.

The larger the group, the lower the rares. It works that way with everything so why wouldn't it work that way with government medical? The answer is it does work that way. Just the combining of everyone in one pool significantly lowers cost and because there is such a diverse group of people more illnesses and injuries are included/covered.

Damocles
12-27-2009, 09:21 AM
I want a $2 Million bribe to do absolutely nothing. Anyone?
Sure, write me a check.

NOVA
12-27-2009, 10:11 AM
You haven't a foggy clue what reality is. Reality is it does not matter who is in charge, health care is NOT an unlimited resource. Blaming companies for not providing enough is typical socialist crap.

And the point of it all flies right by you. You admit that universal care will not cover everything. But you do not acknowledge, refuse to even discuss, that in not covering everything, SOMEONE MAKES THOSE DECISIONS! That means that under your desired government plan those decisions will be made by government bureaucrats. There is a big section of the health care bill devoted to describing the who, what their powers will be, etc. And the FOCUS of these all-powerful decision makers who determine what will and will not be paid for, to include what coverage makes a private carrier acceptable to the insurance clearing house, will be keeping costs down. This overriding concern of cost control is by MANDATE contained in the very bill that creates the decision making body.

Now, tell me how that will be functionally different from an insurance company who also bases their decisions on keeping costs down? At least with insurance companies there is the added incentive of balancing cost cutting with offering types of coverage that make their policies desirable over a competitor's policies.

Couldn't rep you for this excellent post, clearly stated and to the point...the only conclusion you can make is, hes a partisan hack, a socialist, that just refuses to get it....
The K.Marx Democrats convinced him he is entitled to a 'new' taxpayer funded right, healthcare, and he swallows it hook, line, and sinker....

Good Luck
12-27-2009, 10:52 AM
It was a problem with private companies that delayed the vaccine. Check it out. They miscalculated the incubation stage so it has nothing to do with government incompetence.
And once again the point flies right by your unwilling head. Not ONCE did I say or imply that the lack of vacccine was due to government incompetence. What I DID say was that DUE to the shortage, the government stepped in and made decisions as to who got the vaccines. Can you not see the point here? You claim that it will be different, but the reality is there will always be more demand for medical facilities than there are available, this is true in a free market system (which is not really free market), it is true in a single payer system, and it is true in those beloved European systems you laud so much.

The shortage is not as bad as many opposed to universal care would like to have people believe, but it is there, and it is very real. There are delays in certain types of procedures based on a government determined triage protocol. Anyone who says there are not those types of things going on at all are every bit the liars as those who claim two-month terminal cancer patients wait 4 months.


As for health care being an unlimited resource there are enough resources to adequately look after the ill. To imply dozens of countries can do it and their citizens are happy but, somehow, the US couldn't manage it is just silliness.
Again, not, there is not. Health care, just as every other concrete resource in existence, is limited. Dozens of other countries "do it" by managing the resources and making DECISIONS who is covered under what circumstances. You can deny that reality all you want. But if you continue to try to claim that the European systems do not distribute their health care resources by limiting access according to a protocol of triage hierarchy, then I can only conclude you are either ignorant beyond help, or an outright head-up-the-donkey's-ass liar.




I explained some of the things the "everything" may include. Private rooms. Private nurses. The non-essentials.
Yes, and you completely and deliberately ignored others, such as annual mammograms starting at age 40.


Here's an example to do with car insurance. I was watching an AD and the policy includes a provision that should one be involved in an accident and are injured to the point where they can not walk their dog, should they have a dog, the insurance will cover the cost of a dog-walker. I kid you not.
So? Is this a government mandated policy? Or is it a free choice policy for people willing to pay extra for dog walking coverage?


Are you able to vote out the CEO of an insurance company if you don't like the policy? You can with the government. Also, government insurance has to offer broad coverage because it includes so many different people in different circumstances.
And if the government makes a bad law which cannot be repealed? What good does it do to change then?


Take cancer, for example. Because it is so prevalent the people will insist on adequate coverage. Put another way there is a large cancer voting block. Either one has cancer or knows someone who has. A universal plan has to cover the various cancers and treatment.
Yes, and the vast majority of private policies also cover cancer. A person can buy a basic policy that has a maximum lifetime limit, and for not much more add a catastrophic policy that only kicks in if that ceiling is breached. Much cheaper than buying a no-ceiling policy right off the rack, which is what the government plan is insisting all policies become.


The same applies to other illnesses. Universal plans have to, by their universal nature, cover more treatments than the majority of private plans. It is not just cheaper coverage. It is more coverage.
Sorry, but that is an outright lie. Universal refers to who is covered, not what is covered. Your rhetoric shows that you have zero actual knowledge of what universal plans do and do not cover compared to private plans. Ever wonder why emergency facilities are used even more than ours are in areas using universal coverage? Because emergency visits are automatically covered, whereas non-emergency visits for the same condition may not be covered. About the only place universal plans consistently exceed most private plans is in the area of preventative treatments. And we already see how our government is going to approach that particular area: by completely ignoring decades of medical history and cutting mammograms by over 60%. With that kind of blatant maneuvering, I seriously doubt other types of preventative treatments will fair any better.



Types of coverage. How does one determine the medical coverage they'll need let alone the treatments for diseases and injuries they may encounter? The reality is the majority of people take whatever they can afford and hope if something does happen that they're covered.
In too many cases that is true, and it is a factor which should be addressed. However, if we were to take the smart road, find out why health care costs have risen at three+ times the inflation rate, and control those factors driving costs out of control, the affordability of coverage, therefore the freedom to choose better policies, would become automatically more manageable. There's more than one way to skin a cat. But there is only one smart way. The ways being discussed by government and supported by their dronebots are NOT the smart ways.


The larger the group, the lower the rares. It works that way with everything so why wouldn't it work that way with government medical? The answer is it does work that way. Just the combining of everyone in one pool significantly lowers cost and because there is such a diverse group of people more illnesses and injuries are included/covered.
Yes, which is why the bill includes forcing young, healthy people to buy unwanted coverage under threat of fines and or actual jail time. (which no one yet has explained how that requirement is any different from simply taxing those people for the same purpose.)

The problem is, and every population statistic that includes heath factors in existence bears this out, that little aspect of the plan will not work. Those who are voluntarily without insurance, or only carry accident or major medical because they are healthy cannot hope to make up for those who are involuntarily without coverage who need treatment. (And the more things that are covered, the wider the disparity will be) Add to that the various requirements placed on carriers to cover things they do not cover under lower priced policies,** and the end result is coverage costs will go up, not down. The "larger the group, the lower the rates" has a limit before the law of diminishing returns kicks in.


** And here is another source of deliberate misinformation from the government plan proponents. When complaining about lack in adequate coverage, ceilings on annual and lifetime benefits, etc, they always look to the cheapest policies available. When they compare the price of coverage under their proposed plan to current prices, they invariably use the higher priced policies. The end result is the implication their plan will provide better coverage (by comparing it to the cheap policies) for less cost than the private policies (by comparing to the higher priced policies).

apple0154
12-27-2009, 12:20 PM
Where did I come to this conclusion? Seriously, this is weak.

In msg 101. You wrote, "What "works" barely elsewhere can be improved upon by the US without centralizing the solution in government."

You can't be serious. If it could have been improved it would have been improved over the multi-generations who have discussed it.


First, there was clearly no rush as evinced by the five year wait for it to even begin. Since we had five years we had time to come up with something far better than a weak copy of mediocre European systems. Instead what we got was a desperate drive towards any destination because they believed they could later change it to what they "really wanted."

The five year wait is precisely because of the opposition to any plan. What is decided today doesn't take effect for five years. A lot can happen to postpone or outright cancel implementation of the plan and you believe the private citizen could have found a solution? (I hope you're sharing the egg-nog.)

If the Republicans win in '12 I doubt that plan will see the light of day.


My hope is that wiping the board clean will get people to start actual compromise legislation that actually allows real ideas from all comers like Obama mentioned and actually can be done openly (again promised, CSPAN was constantly mentioned by the Great One) because the legislation is good enough for constituents to understand the benefit and it won't begin from "Government Central" as the starting and ending point.

Social programs remind me of that famous poem "First they Came..."

First they wanted unemployment insurance but I opposed it because I wasn't unemployed.
Then they wanted a retirement plan but I opposed it because I wasn't anywhere near retirement.
Then they wanted welfare but I opposed it because I could always get a job.
Then they wanted a medical plan but I opposed it because I wasn't sick.
Then misfortune struck and there were no services available to help me.

Hermes Thoth
12-27-2009, 05:03 PM
You can't be serious. If it could have been improved it would have been improved over the multi-generations who have discussed it.

Are you serious?

What kind of logic is that?

If it can be it WOULD have been done? That's horrible thinking. Your reasoning abilities are quite limited.

apple0154
12-27-2009, 08:04 PM
Are you serious?

What kind of logic is that?

If it can be it WOULD have been done? That's horrible thinking. Your reasoning abilities are quite limited.

Actually, it's your reasoning abilities that are limited. It could have been done. It's not rocket science. Dozens of other countries have done it.

The difference here is some people don't want it done.

NOVA
12-27-2009, 08:36 PM
In msg 101. You wrote, "What "works" barely elsewhere can be improved upon by the US without centralizing the solution in government."

You can't be serious. If it could have been improved it would have been improved over the multi-generations who have discussed it.



The five year wait is precisely because of the opposition to any plan. What is decided today doesn't take effect for five years. A lot can happen to postpone or outright cancel implementation of the plan and you believe the private citizen could have found a solution? (I hope you're sharing the egg-nog.)

If the Republicans win in '12 I doubt that plan will see the light of day.



Social programs remind me of that famous poem "First they Came..."

First they wanted unemployment insurance but I opposed it because I wasn't unemployed.
Then they wanted a retirement plan but I opposed it because I wasn't anywhere near retirement.
Then they wanted welfare but I opposed it because I could always get a job.
Then they wanted a medical plan but I opposed it because I wasn't sick.
Then misfortune struck and there were no services available to help me.

First they wanted to take our gun rights away, I didn't care, I had no guns...
Then they wanted to close the Churchs, I didn't care, I wasn't religious...
Then they wanted to to shut down conservative talk radio, I didn't care, i never listen to the radio...
Then they wanted to tax only the "rich", I didn't care, I wasn't "rich"....
Then they forced everyone to buy health insurance....next it'll probably be a GM auto....
Then they forced me to help people pay for their home loans....
and taught my children in their schools my morals were neanderthal...
etc, etc, etc....

apple0154
12-27-2009, 08:50 PM
First they wanted to take our gun rights away, I didn't care, I had no guns...
Then they wanted to close the Churchs, I didn't care, I wasn't religious...
Then they wanted to to shut down conservative talk radio, I didn't care, i never listen to the radio...
Then they wanted to tax only the "rich", I didn't care, I wasn't "rich"....
Then they forced everyone to buy health insurance....next it'll probably be a GM auto....
Then they forced me to help people pay for their home loans....
and taught my children in their schools my morals were neanderthal...
etc, etc, etc....


Touché

tinfoil
12-27-2009, 09:15 PM
Are you serious?

What kind of logic is that?

If it can be it WOULD have been done? That's horrible thinking. Your reasoning abilities are quite limited.

THIS!
No kidding. How can you deal with minds like this? It's not worth the effort.

Good Luck
12-27-2009, 09:17 PM
Actually, it's your reasoning abilities that are limited. It could have been done. It's not rocket science. Dozens of other countries have done it.

The difference here is some people don't want it done.
And dozens of countries have their problems with it. You act as if every country with a universal plan has zero problems with their health care systems. Do you honestly believe that? Rocket science is easy compared to this kind of problem, because the laws of physics do not have to account for the vagaries of human behavior.


You can't be serious. If it could have been improved it would have been improved over the multi-generations who have discussed it.
WHOSE reasoning abilities are limited? "If it could be improved, it would have been?" Are you SERIOUSLY implying all universal plans are perfect, without any types of problems?

Seriously, dude, what the HELL are you smoking?

apple0154
12-27-2009, 10:04 PM
And dozens of countries have their problems with it. You act as if every country with a universal plan has zero problems with their health care systems. Do you honestly believe that? Rocket science is easy compared to this kind of problem, because the laws of physics do not have to account for the vagaries of human behavior.

Yes, other countries have problems. I have always maintained a universal health plan needs to be fine-tuned to individual countries, however, we can get the people covered while we fine tune.

Most countries with universal plans make adjustments. It's necessary as new procedures come on line and the population ages and changes.


WHOSE reasoning abilities are limited? "If it could be improved, it would have been?" Are you SERIOUSLY implying all universal plans are perfect, without any types of problems?

Again, no. What I was referring to is one has to have a basic plan to start with, otherwise, there is no incentive to work on anything. People who do not want a universal plan are not going to come up with ideas to implement one, let alone a good one. We've witnessed that for generations.

As Obama stated the time for talk is over. Can anyone keep a straight face and say the people were not patient? Every industrialized country has implemented a universal plan. Even countries not so industrialized.


Seriously, dude, what the HELL are you smoking?

Talking about smoking it appears that's been the problem. :) Just vege out and worry about medical another day or another year or another decade.

Anyone interested in a universal plan knows the wait has been outrageously long. Of course, those opposed to any universal plan want more talks, more committees, more investigations, more proof, more delay.

Damocles
12-28-2009, 01:07 AM
In msg 101. You wrote, "What "works" barely elsewhere can be improved upon by the US without centralizing the solution in government."

You can't be serious. If it could have been improved it would have been improved over the multi-generations who have discussed it.



The five year wait is precisely because of the opposition to any plan. What is decided today doesn't take effect for five years. A lot can happen to postpone or outright cancel implementation of the plan and you believe the private citizen could have found a solution? (I hope you're sharing the egg-nog.)

If the Republicans win in '12 I doubt that plan will see the light of day.



Social programs remind me of that famous poem "First they Came..."

First they wanted unemployment insurance but I opposed it because I wasn't unemployed.
Then they wanted a retirement plan but I opposed it because I wasn't anywhere near retirement.
Then they wanted welfare but I opposed it because I could always get a job.
Then they wanted a medical plan but I opposed it because I wasn't sick.
Then misfortune struck and there were no services available to help me.
Absolutely insane, you cripple your own thought by never taking anything except what is given by your own party, who "negotiated" away everything you thought was good about the bill. Many options were offered, none were even considered if it didn't first give more centralization to the Federal government. Zero.

We (the US) cripple ourselves by simply not looking in any other direction than the one that we've chosen before the negotiations ever started. This isn't a party thing, it happens all the time regardless of party. However, we have a chance to make something unique and far better than what has come before.

Instead we have something that is worse than what is currently in place.

The Senate bill allows the insurance companies to cap payment for large diseases like cancer. Health bankruptcies can and will continue, the only difference... the government will force them into inadequate coverage. The extremely high deductible in the House's bill will continue the pattern of those who cannot afford coverage, they still won't be able to afford it. Again, the choice will be to bankrupt the family, or to go without treatment.

Nothing is good about either of these bills, it pretty much gives me pause as to the actual motive for passing this rubbish. It becomes clear that they wanted anything, literally anything because they think they can "fix" it with predetermined "solutions" that are simply more mediocre copies of the European systems that we can improve rather than settle for.

That you give up so easily doesn't mean that the constituency who say, "Don't pass this we can improve upon it by a long shot!" have. Thank the little gods that the nation doesn't have the same victimization syndrome you expect them to and they also have a far larger expectation of their representatives. I'd hate it if most of the nation had the same weak ho-hum attitude that had you writing, "They're the Senators, we shouldn't question them"... That is just beyond gross. They are the people we hired to do a job, if they don't pay attention we will remove them and the "fix" isn't going to look anything at all like what you wanted.

The total surrender you display to the "leadership" actually creates a bit of bile in my throat. I expect better of the people I vote for, not stupid legislation that makes matters worse that they expect to be able to "fix" later. The majority of people aren't on your side, thank the little gods again for that, it shows again that the constituencies aren't as willing to surrender as you are.

Whether it is because some don't think it goes far enough, or they don't want this to be another entitlement program, or they believe it is unconstitutional, all of the constituencies say that we CAN and SHOULD do better than THIS.

One thing I know, attempting to force this down the throat of an unwilling constituency will only insure that the people who get to "fix" this inadequate rubbish will start more from my side of the argument. For that I am thankful, I think it is a shame that even 43% of the nation are so willing to surrender to inadequate mediocrity rather than expect something worthy of the ingenuity we can display when we are driven. And when the other party is applying those "fixes" you thought your party would apply... I sure hope you have that same insane attitude that they are the Senators, so they must know better than you....

Good Luck
12-28-2009, 01:48 AM
Maybe when a workable plan comes along, instead of something copied from a problem laden plan for a much smaller country, or a plan designed to increase the size, economic power and political power of the major insurance carriers, then more people would be onb board. "Time for action" does not mean anything is better than nothing. The proponents, for all their spouting of negative statistics, fail to recognize one stat that harms their seat right out of the chute. Despite how "broken" the U.S. health care system is, it somehow manages to keep 85% of the people covered, and 80% of those satisfied with their coverage. That puts 68% of the people personally neutral to the issue and if it looks like your plan threatens what they are satisfied with, they come out against it.

That is why previous attempts have failed, too. Because the people recognize when a plan is not going to work better than the system - faulty as it is - that is already in place. Find a REAL fix, and you'll have the people behind you. Keep with the usual big government knows best bullshit, and you'll continue to face an hard uphill, shove-it-down-the-people's-throats battle.

If you want to actually fix what is broken, then better answer is two fold. First, focus on the broken part rather than the whole. You don't rebuild a car's engine just because the tranny went out. You fix the tranny.

And second, go after WHY it is broken. And the reason for the entire problem from those not covered on the low end to higher premiums and compromised coverage in the middle part is rising health care costs at an unexplained rate. Use of higher technologies in diagnosis and treatment is often referred to as an excuse, but it does not hold water. Every other industry in the world uses higher technologies, and it results in diminished costs, not higher ones.

Find why health care costs have gone through the roof, find a way to control those factors, and then the problem is actually fixed instead of placing the usual government fix band aid over it.

Such an approach will also help other countries whose "1/2 the U.S." budgets aren't quite enough to do what is claimed they are doing.

PostmodernProphet
12-28-2009, 06:01 AM
Sure, write me a check.

first, you pay me taxes then I will write you a check......

Hermes Thoth
12-28-2009, 07:10 AM
THIS!
No kidding. How can you deal with minds like this? It's not worth the effort.

It's often the case that turbo libs of apple's density have their intelligence inversely proportional to their haughtiness.

Damocles
12-28-2009, 11:11 AM
first, you pay me taxes then I will write you a check......
Why would you need that? Since you are the government you take in far less than you spend. Just write the check, nobody would notice.

apple0154
12-28-2009, 01:50 PM
Absolutely insane, you cripple your own thought by never taking anything except what is given by your own party, who "negotiated" away everything you thought was good about the bill. Many options were offered, none were even considered if it didn't first give more centralization to the Federal government. Zero.

That's because the insurance guy and hospital gal and all the other independent, non-government people either don't give a damn or are unaware of how to solve the problem. That is the reason. Do you know anyone who would pay for your hospitalization if you were unable to afford it? The insurance guy and the hospital gal and your neighbor will all go on about how the system needs fixing and then return to their own lives and that's it. That's been going on for generations. Talk. Talk. Talk.


We (the US) cripple ourselves by simply not looking in any other direction than the one that we've chosen before the negotiations ever started. This isn't a party thing, it happens all the time regardless of party. However, we have a chance to make something unique and far better than what has come before.

The government has a chance to make it better. Not the private citizen.

Does anyone read history? After the old people were dying from starvation or homelessness the government implemented SS. No, it's not nirvana. Not many steaks for dinner and less tempur-pedic beds (yes, they are comfortable) but it was better than before. I'm sure there were well-meaning folks around then who had all sorts of ideas but the elderly just kept dying until the government did something.


Nothing is good about either of these bills, it pretty much gives me pause as to the actual motive for passing this rubbish. It becomes clear that they wanted anything, literally anything because they think they can "fix" it with predetermined "solutions" that are simply more mediocre copies of the European systems that we can improve rather than settle for.

The so-called mediocre European systems are cherished by the citizens.

It's get really old when people bad-mouth things they know little about.


Whether it is because some don't think it goes far enough, or they don't want this to be another entitlement program, or they believe it is unconstitutional, all of the constituencies say that we CAN and SHOULD do better than THIS.

Of course they do. They have been saying how things should be better for the last fifty years! Nothing has changed, yet.

When the plan takes effect and adjustments are made it will be a completely different story just like it is in the dozens of countries that have universal plans.

We know, the proof is apparent, that countries which have universal plans fight to keep them. Not one politician in any country is campaigning on dismantling their universal plan.

But you know differently. They're all wrong. Politicians who have visited other countries or studied universal plans in effect have no idea what they're talking about. The citizens are brainwashed and the fact their longevity is equal to or greater than the average US citizen is probably due to their "Who me? Worry?" attitude.

To paraphrase Obama it's time for change. No more worn out ideas. We can't wait any longer. The time is now.

Did you have a good Christmas? Global warming has been kind to us. The third consecutive day above freezing. Love it! May I live long enough to see a palm tree in my yard. :)

apple0154
12-28-2009, 01:57 PM
It's often the case that turbo libs of apple's density have their intelligence inversely proportional to their haughtiness.

Don't take my haughtiness personally, my comically looking friend. :)

I suppose I do lose patience with those who refuse to learn or research. I will attempt an adjustment of attitude.

PostmodernProphet
12-28-2009, 01:59 PM
Why would you need that? Since you are the government you take in far less than you spend. Just write the check, nobody would notice.

they haven't given me the keys to the Treasury yet....

Damocles
12-28-2009, 02:11 PM
That's because the insurance guy and hospital gal and all the other independent, non-government people either don't give a damn or are unaware of how to solve the problem. That is the reason. Do you know anyone who would pay for your hospitalization if you were unable to afford it? The insurance guy and the hospital gal and your neighbor will all go on about how the system needs fixing and then return to their own lives and that's it. That's been going on for generations. Talk. Talk. Talk.


Total rubbish. They don't become something other than human because they work someplace. That's just your own imaginary bogeyman.




The government has a chance to make it better. Not the private citizen.


The government has the ability to promote the solution through the means of the private citizen, it is necessary to think a little outside your box if you want to create something that will lead the rest of the world, thankfully our forefathers did and up until now we have been able to maintain that capacity as a society. Society must not follow if they plan on leading, they must not copy if they are to create.

The government is rarely the source for anything good, it is why we chose to limit its power in the US specifically outlining places where it shall not go.



Does anyone read history? After the old people were dying from starvation or homelessness the government implemented SS. No, it's not nirvana. Not many steaks for dinner and less tempur-pedic beds (yes, they are comfortable) but it was better than before. I'm sure there were well-meaning folks around then who had all sorts of ideas but the elderly just kept dying until the government did something.

We fully comprehend this, however there are other consequences of the action of the government at that time. Nobody here has argued that we take old people off of SS except that same imaginary bogeyman you continue to argue.



The so-called mediocre European systems are cherished by the citizens.

Rubbish, they are being altered to systems more like the US system not because they are "cherished" but because they are often failing and are mediocre.



It's get really old when people bad-mouth things they know little about.


Like you and what anybody writes here? You simply ignore it and go on arguing with the bogeyman in your brain rather than what people say.




Of course they do. They have been saying how things should be better for the last fifty years! Nothing has changed, yet.

When the plan takes effect and adjustments are made it will be a completely different story just like it is in the dozens of countries that have universal plans.


LOL. First it must take effect, then people must realize how crappy it is (it is spectacularly crappy, specifically designed to fail in an attempt to blame "free markets") before it will ever be changed by those that "created" it. Thankfully the fact that people will be paying into a system that hasn't even taken effect yet will cause a bit of a "stir" and the other party will very likely be the party that will "fix" the mess your party created.



We know, the proof is apparent, that countries which have universal plans fight to keep them. Not one politician in any country is campaigning on dismantling their universal plan.


Nobody is "fighting to keep them" that is imagination again. Where are the people taking to the streets to "keep" their mediocre system? The reality is as they become more like the US system people are relieved that their system will be able to continue a few more years. The only place we see and hear people taking to the streets to keep their current system is here.



But you know differently. They're all wrong. Politicians who have visited other countries or studied universal plans in effect have no idea what they're talking about. The citizens are brainwashed and the fact their longevity is equal to or greater than the average US citizen is probably due to their "Who me? Worry?" attitude.


No politician traveled and "studied" these plans,. Which one of them has taken a trip to Europe and spent years studying the impact of the health care programs? Zero. Not even one. In the Senate there may be one or two that have spent even as much time as I have in Europe let alone studied these things. They are simply citizens like you and I who are elected to represent us, they do not become more knowledgeable than any other person who pays attention simply by getting elected, and many remain in total ignorance as they promote an agenda based in that same ignorance.



To paraphrase Obama it's time for change. No more worn out ideas. We can't wait any longer. The time is now.


To paraphrase Obama, "These meetings will be held on CSPAN so that the citizen can see what deals are made".

The time is now to demand that the elected actually do what they say they would. That is the change that we need right now.



Did you have a good Christmas? Global warming has been kind to us. The third consecutive day above freezing. Love it! May I live long enough to see a palm tree in my yard. :)
:rolleyes:

Hermes Thoth
12-28-2009, 03:16 PM
Don't take my haughtiness personally, my comically looking friend. :)

I suppose I do lose patience with those who refuse to learn or research. I will attempt an adjustment of attitude.

I would imagine you tire of your own stupidity.

apple0154
12-28-2009, 07:11 PM
I would imagine you tire of your own stupidity.

Only of yours, I'm sorry to say.

Good Luck
12-28-2009, 07:34 PM
I suppose I do lose patience with those who refuse to learn or research. I will attempt an adjustment of attitude.
You are a great one for talking about people refusing to learn. Do you have a single idea that doesn't come straight from the DNC?

And while we're speaking of refusing to do any research, have you looked up the health care situation abroad and in the U.S. prior to most of Europe going to universal plans? If so, how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans? We spent twice as much before universal plans became common, we spend twice as much now. So much for the conclusion that the reason they spend half as much is that universal plans are less expensive.

But, of course, you did not look at the data available, did you? It hasn't been stamped for approval by your political masters.

apple0154
12-28-2009, 08:09 PM
Total rubbish. They don't become something other than human because they work someplace. That's just your own imaginary bogeyman.

That's the point. Those folks aren't anything other than individual folks who can't or don't know how to fix the system on their own. That's why government is needed.


The government has the ability to promote the solution through the means of the private citizen, it is necessary to think a little outside your box if you want to create something that will lead the rest of the world, thankfully our forefathers did and up until now we have been able to maintain that capacity as a society. Society must not follow if they plan on leading, they must not copy if they are to create.

Create away but let's cover the people until we see the creation. What can possibly be wrong with that approach?


We fully comprehend this, however there are other consequences of the action of the government at that time. Nobody here has argued that we take old people off of SS except that same imaginary bogeyman you continue to argue.

Let's not twist things now. I never said or implied anyone was talking about taking people off SS. I said that at the time SS was being discussed I'm sure there were people, just like there are today, who believed government shouldn't get involved. I'm sure there were well-meaning folks who didn't want to see the elderly dying from starvation and homelessness but it was the government which finally addressed the problem.

Nobody wants to see people without proper medical care, however, generations have been talking about it and nothing was done. It was left up to the individual to create something special, to think outside the box. Unfortunately, all we're left with is an empty box.


Rubbish, they are being altered to systems more like the US system not because they are "cherished" but because they are often failing and are mediocre.

Rubbish. It is certain people who feel they're entitled to special services and because they have a bit of money are demanding special services. I have no problem with that. If someone has 50 grand lying around and wants to spend it on medical services, be my guest as long as they don't start thinking they're too important to contribute to the universal plan.


Like you and what anybody writes here? You simply ignore it and go on arguing with the bogeyman in your brain rather than what people say.

Every country that has a universal plan started out with the same system as is in place in the US. They know the bogeyman quite well. That's why they now have a universal plan.


LOL. First it must take effect, then people must realize how crappy it is (it is spectacularly crappy, specifically designed to fail in an attempt to blame "free markets") before it will ever be changed by those that "created" it. Thankfully the fact that people will be paying into a system that hasn't even taken effect yet will cause a bit of a "stir" and the other party will very likely be the party that will "fix" the mess your party created.

And what fixing has that other party ever done? As I said before we're out of the gate. Now the issue has to be addressed regardless of which party is in power. The "we'll think about it" era has passed. Things will be happening and in order to change that concrete ideas will be required. At the very least the health bill will force the politicians/government to DO, not just talk.


Nobody is "fighting to keep them" that is imagination again. Where are the people taking to the streets to "keep" their mediocre system? The reality is as they become more like the US system people are relieved that their system will be able to continue a few more years. The only place we see and hear people taking to the streets to keep their current system is here.

(Shakes head.) Why do you think certain parties in Canada had to go to court to open paying clinics/practices? The majority of the population does not want the universal system eroded. They do not want doctors playing both sides of the field.

If you don't think Canadians value their system then you haven't done your homework. They've made it abundantly clear to all political parties not to mess with the current system. Fine tune, yes. Any attempt at major alterations and the party in power is history.

Again, show me one country with a universal plan that has a politician campaigning on dismantling or radically changing it. If universal plans were so bad there would be a rush of politicians jumping on the wagon. Alas, such is not the case.


No politician traveled and "studied" these plans,. Which one of them has taken a trip to Europe and spent years studying the impact of the health care programs? Zero. Not even one. In the Senate there may be one or two that have spent even as much time as I have in Europe let alone studied these things.

All they have to do is pick up a newspaper. Do they ever see a politician campaigning against a universal medical plan? Do they ever see people clamoring for a return to a "pay or suffer" system? If not, why not?

Again, this is not rocket science. While the people may not be celebrating they know damn well it's better than any other system.

apple0154
12-28-2009, 08:30 PM
You are a great one for talking about people refusing to learn. Do you have a single idea that doesn't come straight from the DNC?

And while we're speaking of refusing to do any research, have you looked up the health care situation abroad and in the U.S. prior to most of Europe going to universal plans? If so, how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans? We spent twice as much before universal plans became common, we spend twice as much now. So much for the conclusion that the reason they spend half as much is that universal plans are less expensive.

But, of course, you did not look at the data available, did you? It hasn't been stamped for approval by your political masters.

I requested a link before.

One more time, do you have a link to a graph or some other reference regarding medical expenses prior to universal plans?

Also, I think you've overlooked a point. You wrote, "...how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans?" which is another way of asking, "How do you explain the medical costs for the countries which did switch to universal plans did not change significantly?" even though they now cover everyone.

Taking your data at face value you've shown countries can implement a universal plan and maintain fiscal control over a long period of time.

Thank-you.

Good Luck
12-28-2009, 11:23 PM
I requested a link before.

One more time, do you have a link to a graph or some other reference regarding medical expenses prior to universal plans?

Also, I think you've overlooked a point. You wrote, "...how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans?" which is another way of asking, "How do you explain the medical costs for the countries which did switch to universal plans did not change significantly?" even though they now cover everyone.

Taking your data at face value you've shown countries can implement a universal plan and maintain fiscal control over a long period of time.

Thank-you.
Sorry, but I am kinda old fashioned - I read books for the most part.

But here is a good read: "The Economics of Public Spending" by Gareth D. Myles and Ian Preston

and another: "Economics of Health and Public Policy" by Rita Ricardo-Campbell


And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.

By 1960 France's health care expenditures had risen to almost 4% GDP while the U.S. barely topped 2%. At this time, again coincidentally at the same time France pushed through a significant expansion of their system, France's expenditures take another upward swing. And, lo, a few years later, at the same time the U.S. implemented Medicare/medicaid, U.S. expenditures also take a significant upward swing. By the year 1990, France's expenditures start to level off but continue to rise until they were spending approximately 6% of their GDP on healthcare in 2000. Likewise U.S. expenditures continue to rise, but were still below 5% GDP as of 2000, when the graph ends.

The figures for Germany are quite similar, except their upward swings occur at different dates coinciding with their implementation and modifications. Ditto Britain, ditto Japan.

So, according to this graphical comparison (with supporting data tables) it would seem to me that implementation of universal care and or public option care is a significant factor in rising health care expenditures.

Now, tell us, what do YOU get out of that kind of data? I would dearly love to hear how you spin it.

Good Luck
12-28-2009, 11:40 PM
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The topic of this thread is the corrupt manner in which the democrats pushed their piece of shit through the Senate using outright bribery. I wouldn't be surprised if there were not a few private communications adding a threat or two in the process either.

If this legislation is such a good thing, WHY can it not stand on its own merits? These are supposedly intelligent people elected to congress, so you cannot blame it on "conservative lies" like you have been doing. After all, you keep stating that because intelligent people in the private sector have not come up with a solution (that is acceptable to you) then government must step in - implying the men of government are somehow automatically wiser than all us non-government peons.

So why did it not pass easily? Why the skulduggery? Why the riders granting special treatment for states with recalcitrant democratic senators that violate the equality clause of the Constitution that states quite clearly "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"?

Damocles
12-29-2009, 12:01 AM
That's the point. Those folks aren't anything other than individual folks who can't or don't know how to fix the system on their own. That's why government is needed.


Total garbage. They are the people who actually work and understand the industry. The people with expertise rather than the Senators who often never even read what they vote for or against.



Create away but let's cover the people until we see the creation. What can possibly be wrong with that approach?


Again, cover only the small percentage without coverage that want it, rather than attempt to force all people into the same box. Nothing is wrong with that approach, everything is wrong with the goal of forcing people into government care because that is what you personally want. The Japanese only cover those without gainful employment with government care, yet they have universal coverage. This is something worth looking into.



Let's not twist things now. I never said or implied anyone was talking about taking people off SS. I said that at the time SS was being discussed I'm sure there were people, just like there are today, who believed government shouldn't get involved. I'm sure there were well-meaning folks who didn't want to see the elderly dying from starvation and homelessness but it was the government which finally addressed the problem.


And they created a program that even today people say isn't adequate and barely provides for subsistence. We could have done better, but created panic legislation. Amazingly that same fear seems to drive opponents of improvements to the current system.



Nobody wants to see people without proper medical care, however, generations have been talking about it and nothing was done. It was left up to the individual to create something special, to think outside the box. Unfortunately, all we're left with is an empty box.


This is total nonsense. CHIPS and other programs were created, more people are covered than ever before and it improves with each new generation, all without forcing everybody into a one size fits all mediocrity. We can and will improve the situation without government centralized care, if we allow ourselves to do it.

Your argument is based in your imaginary world where no improvement has ever come. It's just garbage based in straw men.



Rubbish. It is certain people who feel they're entitled to special services and because they have a bit of money are demanding special services. I have no problem with that. If someone has 50 grand lying around and wants to spend it on medical services, be my guest as long as they don't start thinking they're too important to contribute to the universal plan.

Every country that has a universal plan started out with the same system as is in place in the US. They know the bogeyman quite well. That's why they now have a universal plan.

This isn't true. Not every nation that has such a plan started out with the conglomeration of systems we have in the US, in fact none of them did. None of them had the unique circumstances of 50 states with differing solutions.



And what fixing has that other party ever done? As I said before we're out of the gate. Now the issue has to be addressed regardless of which party is in power. The "we'll think about it" era has passed. Things will be happening and in order to change that concrete ideas will be required. At the very least the health bill will force the politicians/government to DO, not just talk.


The "other party" has allowed choice into places where choices didn't exist, and created the means by which coverage today is far better and covers more people than ever before without attempting to take from everybody and force them into one size fits all mediocrity. I prefer any other choice to one that leads us into such an unsatisfactory system from the amazing system we have today.



(Shakes head.) Why do you think certain parties in Canada had to go to court to open paying clinics/practices? The majority of the population does not want the universal system eroded. They do not want doctors playing both sides of the field.


They went to court because their system wasn't working and they needed people to be able to get care in a timely fashion. The government made it illegal for them to open such clinics and hasn't changed that law. They work towards making their system more like ours because their system was unsatisfactory.



If you don't think Canadians value their system then you haven't done your homework. They've made it abundantly clear to all political parties not to mess with the current system. Fine tune, yes. Any attempt at major alterations and the party in power is history.

And yet every "tuning" leads them to a system more like ours. Slowly but surely we will find their system more like ours. Incrementalism works both ways.



Again, show me one country with a universal plan that has a politician campaigning on dismantling or radically changing it. If universal plans were so bad there would be a rush of politicians jumping on the wagon. Alas, such is not the case.


You already brought that one up. Opening paying clinics in Canada is something their politicians are arguing and it is a major change from the time they made them illegal. You even brought up the argument their fear monger opponents use against them, that it will be a system like "the US system"...



All they have to do is pick up a newspaper. Do they ever see a politician campaigning against a universal medical plan? Do they ever see people clamoring for a return to a "pay or suffer" system? If not, why not?


Answered previously.



Again, this is not rocket science. While the people may not be celebrating they know damn well it's better than any other system.
They know it isn't working, and the change they seek leads them inexorably towards a system more like ours. Both in the UK and Canada. France's is already much like ours with multi-tiers and even a class that can't afford the supplemental insurance or copays and are therefore uncared for...

One of the systems we should study would be the Japanese system. It isn't centralized in government, yet provides health care for everybody. Instead of Europe maybe we should look to Asia for inspiration.

Hermes Thoth
12-29-2009, 07:00 AM
Good job dealing with all that hoe's insanity, damo.

Damocles
12-29-2009, 12:29 PM
Good job dealing with all that hoe's insanity, damo.
Thanks.

:D

Canceled1
12-29-2009, 03:35 PM
Total rubbish. They don't become something other than human because they work someplace. That's just your own imaginary bogeyman.




The government has the ability to promote the solution through the means of the private citizen, it is necessary to think a little outside your box if you want to create something that will lead the rest of the world, thankfully our forefathers did and up until now we have been able to maintain that capacity as a society. Society must not follow if they plan on leading, they must not copy if they are to create.

The government is rarely the source for anything good, it is why we chose to limit its power in the US specifically outlining places where it shall not go.


We fully comprehend this, however there are other consequences of the action of the government at that time. Nobody here has argued that we take old people off of SS except that same imaginary bogeyman you continue to argue.


Rubbish, they are being altered to systems more like the US system not because they are "cherished" but because they are often failing and are mediocre.



Like you and what anybody writes here? You simply ignore it and go on arguing with the bogeyman in your brain rather than what people say.




LOL. First it must take effect, then people must realize how crappy it is (it is spectacularly crappy, specifically designed to fail in an attempt to blame "free markets") before it will ever be changed by those that "created" it. Thankfully the fact that people will be paying into a system that hasn't even taken effect yet will cause a bit of a "stir" and the other party will very likely be the party that will "fix" the mess your party created.



Nobody is "fighting to keep them" that is imagination again. Where are the people taking to the streets to "keep" their mediocre system? The reality is as they become more like the US system people are relieved that their system will be able to continue a few more years. The only place we see and hear people taking to the streets to keep their current system is here.



No politician traveled and "studied" these plans,. Which one of them has taken a trip to Europe and spent years studying the impact of the health care programs? Zero. Not even one. In the Senate there may be one or two that have spent even as much time as I have in Europe let alone studied these things. They are simply citizens like you and I who are elected to represent us, they do not become more knowledgeable than any other person who pays attention simply by getting elected, and many remain in total ignorance as they promote an agenda based in that same ignorance.



To paraphrase Obama, "These meetings will be held on CSPAN so that the citizen can see what deals are made".

The time is now to demand that the elected actually do what they say they would. That is the change that we need right now.


:rolleyes:


Nobody is "fighting to keep them" that is imagination again. Where are the people taking to the streets to "keep" their mediocre system? The reality is as they become more like the US system people are relieved that their system will be able to continue a few more years. The only place we see and hear people taking to the streets to keep their current system is here.


They're busy fighting "other battles".


YouTube- NRA: To See Where Gun Licensing Leads, Look To England

You can bet your boots we will be saying the same thing about many things once the Obamabots get done.

apple0154
12-30-2009, 01:46 PM
Sorry, but I am kinda old fashioned - I read books for the most part.

But here is a good read: "The Economics of Public Spending" by Gareth D. Myles and Ian Preston

and another: "Economics of Health and Public Policy" by Rita Ricardo-Campbell


And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.

By 1960 France's health care expenditures had risen to almost 4% GDP while the U.S. barely topped 2%. At this time, again coincidentally at the same time France pushed through a significant expansion of their system, France's expenditures take another upward swing. And, lo, a few years later, at the same time the U.S. implemented Medicare/medicaid, U.S. expenditures also take a significant upward swing. By the year 1990, France's expenditures start to level off but continue to rise until they were spending approximately 6% of their GDP on healthcare in 2000. Likewise U.S. expenditures continue to rise, but were still below 5% GDP as of 2000, when the graph ends.

The figures for Germany are quite similar, except their upward swings occur at different dates coinciding with their implementation and modifications. Ditto Britain, ditto Japan.

So, according to this graphical comparison (with supporting data tables) it would seem to me that implementation of universal care and or public option care is a significant factor in rising health care expenditures.

Now, tell us, what do YOU get out of that kind of data? I would dearly love to hear how you spin it.


You’d like my spin on it? Let me start off by saying I had a son and daughter go through the teenage years so I’m somewhat skilled at spotting the “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, try baffling them with bullshit” arguments.

Let’s go back to msg. 136 where you wrote, “And while we're speaking of refusing to do any research, have you looked up the health care situation abroad and in the U.S. prior to most of Europe going to universal plans? If so, how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans? We spent twice as much before universal plans became common, we spend twice as much now. So much for the conclusion that the reason they spend half as much is that universal plans are less expensive.”

I interpret that to be saying, generally speaking, universal plans make little difference in either savings or costs as the relationship between what the countries with universal plans spend/spent and what the US spends/spent has remained relatively constant.

Then comes the switch. You wrote in msg. 139, “And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

Let’s put that into perspective. A guy earning $100,000/yr pays $10,000 for health care. 10% of his income. He loses his job and finds another that pays $50,000/yr. Because he has some savings he opts to keep his health plan hoping he’ll find a better job. Now he is paying 20% of his income (his personal GDP, if you will) for health care. Has his health care risen 100% or has his income decreased by 50%?

What type of health care did European countries have under communist occupation? How could their GDP not drop considering countries were not only rebuilding after the war but were undergoing basic restructuring? Simply put their ability to generate funds (GDP) had been severely hampered. Factories, farms, etc were not producing anywhere near their prior levels.


So, according to this graphical comparison (with supporting data tables) it would seem to me that implementation of universal care and or public option care is a significant factor in rising health care expenditures.

Of course it is. It is going to cost more to treat 100 people than it would to treat 75 people assuming all other factors are equal and that’s the rub, as they say. All other factors are far from equal. What one spends on health care is not necessarily the same as what it costs to treat them.

Does one require a room with a view in a building with expensive furniture and wall hangings in the lobby situated on 10 acres of manicured lawns with ponds filled with fish and a gazebo for socializing? Does one require a private room? A private nurse?

If the argument against universal care is cost/taxes, which it seems to be, the best indicator is what it costs the average person and not a portion of the GDP. A quick survey of the countries with a universal plan show that life expectancy is on par with the US and the costs among the countries with universal plans are very similar. Stated another way it costs approximately $3000US to $3500US to keep the average human being alive and healthy. That takes into account just about any variable imaginable, from diet to profession to climate.

That’s the reality. No spin. Just facts and figures.

Good Luck
12-30-2009, 03:04 PM
You’d like my spin on it? Let me start off by saying I had a son and daughter go through the teenage years so I’m somewhat skilled at spotting the “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, try baffling them with bullshit” arguments.

Let’s go back to msg. 136 where you wrote, “And while we're speaking of refusing to do any research, have you looked up the health care situation abroad and in the U.S. prior to most of Europe going to universal plans? If so, how do you explain that the amounts the U.S. spends per capita in ratio with others did not change significantly when they went to their universal plans? We spent twice as much before universal plans became common, we spend twice as much now. So much for the conclusion that the reason they spend half as much is that universal plans are less expensive.”

I interpret that to be saying, generally speaking, universal plans make little difference in either savings or costs as the relationship between what the countries with universal plans spend/spent and what the US spends/spent has remained relatively constant.

Then comes the switch. You wrote in msg. 139, “And while I am at it, a nice little table in "The Economics of Public Spending" shows health care spending as a percentage of GDP, instead of gross dollars per capita. And guess what? When shown in terms of GDP, the health care costs of other countries started rising more sharply than the U.S. after they started implementing universal care. For instance, in 1910, both France and the U.S. were below 1% GDP in health care expenditures, with France having a slight edge. From 1910 to 1945 the graphs run almost exactly parallel with a slight rise to about 1.5% GDP. Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

Let’s put that into perspective. A guy earning $100,000/yr pays $10,000 for health care. 10% of his income. He loses his job and finds another that pays $50,000/yr. Because he has some savings he opts to keep his health plan hoping he’ll find a better job. Now he is paying 20% of his income (his personal GDP, if you will) for health care. Has his health care risen 100% or has his income decreased by 50%?

What type of health care did European countries have under communist occupation? How could their GDP not drop considering countries were not only rebuilding after the war but were undergoing basic restructuring? Simply put their ability to generate funds (GDP) had been severely hampered. Factories, farms, etc were not producing anywhere near their prior levels.



Of course it is. It is going to cost more to treat 100 people than it would to treat 75 people assuming all other factors are equal and that’s the rub, as they say. All other factors are far from equal. What one spends on health care is not necessarily the same as what it costs to treat them.

Does one require a room with a view in a building with expensive furniture and wall hangings in the lobby situated on 10 acres of manicured lawns with ponds filled with fish and a gazebo for socializing? Does one require a private room? A private nurse?

If the argument against universal care is cost/taxes, which it seems to be, the best indicator is what it costs the average person and not a portion of the GDP. A quick survey of the countries with a universal plan show that life expectancy is on par with the US and the costs among the countries with universal plans are very similar. Stated another way it costs approximately $3000US to $3500US to keep the average human being alive and healthy. That takes into account just about any variable imaginable, from diet to profession to climate.

That’s the reality. No spin. Just facts and figures.
Just facts and figures and a big mommy government bias.

For instance, you say that universal plans have as good care as the U.S. plan. And you trot out the equality in life expectancy as proof. Yet you fail to adjust for the (supposed) fact that millions in the U.S. do NOT have adequate access to health care. So, according to your own figures, when all the people with NO health care are averaged in with all the people WITH health care under our system, we still end up having the same average life expectancy as a system where everyone is covered. Get it? We manage to keep up with the universal plans in net life expectancy, using our "broken" system that leaves so many without care.

It would be interesting if we could find a study that compares only those with health care in the U.S. to the universal plans.

And you really don't know squat about economics, do you? A period of rebuilding would be a BOOM in the economy, not a depressed economy. Isn't that the idea behind rebuilding our infrastructure to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But your ignorance does bring out why using health care expenditures as a portion of GDP is a more valid statistical analysis than using per-capita figures.

The use of per-capita expenses, which is the comparison you keep trotting out, is fine IF you are comparing congruent economies. However, you are not comparing congruent economies. There are many differences between the economy oif the U.S. and the economies of European countries.

When there is a disparity in economies, comparing expenditures as a part of GDP is far more valid. Because European economies invariably have a higher mean unemployment rate, different mean incomes, more control of industry by their governments, etc. a simple per-capita comparison does not work. Is it a fair comparison to say it costs a person in country A $300/mo for health care, while a person in country B it costs $600/mo; while ignoring the average middle-income person in country A earns less than half the average middle-income person in country B? (No, I am not implying there is that much difference between the U.S. and Europe, those figures are for illustration only showing why a per-capita comparison is an invalid statistical analyisis.)

Thus, in the case of disparate economies, a more accurate picture results from comparing expenditures in terms of GDP, thus adjusting for the differentiation in base economies. It is also more valid as the GDP method of comparison automatically adjusts if the differentiation between economies fluctuates over time, allowing one to track relative changes over time.

I won't even go into the continual complaints you have about private rooms and "luxury" furnishings, except to say no one is suggesting that any type of assistance plan, be it universal or based on the Medicaid approach, is going to be paying for "luxury" health care.

So I must ask why you keep bringing private rooms and such up in your arguments. I do not want to assume what you're aim is (though I think I have a good idea). But until I know for certain what your point is, I cannot address it. You DO mention that what one spends on health care may not directly equate to what it costs to treat them. And that is true, which is most likely the largest factor in the disparity between what the U.S. spends per capita and what European countries spend. We do like our luxuries. But what is your point for bringing that up, except to further diminish your own argument that universal plans are cheaper with no degradation in quality?

And yes, it DOES cost more to treat 100 people than 75. But it is YOU who keep claiming that universal plans are LESS EXPENSIVE. I show you that the reality is public or universal plans end up INCREASING health care spending, and you say "OF COURSE"! Again, you bite your own tail. Are universal plans less expensive or not? Your previous defense of universal plans was based on the statistic that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care than do European countries. I showed the fallacy of using that claim to defend universal plans by showing you that the U.S. has ALWAYS spent twice as much per capita (another indication that per-capita spending is an invalid statistic.) The meaning of that comparison completely flies over your head.

Then I show you health care expenditures based on public or universal plans actually go up when expressed in terms of GDP, and your response is "OF COURSE! It costs more to cover 100 people than 75." So which is it? Are universal plans, as you originally claim, less expensive, allowing them to cover everyone for less? The numbers show otherwise. And if they are NOT cheaper, how do you continue to justify a government takeover of our current system? Why will that work better than simply providing minimum necessary coverage for those in need while leaving the rest of the system to work on its own, since, by your own figures, it works every bit as well as your beloved universal care systems?

cawacko
12-30-2009, 03:37 PM
not to get off the subject here but apple you never answered earlier what you believe the executive branch's role is with regard to the Fed.

apple0154
12-30-2009, 08:56 PM
“For instance, you say that universal plans have as good care as the U.S. plan. And you trot out the equality in life expectancy as proof. Yet you fail to adjust for the (supposed) fact that millions in the U.S. do NOT have adequate access to health care. So, according to your own figures, when all the people with NO health care are averaged in with all the people WITH health care under our system, we still end up having the same average life expectancy as a system where everyone is covered. Get it? We manage to keep up with the universal plans in net life expectancy, using our "broken" system that leaves so many without care.”

Adequate access to health care is not solely based on life expectancy. Statistics show the US type of health care and government run health care are equal when it comes to life expectancy but there are many other medical problems that may not be life threatening and there are many problems that are left to the point where they become chronic and require a lifetime of treatment.

Compare a US resident to a resident of a country with universal health care. Both people suffer a stroke due to uncontrolled hypertension. Doctors in both countries save the respective citizen’s life. Are both plans equal? No, they are not.

In the country with a universal plan a person would receive a free check-up. If their blood pressure was high they would be placed on medication and given appointments (free) in order to follow and control it. All things being equal there will be less people suffering strokes in a country with a universal plan than there would be in the US.

The same is true for a number of diseases, diabetes being another one. If the problem is caught early and diet adjusted the person may avoid constant injections. If one feels well are the going to take $100 for a doctor’s appointment?


And you really don't know squat about economics, do you? A period of rebuilding would be a BOOM in the economy, not a depressed economy.

"The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a basic measure of a country's overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.” (dictionary.com)

You wrote in msg 139, “Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

It’s obvious you know squat about world history. Do you think France simply picked up production after the Nazis left? Everyone returned to their farms and factories and life continued on its merry way?

There was a problem producing goods and services meaning the GDP would be lower meaning the cost for medical care would be higher compared to the GDP. I explained this in msg 145 and even gave an analogy. What bubble gum machine did you get your economics degree from?


When there is a disparity in economies, comparing expenditures as a part of GDP is far more valid. Because European economies invariably have a higher mean unemployment rate, different mean incomes, more control of industry by their governments, etc. a simple per-capita comparison does not work. Is it a fair comparison to say it costs a person in country A $300/mo for health care, while a person in country B it costs $600/mo; while ignoring the average middle-income person in country A earns less than half the average middle-income person in country B? (No, I am not implying there is that much difference between the U.S. and Europe, those figures are for illustration only showing why a per-capita comparison is an invalid statistical analyisis.)

Again, as I explained previous, there are dozens of countries with universal plans. There couldn’t be a more divergent example of countries from which to choose. Rich and poor. Capitalist and communist. Large and small.

Canada with a land area of 3,855,081 sq. mi and a population of 33,487,208 spends $3173.00/per capita ($US) and France with an area of 211,208 sq. mi. and a population of 64,057,792 spends $3040.00/per capita ($US) while the land area of Canada is 18 times that of France with half the population. That’s half of what the US spends, $6096/per capita. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html)

Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Canada all within a few hundred dollars. To imply similar costs are due to their political systems/laws/customs, etc. being the same is…..well, just silly. Universal plans work.


So I must ask why you keep bringing private rooms and such up in your arguments. I do not want to assume what you're aim is (though I think I have a good idea). But until I know for certain what your point is, I cannot address it. You DO mention that what one spends on health care may not directly equate to what it costs to treat them. And that is true, which is most likely the largest factor in the disparity between what the U.S. spends per capita and what European countries spend. We do like our luxuries. But what is your point for bringing that up, except to further diminish your own argument that universal plans are cheaper with no degradation in quality?

There is no degradation in medical quality which is why I bring it up. People talk about death panels and not being able to get medical care when what they’re really worried about is how is everyone going to get a private room. When they talk about a huge increase in costs they’re thinking $6,000/person instead of $3,000/person.

How many hospital beds can be purchased for the price of building and maintaining one private room?

My point is I’m addressing the “we don’t have enough resources” objection. There are plenty of resources. The solution is managing them properly. And in case you feel I’m heading in the direction of class warfare (IF you are) I’ll clear that up right now. As I mentioned in msg 145 everybody has to pay for the expensive furniture and wall hangings. A truly ill individual does not give a damn what furniture or wall hangings or other “luxuries” are available. They want medical attention and they want it at a reasonable price and government run programs address that matter. Get rid of the Persian rug and get a few more beds. :)

Medical care is neither a luxury nor an option. Private interests treat it as such because they want to make money and that results in some people not being able to afford the basics.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Just facts and figures and a big mommy government bias.

For instance, you say that universal plans have as good care as the U.S. plan. And you trot out the equality in life expectancy as proof. Yet you fail to adjust for the (supposed) fact that millions in the U.S. do NOT have adequate access to health care. So, according to your own figures, when all the people with NO health care are averaged in with all the people WITH health care under our system, we still end up having the same average life expectancy as a system where everyone is covered. Get it? We manage to keep up with the universal plans in net life expectancy, using our "broken" system that leaves so many without care.

It would be interesting if we could find a study that compares only those with health care in the U.S. to the universal plans.

And you really don't know squat about economics, do you? A period of rebuilding would be a BOOM in the economy, not a depressed economy. Isn't that the idea behind rebuilding our infrastructure to stimulate the economy and create jobs? But your ignorance does bring out why using health care expenditures as a portion of GDP is a more valid statistical analysis than using per-capita figures.

The use of per-capita expenses, which is the comparison you keep trotting out, is fine IF you are comparing congruent economies. However, you are not comparing congruent economies. There are many differences between the economy oif the U.S. and the economies of European countries.

When there is a disparity in economies, comparing expenditures as a part of GDP is far more valid. Because European economies invariably have a higher mean unemployment rate, different mean incomes, more control of industry by their governments, etc. a simple per-capita comparison does not work. Is it a fair comparison to say it costs a person in country A $300/mo for health care, while a person in country B it costs $600/mo; while ignoring the average middle-income person in country A earns less than half the average middle-income person in country B? (No, I am not implying there is that much difference between the U.S. and Europe, those figures are for illustration only showing why a per-capita comparison is an invalid statistical analyisis.)

Thus, in the case of disparate economies, a more accurate picture results from comparing expenditures in terms of GDP, thus adjusting for the differentiation in base economies. It is also more valid as the GDP method of comparison automatically adjusts if the differentiation between economies fluctuates over time, allowing one to track relative changes over time.

I won't even go into the continual complaints you have about private rooms and "luxury" furnishings, except to say no one is suggesting that any type of assistance plan, be it universal or based on the Medicaid approach, is going to be paying for "luxury" health care.

So I must ask why you keep bringing private rooms and such up in your arguments. I do not want to assume what you're aim is (though I think I have a good idea). But until I know for certain what your point is, I cannot address it. You DO mention that what one spends on health care may not directly equate to what it costs to treat them. And that is true, which is most likely the largest factor in the disparity between what the U.S. spends per capita and what European countries spend. We do like our luxuries. But what is your point for bringing that up, except to further diminish your own argument that universal plans are cheaper with no degradation in quality?

And yes, it DOES cost more to treat 100 people than 75. But it is YOU who keep claiming that universal plans are LESS EXPENSIVE. I show you that the reality is public or universal plans end up INCREASING health care spending, and you say "OF COURSE"! Again, you bite your own tail. Are universal plans less expensive or not? Your previous defense of universal plans was based on the statistic that the U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care than do European countries. I showed the fallacy of using that claim to defend universal plans by showing you that the U.S. has ALWAYS spent twice as much per capita (another indication that per-capita spending is an invalid statistic.) The meaning of that comparison completely flies over your head.

Then I show you health care expenditures based on public or universal plans actually go up when expressed in terms of GDP, and your response is "OF COURSE! It costs more to cover 100 people than 75." So which is it? Are universal plans, as you originally claim, less expensive, allowing them to cover everyone for less? The numbers show otherwise. And if they are NOT cheaper, how do you continue to justify a government takeover of our current system? Why will that work better than simply providing minimum necessary coverage for those in need while leaving the rest of the system to work on its own, since, by your own figures, it works every bit as well as your beloved universal care systems?

apple0154
12-30-2009, 08:59 PM
not to get off the subject here but apple you never answered earlier what you believe the executive branch's role is with regard to the Fed.

Sorry. I missed that. In what context were you referring? Do you have a msg/post number to which I can refer? A memory jog would be appreciated.

cawacko
12-30-2009, 09:04 PM
Sorry. I missed that. In what context were you referring? Do you have a msg/post number to which I can refer? A memory jog would be appreciated.

If was from the leadership thread we had going for awhile. I couldn't find it so I got lazy and posted it here. I wasn't trying to derail the conversation going on here.

Basically it was a discussion of whether the executive branch should jawbone the fed about rates. Is it appropriate for the President to try and tell the leader of the Fed what to do with rates or should they be kept seperate.

PostmodernProphet
12-30-2009, 09:15 PM
Adequate access to health care is not solely based on life expectancy.

I believe his point was just the opposite.....that life expectancy is based on access....

apple0154
12-30-2009, 09:55 PM
If was from the leadership thread we had going for awhile. I couldn't find it so I got lazy and posted it here. I wasn't trying to derail the conversation going on here.

Basically it was a discussion of whether the executive branch should jawbone the fed about rates. Is it appropriate for the President to try and tell the leader of the Fed what to do with rates or should they be kept seperate.

I think when something negatively affects the country the President should either have the power to intervene or inform the population what is happening/going to happen.

While the President's power may be limited I feel his responsibility to look out for the citizen's interests is all-encompassing.

I've never taken a close look at the intricacies involved vis-a-vis the President and the Fed so that's the best reply I can give.

apple0154
12-30-2009, 10:02 PM
I believe his point was just the opposite.....that life expectancy is based on access....

Perhaps I should clarify. Life expectancy alone is not proof of adequate access to health care. It is a measure of how good the medical expertise is but that does not necessarily involve access for non life-threatening illnesses.

Taichiliberal
12-30-2009, 11:07 PM
Bottom line: until someone can prove that an actual illegal "bribe" took place, the neocon GOP and it's parrots are just squawking in frustrated anger that the Dems beat them out at their own game.

Or does everyone forget the "Coalition of the Coerced" that joined us in Iraq?

Good Luck
12-31-2009, 01:03 AM
Adequate access to health care is not solely based on life expectancy.
Then why did you bring it up? Because you thought you have a "gotcha" statistic that ended up not being quite so "gotcha" as you'd planned.


All things being equal there will be less people suffering strokes in a country with a universal plan than there would be in the US.
Got any data to back that up, or is it just a "logical conclusion" about how things SHOULD be?


The same is true for a number of diseases, diabetes being another one. If the problem is caught early and diet adjusted the person may avoid constant injections. If one feels well are the going to take $100 for a doctor’s appointment?
If one feels well, are they going to see a free doctor just for shits and grins? If so, what does that do to the overall costs of universal plans?



"The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is a basic measure of a country's overall economic output. It is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.” (dictionary.com)

You wrote in msg 139, “Then in 1945, the time that most economists agree France switched over to what is essentially their current plan (tho there have been several modifications since) is, coincidentally, when France's health care expenditures start to rise significantly faster than the U.S.”

It’s obvious you know squat about world history. Do you think France simply picked up production after the Nazis left? Everyone returned to their farms and factories and life continued on its merry way?

There was a problem producing goods and services meaning the GDP would be lower meaning the cost for medical care would be higher compared to the GDP. I explained this in msg 145 and even gave an analogy. What bubble gum machine did you get your economics degree from?
Wrong again, bubble boy. The GDP of France in 1945-46 was based on a boom economy. Maybe much of their stuff was broken down, but the very act of putting it all back together was keeping people employed at high paying jobs while output in the construction area was at an all time high. While things like agriculture and manufacturing were down, construction of roads, buildings, housing, factories, etc. etc. etc was high enough to more than make up for it.

Maybe it is you who needs a few history and economics lessons.




Again, as I explained previous, there are dozens of countries with universal plans. There couldn’t be a more divergent example of countries from which to choose. Rich and poor. Capitalist and communist. Large and small.
Which is, as explained, exactly why a per-capita based comparison of expenditures is an invalid method of statistical analysis.


Canada with a land area of 3,855,081 sq. mi and a population of 33,487,208 spends $3173.00/per capita ($US) and France with an area of 211,208 sq. mi. and a population of 64,057,792 spends $3040.00/per capita ($US) while the land area of Canada is 18 times that of France with half the population. That’s half of what the US spends, $6096/per capita. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html)

Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Canada all within a few hundred dollars. To imply similar costs are due to their political systems/laws/customs, etc. being the same is…..well, just silly. Universal plans work.
Where did I say, or even imply, that similarity if per-capita health care expenditures were due to similarity in economies? Bass ackward conclusions there, buddy. Expenditures in a universal system are the direct result of what the central controlling agency budgets - nothing less, nothing more. When expenditures are based on minimal necessary quality, then the budgets will end up looking similar. Without additional data, per capita comparisons, especially of a controlled market to a free market, is an invalid comparison. When you add in the factor that the U.S. has always spent more per capita on health care, it becomes less than useless. That is simple statistics.


There is no degradation in medical quality which is why I bring it up. People talk about death panels and not being able to get medical care when what they’re really worried about is how is everyone going to get a private room. When they talk about a huge increase in costs they’re thinking $6,000/person instead of $3,000/person.

How many hospital beds can be purchased for the price of building and maintaining one private room?

My point is I’m addressing the “we don’t have enough resources” objection. There are plenty of resources. The solution is managing them properly. And in case you feel I’m heading in the direction of class warfare (IF you are) I’ll clear that up right now. As I mentioned in msg 145 everybody has to pay for the expensive furniture and wall hangings. A truly ill individual does not give a damn what furniture or wall hangings or other “luxuries” are available. They want medical attention and they want it at a reasonable price and government run programs address that matter. Get rid of the Persian rug and get a few more beds. :)
So you are going to claim that personal comfort is not a factor in treatment and recovery from an illness? I'd bet the local hospice(s) in your area would have something to say about that claim. Most doctors who would STRONGLY disagree with you that removing "luxuries" like nice furnishings and privacy would not equate to lower quality in treatment - as would the VAST majority of patients. Treatment of illness - especially in-patient treatment - is far more than drugs and equipment. You base your definition of quality on the idea that ADEQUATE treatment is the top end of quality. You are, quite frankly, DENYING the fact that you are admitting the need to reduce quality of care in a universal system by claiming that "luxuries" like private rooms and good furnishings are not a factor in quality. And in that claim, you are full of shit.

The bottom line is simple: we do not have the resources to vastly increase the distribution of health care without significantly reducing the quality of health care. And yes, that INCLUDES "luxuries" like private rooms and comfortable chairs. You may not be willing to admit it, but having spent many 24+ hour watches with sick relatives and friends over the years, comfortable rooms and furnishings are anything BUT a "luxury". Additionally, the ability to visit a sick friend without disturbing a sick roommate is a benefit to both the sick friend, since visiting with loved ones speeds recovery by maintaining good spirits, AND the other sick people who are NOT being disturbed because the visitation is taking place privately. In short, these "luxuries" you speak of ARE part of quality of care. AS far as I can see, the only reason you deny it is because you know full well your beloved universal plans cannot sustain that level of quality.


Medical care is neither a luxury nor an option. Private interests treat it as such because they want to make money and that results in some people not being able to afford the basics.
So, again, leave the larger part of our system alone, since it DOES provide adequate to high quality care for the majority (85% or so), to include "luxuries" in quality of care for those policies that cover such. Focus on providing the basics for those who are without. If basics are "good enough", then let's get everyone the basics, but WITHOUT removing or limiting the ability of others to get better than the basics. And, in the mean time, to help everyone, from those who need help getting the basics to those who can pay for it anything they want out of what they keep in their left shoe, to the universal systems in other countries who are finding it harder and harder to maintain their systems: find and address the factors which have driven health care costs through the roof the last couple decades. It's not from "luxuries" - things like private rooms, nice furnishings, etc. were a mark of health care in the U.S. long before costs started to sky rocket.

And no more "too many will complain" lame assed excuses. The MAJORITY are complaining about the current bill, yet you have no problem supporting its passage.

PostmodernProphet
12-31-2009, 07:20 AM
Perhaps I should clarify. Life expectancy alone is not proof of adequate access to health care. It is a measure of how good the medical expertise is but that does not necessarily involve access for non life-threatening illnesses.

obviously correct....it also doesn't account for those blown away by stoners looking for money to buy another bongfull.......or those killed in auto accidents.....

apple0154
12-31-2009, 09:12 AM
Then why did you bring it up? Because you thought you have a "gotcha" statistic that ended up not being quite so "gotcha" as you'd planned.

I stated life expectancy is a measurement of medical skill because you and others go on about universal medical being inferior. I understand how irritating you must find it when comparisons between the “pay and suffer” plan and a universal plan consistently show the universal plan to be either equal or superior to the “pay or suffer” system. However, if you can’t argue the facts and prefer to argue WHY I state the facts I think we're getting off track.


Got any data to back that up, or is it just a "logical conclusion" about how things SHOULD be?

Why are you discussing medical plan topics when it’s apparent you are not even aware people are advised to have their blood pressure checked as it’s known as “The Silent Killer”?


If one feels well, are they going to see a free doctor just for shits and grins? If so, what does that do to the overall costs of universal plans?

So-called “shits and grins” is known as a check-up. Yes, people will go see a free doctor, preferably once a year, regardless of how well they feel. As for what that does regarding the costs to universal plans it substantially lowers the overall cost because diseases are detected in their early stages and adjustments made. It’s called prevention.

It's obvious you haven't been doing your homework.


Wrong again, bubble boy. The GDP of France in 1945-46 was based on a boom economy. Maybe much of their stuff was broken down, but the very act of putting it all back together was keeping people employed at high paying jobs while output in the construction area was at an all time high. While things like agriculture and manufacturing were down, construction of roads, buildings, housing, factories, etc. etc. etc was high enough to more than make up for it.

Maybe it is you who needs a few history and economics lessons.

Let’s go with your logic. Two countries. One, a war-torn country and the other, not. The first one is building factories, roads, housing, etc. The second one doesn’t need to build a lot of factories and roads and houses because nothing was destroyed. Which country is better? Which country is richer? Are we to compare the two countries as equal?
Your illogic knows no bounds.


When expenditures are based on minimal necessary quality, then the budgets will end up looking similar. Without additional data, per capita comparisons, especially of a controlled market to a free market, is an invalid comparison. When you add in the factor that the U.S. has always spent more per capita on health care, it becomes less than useless. That is simple statistics.

“Annual Census Bureau estimates released in August show 47 million people, or 15.8 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance during 2006.” http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

The US spends the equivalent of $6,000 per person based on the entire population even though 15% are uninsured. Countries with universal plans spend $3,000 per person based on their entire population with 100% insured.

Spin it any way you want.


So you are going to claim that personal comfort is not a factor in treatment and recovery from an illness? I'd bet the local hospice(s) in your area would have something to say about that claim. Most doctors who would STRONGLY disagree with you that removing "luxuries" like nice furnishings and privacy would not equate to lower quality in treatment - as would the VAST majority of patients. Treatment of illness - especially in-patient treatment - is far more than drugs and equipment. You base your definition of quality on the idea that ADEQUATE treatment is the top end of quality. You are, quite frankly, DENYING the fact that you are admitting the need to reduce quality of care in a universal system by claiming that "luxuries" like private rooms and good furnishings are not a factor in quality. And in that claim, you are full of shit.

The bottom line is simple: we do not have the resources to vastly increase the distribution of health care without significantly reducing the quality of health care. And yes, that INCLUDES "luxuries" like private rooms and comfortable chairs. You may not be willing to admit it, but having spent many 24+ hour watches with sick relatives and friends over the years, comfortable rooms and furnishings are anything BUT a "luxury". Additionally, the ability to visit a sick friend without disturbing a sick roommate is a benefit to both the sick friend, since visiting with loved ones speeds recovery by maintaining good spirits, AND the other sick people who are NOT being disturbed because the visitation is taking place privately. In short, these "luxuries" you speak of ARE part of quality of care. AS far as I can see, the only reason you deny it is because you know full well your beloved universal plans cannot sustain that level of quality.

Comfortable. Not luxury. As for “Most doctors who would STRONGLY disagree with you that removing "luxuries" like nice furnishings and privacy would not equate to lower quality in treatment - as would the VAST majority of patients” I’m sure they would if they can afford that. On the other hand a person denied any treatment certainly won’t get better and the idea is to ensure everyone gets treatment.

Do you ever think things through before you post? If your position was the case then people living in countries with universal plans would not be getting better because they don’t have the same luxuries but we know that’s not the case.

It appears you have problems with reality. People have the same or better life expectancy and they are more satisfied with their universal system than a “pay or suffer” system but to your way of thinking they’re actually suffering and don’t know any better.


So, again, leave the larger part of our system alone, since it DOES provide adequate to high quality care for the majority (85% or so), to include "luxuries" in quality of care for those policies that cover such. Focus on providing the basics for those who are without. If basics are "good enough", then let's get everyone the basics, but WITHOUT removing or limiting the ability of others to get better than the basics. And, in the mean time, to help everyone, from those who need help getting the basics to those who can pay for it anything they want out of what they keep in their left shoe, to the universal systems in other countries who are finding it harder and harder to maintain their systems: find and address the factors which have driven health care costs through the roof the last couple decades. It's not from "luxuries" - things like private rooms, nice furnishings, etc. were a mark of health care in the U.S. long before costs started to sky rocket.

And no more "too many will complain" lame assed excuses. The MAJORITY are complaining about the current bill, yet you have no problem supporting its passage.

How many times do I have to explain the current bill is the start on the road to universal care. Senator Harkin stated the same thing. We’re passing a demarcation point. The opposition is not going to discuss/negotiate what happens after we pass that point because they don’t want to pass that point. That’s why the bill is a hodgepodge of sorts. It’s not meant to be the final word on health care. It is temporary. It requires additional work, however, after it passes everyone will know what the “project” is that they’ll be working on.

Put another way the discussion will not be the general “how do we improve health care” but the specific “how do we improve the universal plan”. Whether or not you agree with my “too many will complain” assessment people will not pay for their own medical and then pay for someone else’s. Nice thought but, again, not reality.

Just like people are free to invest their extra money in whatever they like after they’ve paid into SS people will be free to spend additional money on health care after they’ve paid into the universal plan. Simple, really.

apple0154
12-31-2009, 09:22 AM
obviously correct....it also doesn't account for those blown away by stoners looking for money to buy another bongfull.......or those killed in auto accidents.....

Doesn't bongfull refer to marijuana? Are you saying pot smokers are mugging people? :eek:

Hmmm, times have changed. The pot smokers I used to know required extensive motivation to get off the couch and go outside. They wouldn't be doing a lot of mugging.

PostmodernProphet
12-31-2009, 10:48 AM
Doesn't bongfull refer to marijuana? Are you saying pot smokers are mugging people? :eek:

Hmmm, times have changed. The pot smokers I used to know required extensive motivation to get off the couch and go outside. They wouldn't be doing a lot of mugging.

strawfuckingman.....screw the pot smokers......

Good Luck
12-31-2009, 12:09 PM
To address you last point, the bill under discussion is in no way a "step toward universal care" unless you want to admit it is deliberately designed to fail so miserably it will lead to a cry for anything else to take over, giving democrats the opening to push what they really want (total control). The bill under discussion does nothing more than fuck over royally the people currently enjoying adequate and above health care coverage while handing a massive profit boon to the major insurance companies. The bill literally punishes employer health care plans for being more efficient, such as putting a fee on self funded plans, which are the most cost efficient plans available. The federal health care plan is a self-funded plan - but, "coincidentally", it is the only self-funded plan exempt from the proposed federal fee. (of course...)

You bring up life expectancy as a means to try showing universal plans are up to par with our system. When it is pointed out that life expectancy is EQUAL between a system that gives health care to everyone, and a system that leaves 15% without care, you add a disclaimer about how little life expectancy means. Yet you ALSO claim that the universal care system results in fewer people going undiagnosed for high blood pressure, diabetes, and thus suffering from the health problems resulting (DO you have figures supporting that claim?) But treating those problems early, as you claim happens, would, or at least should, significantly affect average life expectancy. Yet the lack of care for lower income people in our system is STILL not enough to drag our life expectancy down below a system where EVERYONE is (supposedly) treated, including, according to you, early treatment for high blood pressure, diabetes, early detection of cancer, etc.etc.etc. If our AVERAGE life expectancy, which includes millions of people who do NOT get adequate care, is EQUAL to the everyone-gets-care system, what do you think comparing ONLY people in our system who have care to ONLY people who have care in their system (meaning everyone) would show?

The conclusion is obvious to people who aren't DNC dronebots. Either our system results in better care for those covered, and therefore it is desirable to extend that better care system to those without, OR the "everyone is covered" system isn't, in truth, covering everyone to the degree claimed. (ie: being a centralized budget item, health care is in fact more rationed to fit the budget than you will ever admit to.)

You claim that patient comfort is not a significant factor in treatment. Every hospice in the nation would call you a flat out liar. Your only purpose in labeling nice furnishings and private rooms as "unnecessary luxuries" is because you know those items are not sustainable in a universal plan. By labeling them unnecessary luxuries, you think you can get away with making the claim that losing those options do not mean lower quality of care. It's a bullshit argument. Quality INCLUDES "unnecessary" factors that make receiving treatment less unpleasant. Denying that fact simply shows how absolutely, frontal-lobotomy STUPID one must be to blindly support only one possible solution to our health care problems.


Whether or not you agree with my “too many will complain” assessment people will not pay for their own medical and then pay for someone else’s.
And you still cannot face reality, can you? It might interfere with your drug induced hallucinations of utopia.

Point one: The FACT is we ALREADY DO pay for the health care of others. Every person who pays into an insurance plan and is healthy enough to not use it much (if at all) is paying for those who DO use more than they pay in. And, added to that, every single doctor or hospital bill includes pricing that is designed to offset treating people who were unable to pay for it. Anyone with two connected neurons already knows this.

And when it comes to a universal plan, people will STILL be paying for their own care AND the care of those who cannot pay themselves. It's true whether the money comes from taxes, or forced payment of unwanted insurance premiums. And everyone with two connected neurons knows that as well. So when it comes to "people are not willing to pay for themselves and others", there is no functional difference between a system that only covers the needy and a system that forces everyone into your big government totalitarian mold. Your argument that other options cannot be considered because "people will not pay for their own care and for others" is beyond ridiculous. It is outright assininely stupid. Beyond stupid, actually. It shows the ridiculous desperation you're willing to stoop to defend your devotion to DNC socialists.

The bottom line is the assholes pushing this bill do not give a ripe pig fart about actually improving health care in this country. Their focus is control, control, and more control. Power is what they seek. And for reasons beyond my comprehension, they have a following of stupid brain dead lemmings happily willing to give up their and everyone else's liberties because they are told government will take care of them.

apple0154
12-31-2009, 02:32 PM
strawfuckingman.....screw the pot smokers......

Well, OK. I was in my early 20's at the time and it was a house party and there were a couple of gals there and the guys they came with were about as exciting as a bale of straw after having passed the bong and....well, the invitation was there but, hey, it's not kool to takes a guy's gal when he's high. Know what I mean?

Anyway, to make a long story short, I didn't screw the pot smokers.

cawacko
12-31-2009, 02:41 PM
I think when something negatively affects the country the President should either have the power to intervene or inform the population what is happening/going to happen.

While the President's power may be limited I feel his responsibility to look out for the citizen's interests is all-encompassing.

I've never taken a close look at the intricacies involved vis-a-vis the President and the Fed so that's the best reply I can give.

Does that imply the President understand interest rates better than head of the Fed and all the PhD's that work for them?

Paul Volker is considered a financial lengend for his work in getting inflation down to manageable levels but it caused the economy some pain at the time. Should the President been telling him how to handle rates as to short term benefits for the President and his popularity vs. what is best for the long-term of the economy?

apple0154
12-31-2009, 04:24 PM
Does that imply the President understand interest rates better than head of the Fed and all the PhD's that work for them?

Hopefully, the President has equally skilled people or connections to them.


Paul Volker is considered a financial lengend for his work in getting inflation down to manageable levels but it caused the economy some pain at the time. Should the President been telling him how to handle rates as to short term benefits for the President and his popularity vs. what is best for the long-term of the economy?

As I noted I feel it's his responsibility to look out for the citizen's interests. If it's short term pain for long term gain then so be it.

cawacko
12-31-2009, 04:29 PM
Hopefully, the President has equally skilled people or connections to them.



As I noted I feel it's his responsibility to look out for the citizen's interests. If it's short term pain for long term gain then so be it.

So you think it's Obama's responsibility to lobby Bernanke in public (so the people know he's trying) to get rates where he wants them?

apple0154
12-31-2009, 05:24 PM
To address you last point, the bill under discussion is in no way a "step toward universal care" unless you want to admit it is deliberately designed to fail so miserably it will lead to a cry for anything else to take over, giving democrats the opening to push what they really want (total control). The bill under discussion does nothing more than fuck over royally the people currently enjoying adequate and above health care coverage while handing a massive profit boon to the major insurance companies. The bill literally punishes employer health care plans for being more efficient, such as putting a fee on self funded plans, which are the most cost efficient plans available. The federal health care plan is a self-funded plan - but, "coincidentally", it is the only self-funded plan exempt from the proposed federal fee. (of course...)

So are you saying Senator Harkin mischaracterized the bill?


The conclusion is obvious to people who aren't DNC dronebots. Either our system results in better care for those covered, and therefore it is desirable to extend that better care system to those without, OR the "everyone is covered" system isn't, in truth, covering everyone to the degree claimed. (ie: being a centralized budget item, health care is in fact more rationed to fit the budget than you will ever admit to.)

Let's give everyone a Cadillac plan......oops, but then we have that old transfer of wealth, stealing from the rich, Socialist dog argument to deal with.


You claim that patient comfort is not a significant factor in treatment. Every hospice in the nation would call you a flat out liar. Your only purpose in labeling nice furnishings and private rooms as "unnecessary luxuries" is because you know those items are not sustainable in a universal plan. By labeling them unnecessary luxuries, you think you can get away with making the claim that losing those options do not mean lower quality of care. It's a bullshit argument. Quality INCLUDES "unnecessary" factors that make receiving treatment less unpleasant. Denying that fact simply shows how absolutely, frontal-lobotomy STUPID one must be to blindly support only one possible solution to our health care problems.

I'll go one better. While hospices are usually associated with the terminally ill let's look at an individual with hypertension aggravated by worry and stress. If it's due to financial worries let's have a plan where those folks receive a lump sum payment up to $100,000. Pay down the mortgage. Erase all the CC debt. Relieve whatever is causing the worry and stress. That would be preferable care, wouldn't it?

In the meantime a guy who doesn't have insurance but suffers an injured intervertebral disc resulting in painful movement and, eventually, job loss....well, c'est la vie. He won't die whereas the fella with hypertension may very well suffer a fatal stroke so we shouldn't deny the person with hypertension the right to have such a policy and exempt him from contributing to a plan which covers people with spinal injuries.

Agree?


And when it comes to a universal plan, people will STILL be paying for their own care AND the care of those who cannot pay themselves. It's true whether the money comes from taxes, or forced payment of unwanted insurance premiums. And everyone with two connected neurons knows that as well. So when it comes to "people are not willing to pay for themselves and others", there is no functional difference between a system that only covers the needy and a system that forces everyone into your big government totalitarian mold. Your argument that other options cannot be considered because "people will not pay for their own care and for others" is beyond ridiculous. It is outright assininely stupid. Beyond stupid, actually. It shows the ridiculous desperation you're willing to stoop to defend your devotion to DNC socialists.

So why wasn't SS structured that way? Why the need for a government plan? Just help those who have no retirement funds.


The bottom line is the assholes pushing this bill do not give a ripe pig fart about actually improving health care in this country. Their focus is control, control, and more control. Power is what they seek. And for reasons beyond my comprehension, they have a following of stupid brain dead lemmings happily willing to give up their and everyone else's liberties because they are told government will take care of them.

Control of what? What is causing your nightmares? What devious, dastardly plan does the government have?

Please, let us all in on it. Have you discovered a top secret document with reference to a "Dr. Morrow"?

Hermes Thoth
12-31-2009, 05:34 PM
What devious, dastardly plan does the government have?


Population reduction, eugenics, full control over life and death

apple0154
12-31-2009, 05:36 PM
So you think it's Obama's responsibility to lobby Bernanke in public (so the people know he's trying) to get rates where he wants them?

If Obama and his advisers have reason to believe it will be better for the country, yes.

We all heard Greenspan say "oops" during the Congressional Hearings and who would have questioned his judgment?

apple0154
12-31-2009, 05:38 PM
Population reduction, eugenics, full control over life and death

Do you feel both parties are involved in this diabolical plot?

Hermes Thoth
12-31-2009, 05:55 PM
Do you feel both parties are involved in this diabolical plot?

yes.

apple0154
12-31-2009, 05:58 PM
yes.

Just here or worldwide?

Good Luck
12-31-2009, 06:40 PM
So are you saying Senator Harkin mischaracterized the bill?
Unlike some who've sold their brains to the DNC, I have the ability to think for myself. But, no, I would not say Harkin "mischaracterized" the bill. That is way too lenient a description. But I would say he is lying his useless piece of shit political ass off.



Let's give everyone a Cadillac plan......oops, but then we have that old transfer of wealth, stealing from the rich, Socialist dog argument to deal with.
I suggest making sure everyone have basic access while leaving the "cadillac" plans available, since they, too, work. Why go for the cadillac plan for everyone since, by YOUR words, merely adequate plans are just as good? And you still cling to your assininely stupid argument that people will not accept a cover the poor plan, but they will accept "you'll pay for the poor AND take our plan up the ass" plan.

Face it, your arguments are pure trash, and your rhetoric just grows more desperate sounding as your illogic and outright lies are exposed for what they are.



I'll go one better. While hospices are usually associated with the terminally ill let's look at an individual with hypertension aggravated by worry and stress. If it's due to financial worries let's have a plan where those folks receive a lump sum payment up to $100,000. Pay down the mortgage. Erase all the CC debt. Relieve whatever is causing the worry and stress. That would be preferable care, wouldn't it?

In the meantime a guy who doesn't have insurance but suffers an injured intervertebral disc resulting in painful movement and, eventually, job loss....well, c'est la vie. He won't die whereas the fella with hypertension may very well suffer a fatal stroke so we shouldn't deny the person with hypertension the right to have such a policy and exempt him from contributing to a plan which covers people with spinal injuries.

Agree?
Not even worth responding, except to point out once again how ridiculous and desperate your arguments are becoming. Just watch out for too much foaming at the mouth, it can end up shorting out your keyboard.



So why wasn't SS structured that way? Why the need for a government plan? Just help those who have no retirement funds.
There are many who would say we don't NEED an all-encompassing government plan. There were many who said as much back when SS was forced on us. The "need" for a government plan is YOUR claim. And like all plans of this type, even the most optimistic supporters have to admit it will end up on the skids unless it is seriously revamped. What socialist will never admit to is their schemes simply cannot be indefinitely sustained.


Control of what? What is causing your nightmares? What devious, dastardly plan does the government have? Please, let us all in on it. Have you discovered a top secret document with reference to a "Dr. Morrow"?
How many billions of dollars are spend on health care annually? Do you not recognize the POWER behind controlling that big a slice of the economy? The amount of money represented by the authority to accept and deny insurance carriers on the government's approved list could buy half of South America.

Do you have any concept of the old saying "power corrupts"? The way the "reform" bill is written literally BEGS corruption at multiple levels, and you can bet your lemming like frontal lobes that there are those already in line with their grubby little hands shoved under the table.

apple0154
12-31-2009, 07:31 PM
Unlike some who've sold their brains to the DNC, I have the ability to think for myself. But, no, I would not say Harkin "mischaracterized" the bill. That is way too lenient a description. But I would say he is lying his useless piece of shit political ass off.

There's no misinterpreting your meaning there. :)


I suggest making sure everyone have basic access while leaving the "cadillac" plans available, since they, too, work. Why go for the cadillac plan for everyone since, by YOUR words, merely adequate plans are just as good? And you still cling to your assininely stupid argument that people will not accept a cover the poor plan, but they will accept "you'll pay for the poor AND take our plan up the ass" plan.

In a manner of speaking, yes. Just like SS.


Face it, your arguments are pure trash, and your rhetoric just grows more desperate sounding as your illogic and outright lies are exposed for what they are.

Not even worth responding, except to point out once again how ridiculous and desperate your arguments are becoming. Just watch out for too much foaming at the mouth, it can end up shorting out your keyboard.

My goodness. You are a disgruntled individual. :nono:


There are many who would say we don't NEED an all-encompassing government plan. There were many who said as much back when SS was forced on us. The "need" for a government plan is YOUR claim. And like all plans of this type, even the most optimistic supporters have to admit it will end up on the skids unless it is seriously revamped. What socialist will never admit to is their schemes simply cannot be indefinitely sustained.

Yes, a government plan is needed just like SS is needed and plans can be indefinitely sustained by adjusting them periodically.


Do you have any concept of the old saying "power corrupts"? The way the "reform" bill is written literally BEGS corruption at multiple levels, and you can bet your lemming like frontal lobes that there are those already in line with their grubby little hands shoved under the table.

You forget there is not one group of persons handling the plan. Governments are voted in and out and if one finds their opponent has "cheated" we all know what happens.

How many "employees" handling the plan will be getting multi-million dollar bonuses?

Good Luck
12-31-2009, 09:30 PM
Hah. "Just like SS". You do know even your political masters admit SS will be broke before this century is half gone? What kinds of "adjustments" do you think will need to happen there to avoid that which will not piss off enough people to end liberal rule for a long time to come?

Actually, SS is already broke because after the government increased SS contributions under Reagan to create a surplus they promptly transferred that surplus, via sale of t-notes, to the general fund and spent it. All SS surplus has now is a bunch of IOUs from a government over 11 trillion dollars in the hole. They are barely covering SS obligations with SS contributions and outgo is growing while revenues are shrinking in this economic climate. (Even under the boom economy of the 90's obligations were growing faster than revenues - it's why it was an issue in the Bush v Gore election. It won't be much longer, maybe 10 years at the most, more likely sooner with the way the economy is going, when obligations will exceed contributions, and we have no reserves to meet the difference because it got spent. Then what? Gonna print up a bunch more $100 bills and hope the problem won't be noticed?

And despite the obvious problems with SS, you want to add government health care because SS is such a good example of a needed government program. A conclusion that can only come from a brain suffering from anoxia due to the head being solidly implanted in a donkey's rectal vault.

Good Luck
12-31-2009, 09:34 PM
How many "employees" handling the plan will be getting multi-million dollar bonuses?
535.

The bonuses just won't be under the freedom of information act, nor under the jurisdiction of FTC rules. They won't be declared on any tax returns, either.

Hermes Thoth
01-01-2010, 07:18 AM
Just here or worldwide?

yes.

apple0154
01-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Hah. "Just like SS". You do know even your political masters admit SS will be broke before this century is half gone? What kinds of "adjustments" do you think will need to happen there to avoid that which will not piss off enough people to end liberal rule for a long time to come?

Actually, SS is already broke because after the government increased SS contributions under Reagan to create a surplus they promptly transferred that surplus, via sale of t-notes, to the general fund and spent it. All SS surplus has now is a bunch of IOUs from a government over 11 trillion dollars in the hole. They are barely covering SS obligations with SS contributions and outgo is growing while revenues are shrinking in this economic climate. (Even under the boom economy of the 90's obligations were growing faster than revenues - it's why it was an issue in the Bush v Gore election. It won't be much longer, maybe 10 years at the most, more likely sooner with the way the economy is going, when obligations will exceed contributions, and we have no reserves to meet the difference because it got spent. Then what? Gonna print up a bunch more $100 bills and hope the problem won't be noticed?

And despite the obvious problems with SS, you want to add government health care because SS is such a good example of a needed government program. A conclusion that can only come from a brain suffering from anoxia due to the head being solidly implanted in a donkey's rectal vault.

Stop spending money on other programs. Rebuilding two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, while US citizens go without adequate food, shelter and medical care is, to any sane individual, an outrage.

Whose head is in whose rectal vault?

apple0154
01-01-2010, 08:57 AM
yes.

I admire your tenacity at being able to crawl out of bed every morning believing the things you do.

Hermes Thoth
01-01-2010, 09:49 AM
I admire your tenacity at being able to crawl out of bed every morning believing the things you do.

It's better to know the truth than to sculpt a 'feel good' reality based on denial.

The truth is that murderous psychopaths run the world and elitist brainwash, abstraction abuse, logical fallacies and historical revisionism are their tools.

Wake up, stooge.

apple0154
01-01-2010, 10:14 AM
It's better to know the truth than to sculpt a 'feel good' reality based on denial.

The truth is that murderous psychopaths run the world and elitist brainwash, abstraction abuse, logical fallacies and historical revisionism are their tools.

Wake up, stooge.

Are you a leader of a cult?

tinfoil
01-01-2010, 12:32 PM
obviously correct....it also doesn't account for those blown away by stoners looking for money to buy another bongfull.......or those killed in auto accidents.....


LOL stoners killing people to fill their bong? You are the king of hyperbole.

Good Luck
01-01-2010, 01:36 PM
Whose head is in whose rectal vault?
Yours. So firmly implanted you can use the donkey's nostrils as portholes.


Stop spending money on other programs. Rebuilding two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, while US citizens go without adequate food, shelter and medical care is, to any sane individual, an outrage.
Where have I EVER stated I was in favor of the Iraq war aqnd all it entails? Where did I promote "spending money on other programs"? And what programs do you want to cut? Housing? Food stamps? Federal highways? And let's not mention that the upcoming SS crisis was a major campaign topic BEFORE 9/11 and the entire anti-terrorism military fiasco costing us so many billions. (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenditures planned and proposed by our illustrious leader and the democratic congress.)

But that is neither here nor there. The FACT is SS is SUPPOSED to be self supporting. That is one of the CENTRAL factors of the supposed "advantage" of socialist based programs. Spending in other areas is not supposed to have any effect, one way or the other, on the SS program. But there is socialist "theory" (and I use the term as loosely as socialist theorists do) and then there is reality. Time has proven that a socialist or socialist type program is not and can never be a self supporting system in the long term. The necessity to increase contributions to create a reserve shows the idea of self supporting is failing as far back as the early 80s - less than 50 years after its creation. Even if we were to put all the money borrowed from the SS reserve fund back, at the rate obligations are growing it will STILL be broke before 2050. Then what? Use taxes? Is that a self supporting system? How much of our tax structure do we dedicate to supporting SS before we end up scrapping it (or modifying it, if you prefer that description) to the point it is functionally another capitalist welfare program instead of a socialist program?

ZappasGuitar
01-01-2010, 01:51 PM
So, you are saying that an extramarital affair is something Ensign and Vitter should have been removed from office over? That their personal tribulations are the same as backroom deals in the supposedly open negotiations that Obama insisted would be on CSPAN is the same thing as sleeping around on your wife?

And are you talking about James Terry Sanford? He's not a current Senator and hasn't been for a while it is hard to do that when you are dead. Methinks you mean Governor Sanford who is not a "Conservative Senator" who also had marriage issues.

Has any of those three said that their affairs were "nothing new" and should be ignored? I don't think so. When times come that the people get to see the proverbial sausage being made on the floor of the Senate, we should take advantage of it. Pretending that we should ignore it because it happened in the past is ridiculous. It isn't something we want our leaders to be doing, we should pay attention when something brings the roaches into the light.


If a man is so unethical as to sleep around on the woman he stood in front of God with and SWORE he'd remain faithful to, then YES it is the same, and on many levels it is WORSE.

My apologies, I meant GOVERNOR SANFORD, who last time I checked still called the "family values" party his home. Isn't there a bible quote somewhere about people who live in glass houses?

YES. Remember a time when a Senator or Congressman would be shamed into resignation beause of marital infidelity?

Now? Apparently it's no big ethical concern to the "family values" party.

Good Luck
01-01-2010, 02:19 PM
If a man is so unethical as to sleep around on the woman he stood in front of God with and SWORE he'd remain faithful to, then YES it is the same, and on many levels it is WORSE.
I must agree. If a person is willing to violate a personal oath, what indication is there they take a public oath any more seriously? An oath is an oath, whether it is to another person privately, or to the general public as an elected official. A casual willingness to break personal obligations - and excuse it as a personal matter - does not bode well for how the person views a public obligation.

USFREEDOM911
01-01-2010, 02:20 PM
If a man is so unethical as to sleep around on the woman he stood in front of God with and SWORE he'd remain faithful to, then YES it is the same, and on many levels it is WORSE.

My apologies, I meant GOVERNOR SANFORD, who last time I checked still called the "family values" party his home. Isn't there a bible quote somewhere about people who live in glass houses?

YES. Remember a time when a Senator or Congressman would be shamed into resignation beause of marital infidelity?

Now? Apparently it's no big ethical concern to the "family values" party.


Or the Clintons.

ZappasGuitar
01-01-2010, 02:35 PM
Or the Clintons.

Is Clinton a scumbag for cheating on his wife?

I've said for years now...YES!

Is Mark Sanford as big a scumbag? Yes.

Are Senators Ensign and Vitter scumbags? Absolutely.

USFREEDOM911
01-01-2010, 02:37 PM
Is Clinton a scumbag for cheating on his wife?

I've said for years now...YES!

Is Mark Sanford as big a scumbag? Yes.

Are Senators Ensign and Vitter scumbags? Absolutely.

You were the one that seemed to be obsessed with your "family values" comment.
Or was that your way of showing that Liberals have no family values??

apple0154
01-02-2010, 10:01 AM
Even if we were to put all the money borrowed from the SS reserve fund back, at the rate obligations are growing it will STILL be broke before 2050. Then what? Use taxes? Is that a self supporting system? How much of our tax structure do we dedicate to supporting SS before we end up scrapping it (or modifying it, if you prefer that description) to the point it is functionally another capitalist welfare program instead of a socialist program?

We put in as much money as necessary because to do anything else is to say we can not look after our elderly and not only is that unacceptable it's a damn lie.

What is needed is a minimum income but we all know the familiar refrains such as "stealing from the rich" or "entrapping people" or some other excuse not to help. So what happens? We package an assortment of programs.

One for the elderly. One for single parents. One for the unemployed. A tax credit for "this". A tax deferral plan for "that". A grant here and a subsidy there.

With our technology and wealth it is a lie to say we can not look after each other but there are people who don't believe we should look after each other. That's why the health bill is such a convoluted mess. Everything was picked at and negotiated and bargained down to the minimum or simply excluded.

It doesn't have to be that way.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Yours. So firmly implanted you can use the donkey's nostrils as portholes.


Where have I EVER stated I was in favor of the Iraq war aqnd all it entails? Where did I promote "spending money on other programs"? And what programs do you want to cut? Housing? Food stamps? Federal highways? And let's not mention that the upcoming SS crisis was a major campaign topic BEFORE 9/11 and the entire anti-terrorism military fiasco costing us so many billions. (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenditures planned and proposed by our illustrious leader and the democratic congress.)

But that is neither here nor there. The FACT is SS is SUPPOSED to be self supporting. That is one of the CENTRAL factors of the supposed "advantage" of socialist based programs. Spending in other areas is not supposed to have any effect, one way or the other, on the SS program. But there is socialist "theory" (and I use the term as loosely as socialist theorists do) and then there is reality. Time has proven that a socialist or socialist type program is not and can never be a self supporting system in the long term. The necessity to increase contributions to create a reserve shows the idea of self supporting is failing as far back as the early 80s - less than 50 years after its creation. Even if we were to put all the money borrowed from the SS reserve fund back, at the rate obligations are growing it will STILL be broke before 2050. Then what? Use taxes? Is that a self supporting system? How much of our tax structure do we dedicate to supporting SS before we end up scrapping it (or modifying it, if you prefer that description) to the point it is functionally another capitalist welfare program instead of a socialist program?

Taichiliberal
01-02-2010, 08:56 PM
We put in as much money as necessary because to do anything else is to say we can not look after our elderly and not only is that unacceptable it's a damn lie.

What is needed is a minimum income but we all know the familiar refrains such as "stealing from the rich" or "entrapping people" or some other excuse not to help. So what happens? We package an assortment of programs.

One for the elderly. One for single parents. One for the unemployed. A tax credit for "this". A tax deferral plan for "that". A grant here and a subsidy there.

With our technology and wealth it is a lie to say we can not look after each other but there are people who don't believe we should look after each other. That's why the health bill is such a convoluted mess. Everything was picked at and negotiated and bargained down to the minimum or simply excluded.

It doesn't have to be that way.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What's fascinating to me is how neocons consistently IGNORE the fact that various President's both Dem and Repub have wrongfully dipped into SS to keep afloat the plans/agendas of their individual administration. SS was never intended as a monetary surplus for the ENTIRE American budget every 4 years.

And, as I said before, until someone can actually prove bribery, the neocon parrots are just blowing smoke in their never ending "Say no to Obama" mantras.

Good Luck
01-02-2010, 10:16 PM
We put in as much money as necessary because to do anything else is to say we can not look after our elderly and not only is that unacceptable it's a damn lie.

What is needed is a minimum income but we all know the familiar refrains such as "stealing from the rich" or "entrapping people" or some other excuse not to help. So what happens? We package an assortment of programs.

One for the elderly. One for single parents. One for the unemployed. A tax credit for "this". A tax deferral plan for "that". A grant here and a subsidy there.

With our technology and wealth it is a lie to say we can not look after each other but there are people who don't believe we should look after each other. That's why the health bill is such a convoluted mess. Everything was picked at and negotiated and bargained down to the minimum or simply excluded.

It doesn't have to be that way.
No, it does not have to be that way. But such is the way of the modern liberals and their "progressive" agenda.

There was a time when families took care of their elderly. But the socialist progressives convinced society that making people work for a living until they were no longer able was "wrong". They left out that the primary motivation for retiring people who were still able to work was to make way for upcoming workers. The government (and this is a TIRED old story) created a false economy by retiring workers in order to reduce the 20+% unemployment figures of the depression. In recognition of the fact that a significant minority of people would either choose not to prepare for retirement, or could not, SS was started. They built it on a fable of entitlement, that people should be able to spend at least some portion of their lives living off the rest of society.

And then there is the law of unintended consequences. There is, of course the positives of people being able to spend some of their twilight years doing things they could not do as a member of the work force. But to offset that there was a redefinition of the traditional family. The elderly were put on their own for good AND for bad. The expectation has become that the elderly are to be financially self sufficient, taking the burden of the family (where it belongs) and put on government where they can be manipulated and controlled via economic blackmail to further their power base.

The result is a society that neglects its elderly. We cut them a government check, and leave them alone, either in their own home, or stick them in a nursing home to be paid for by a combination of SS and medicare benefits. The lucky ones get occasional visits from various family members. The less lucky don't even get a birthday card. The days when the elderly were brought into the home of one of their (grand) children to become an integral part of that family's daily interactions, being an asset of experience and wisdom to the (great) grandchildren, has become a rarity instead of standard practice. Today the standard practice is to tuck them away in some convenient government subsidized corner and go about our egocentric entitlement driven lives.

Yes, the fact is we CAN take care of our elderly. And the FACT is we damned well SHOULD be taking care of our elderly instead of letting government doing our jobs for us through an unsustainable system. But there are too many of those who do not think we should be taking care of each other. They think it should be the job of big government, instead.

apple0154
01-03-2010, 06:43 AM
No, it does not have to be that way. But such is the way of the modern liberals and their "progressive" agenda.

There was a time when families took care of their elderly. But the socialist progressives convinced society that making people work for a living until they were no longer able was "wrong". They left out that the primary motivation for retiring people who were still able to work was to make way for upcoming workers. The government (and this is a TIRED old story) created a false economy by retiring workers in order to reduce the 20+% unemployment figures of the depression. In recognition of the fact that a significant minority of people would either choose not to prepare for retirement, or could not, SS was started. They built it on a fable of entitlement, that people should be able to spend at least some portion of their lives living off the rest of society.

Elderly people wear out. They couldn't keep up especially when most jobs back then were physical. They worked themselves into a grave.

What is the point of society progressing and automating labor if everyone does not benefit? Those elderly contributed to society all their lives. We are able to look after them without going without ourselves. That's the point.


And then there is the law of unintended consequences. There is, of course the positives of people being able to spend some of their twilight years doing things they could not do as a member of the work force. But to offset that there was a redefinition of the traditional family. The elderly were put on their own for good AND for bad. The expectation has become that the elderly are to be financially self sufficient, taking the burden of the family (where it belongs) and put on government where they can be manipulated and controlled via economic blackmail to further their power base.

The elderly are to be treated in a decent manner. Families do not and did not look after their elderly. You are confusing cause and effect. SS was started because families didn't look after their elderly. So now families do by way of taxes.


The result is a society that neglects its elderly. We cut them a government check, and leave them alone, either in their own home, or stick them in a nursing home to be paid for by a combination of SS and medicare benefits. The lucky ones get occasional visits from various family members. The less lucky don't even get a birthday card. The days when the elderly were brought into the home of one of their (grand) children to become an integral part of that family's daily interactions, being an asset of experience and wisdom to the (great) grandchildren, has become a rarity instead of standard practice. Today the standard practice is to tuck them away in some convenient government subsidized corner and go about our egocentric entitlement driven lives.

If a person wishes to keep in touch with an elderly family member they will regardless of whether the elderly member receives a government check. Or they will live in the same house and collect the check. Again, the point is the elderly were neglected before SS came along. That's why we have SS.

In a time of war we are obliged to fight for our country. In peace, we are obliged to pay taxes for the common good. It is not a one-way street. The government has an obligation to us, as well.


Yes, the fact is we CAN take care of our elderly. And the FACT is we damned well SHOULD be taking care of our elderly instead of letting government doing our jobs for us through an unsustainable system. But there are too many of those who do not think we should be taking care of each other. They think it should be the job of big government, instead.

Force the family to take in the mother-in-law? All that would do is increase the murder rate! :)

Programs could be sustainable. The government could tax back the benefits if a person's income passes a certain level but then we come to the same old argument, "stealing from the rich."

There are enough resources to help the elderly. The problem is people who don't require assistance want their share when it's not about "shares", it's about helping those in need. It's more of an insurance policy or, at least, it should be.

I believe the solution is a minimum, guaranteed income. When people make money they send some to the government. When they don't make money the government sends some to them. No one is going to live their life looking forward to retiring at the poverty level. A top-up program can ensure everyone has a minimum standard of living.

Do you object to that idea?

Hermes Thoth
01-03-2010, 07:09 AM
What is the point of society progressing and automating labor if everyone does not benefit? Those elderly contributed to society all their lives. We are able to look after them without going without ourselves. That's the point.



The elderly are to be treated in a decent manner. Families do not and did not look after their elderly. You are confusing cause and effect. SS was started because families didn't look after their elderly. So now families do by way of taxes.



But in reality, you guys just promote euthanasia and death panels to deal with the elderly. besides they're just useless breathers; consider the climate impact of allowing these granny farts to collect in the stratosphere.:good4u:

apple0154
01-03-2010, 08:57 AM
But in reality, you guys just promote euthanasia and death panels to deal with the elderly. besides they're just useless breathers; consider the climate impact of allowing these granny farts to collect in the stratosphere.:good4u:

I'm sure the granny farts are no match to your brain farts.

Good Luck
01-03-2010, 04:02 PM
Elderly people wear out. They couldn't keep up especially when most jobs back then were physical. They worked themselves into a grave.

What is the point of society progressing and automating labor if everyone does not benefit? Those elderly contributed to society all their lives. We are able to look after them without going without ourselves. That's the point.
Like I said - the myth of entitlement. People still believe in it. Somehow working for part of your life entitles you to lifetime income without saving for it yourself. Nice theory, but then reality comes along and fucks up the little idealist dream world.

Automation does not, itself, allow for anything more than supporting a larger population. Automation quadruples our productivity - meanwhile population multiplies by five. Do the math.



The elderly are to be treated in a decent manner. Families do not and did not look after their elderly. You are confusing cause and effect. SS was started because families didn't look after their elderly. So now families do by way of taxes.

If a person wishes to keep in touch with an elderly family member they will regardless of whether the elderly member receives a government check. Or they will live in the same house and collect the check. Again, the point is the elderly were neglected before SS came along. That's why we have SS.
The bolded parts are a big fucking modern liberal lie. The reason for encouraging retirement of middle and lower classed people (upper class already had retirement programs) was to open their jobs up to younger people in an effort to gain control over unemployment. All kind of bullshit excuses and lies were used to cover the real reason: make the elderly get out of the way for the younger generation. Cycle them through. Put them out to pasture.

The TRUTH is it is the liberal SS program that has led to neglect and dismissal of the elderly, because the liberals convinced enough of society to push the "problem" of their parents/grandparents off on the government. Retirement homes were not very popular before SS, after SS they became a significant part of the economy.



In a time of war we are obliged to fight for our country. In peace, we are obliged to pay taxes for the common good. It is not a one-way street. The government has an obligation to us, as well.
And again you take the liberal mantra. What of one individual's responsibility to their neighbor? Why is it you MUST make it government's job? Too "busy" to get your hands dirty doing it yourself? Why is it the Liberal's advocation for helping others is always via government using other people's money? Too selfish to share what's in your wallet without some law to make it mandatory?


Force the family to take in the mother-in-law? All that would do is increase the murder rate! :)
Force was never an issue before liberals decided it is the government's job to do all these things. People did it because they understood personal responsibility.


Programs could be sustainable. The government could tax back the benefits if a person's income passes a certain level but then we come to the same old argument, "stealing from the rich."
What happens when you run out of rich to steal from? The central point is, according to socialist economic theory, programs like Social Security are SUPPOSED to be self sustaining. They are not and time proves that socialistic theory has more holes than a screen door. What has grown beyond self sustainability will also grow beyond the ability of the tax base to sustain. In short, socialism of any type is a house of cards. Always has been, always will be.


There are enough resources to help the elderly. The problem is people who don't require assistance want their share when it's not about "shares", it's about helping those in need. It's more of an insurance policy or, at least, it should be.
No, the PROBLEM is your philosophy has convinced people it's not their responsibility to care for their own. Convince them to put everything on government and eschew any personal responsibility, and then wonder why people turn selfish.


I believe the solution is a minimum, guaranteed income. When people make money they send some to the government. When they don't make money the government sends some to them. No one is going to live their life looking forward to retiring at the poverty level. A top-up program can ensure everyone has a minimum standard of living.
And where does the wealth come from to assure your idea of minimum standard of living? Gonna start printing thousand dollar bills by the metric ton? What happens when they become so devalued peopl use them for toilet paper? Gonna tax the rich? What happens when you run out of rich to tax?

Or, how about taking it a step farther? Why not just have everyone send in everything they make, then the all-benevolent government can redistribute it according to need. Or better yet, eliminate money entirely. Just build all the houses we need and furnish them with couches and beds and TVs and microwave ovens. Take all the food and distribute it according to need - so much per person per month brought to the door by delivery truck. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." The description of utopia.

Oops, then there is reality. It'll never happen. (nor will your "idea") A system that rewards sloth with a non-poverty minimum standard of living is doomed to failure.

apple0154
01-03-2010, 08:25 PM
Like I said - the myth of entitlement. People still believe in it. Somehow working for part of your life entitles you to lifetime income without saving for it yourself. Nice theory, but then reality comes along and fucks up the little idealist dream world.

Automation does not, itself, allow for anything more than supporting a larger population. Automation quadruples our productivity - meanwhile population multiplies by five. Do the math.

"The overall fertility rate increased 2 percent between 2005 and 2006, nudging the average number of babies being born to each woman to 2.1, according to the latest federal statistics. That marks the first time since 1971 that the rate has reached a crucial benchmark of population growth: the ability of each generation to replace itself..........

The rate dipped below replacement level in 1972 and hit a low of 1.7 in 1976, but it started rising again in the late 1970s. It climbed steadily through the 1980s, hovering close to but never hitting the replacement rate throughout the '90s. The population rose steadily nevertheless, however, because, in part, of immigration."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725.html

As you can see the population did not soar past our ability to support them.

A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level.


The TRUTH is it is the liberal SS program that has led to neglect and dismissal of the elderly, because the liberals convinced enough of society to push the "problem" of their parents/grandparents off on the government. Retirement homes were not very popular before SS, after SS they became a significant part of the economy.

Not everyone looked after the elderly before. Sure, more people did than they do today, however, there were a lot who were left homeless.

The problem was rather that just help the needy the people wanted something for themselves before they would contribute. It is no different than what the medical plan is facing.

I mentioned before I agreed with Damocles regarding leaving the medical system alone and just helping the needy but like SS the greedy interests won't go along unless there's something in it for them.


And again you take the liberal mantra. What of one individual's responsibility to their neighbor? Why is it you MUST make it government's job? Too "busy" to get your hands dirty doing it yourself? Why is it the Liberal's advocation for helping others is always via government using other people's money? Too selfish to share what's in your wallet without some law to make it mandatory?

Times and circumstances have changed. People can live in a high rise and not even know the names of their neighbors who live a hundred feet away. How do we expect them to know who needs help? Also, people move. They are not connected to their community.

For example, when people lived in small communities they knew each other and who required help. They contributed to their community over their lifespan. Today, people don't stay in one place long enough to contribute so they contribute through taxes. Then the government, knowing each individual through tax records, government agencies,etc., knows who requires help.

If you believe one has a responsibility to help their neighbor what do you have against the government looking after that considering they have the details on who requires help? Unless you have lived in your community for years how do you know who needs help? Do you know if the family who lives on the next street requires more help than your immediate neighbor?


Force was never an issue before liberals decided it is the government's job to do all these things. People did it because they understood personal responsibility.

And because they knew who to help. Our mobile society has changed all that.


What happens when you run out of rich to steal from? The central point is, according to socialist economic theory, programs like Social Security are SUPPOSED to be self sustaining. They are not and time proves that socialistic theory has more holes than a screen door. What has grown beyond self sustainability will also grow beyond the ability of the tax base to sustain. In short, socialism of any type is a house of cards. Always has been, always will be.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. You wrote, "What of one individual's responsibility to their neighbor?" and now it appears you're saying we can't sustain helping our neighbors.


No, the PROBLEM is your philosophy has convinced people it's not their responsibility to care for their own. Convince them to put everything on government and eschew any personal responsibility, and then wonder why people turn selfish.

Not at all. My philosophy is rather than have, say, a man get a job offer in a neighboring State and have to uproot his mother or father-in law to move along with the family he can now pay taxes and mom and pop can stay in their community where they have friends and social connections. Or do you suggest someone's 75 year old parent get out there and make new friends in a new community? Talk about isolating the elderly.


And where does the wealth come from to assure your idea of minimum standard of living? Gonna start printing thousand dollar bills by the metric ton? What happens when they become so devalued peopl use them for toilet paper? Gonna tax the rich? What happens when you run out of rich to tax?

It's not just taxing the rich. If a person had to pay for their elderly parent's medical care and room and board they wouldn't have the money for that new boat. So, rather than have some elderly person living with their family where they are bitter about having to pay for grandpa just pay taxes and let the government look after grandpa's needs. Then we have something like medicare where all grandpas are covered.

Suppose there was no medicare.What do you think would happen if a family had to pay for one of the grandparent's medical bills? The sweet gal you married just happens to have a mother that requires a good slice of your paycheck for medication. How would that sit with you?


Or, how about taking it a step farther? Why not just have everyone send in everything they make, then the all-benevolent government can redistribute it according to need. Or better yet, eliminate money entirely. Just build all the houses we need and furnish them with couches and beds and TVs and microwave ovens. Take all the food and distribute it according to need - so much per person per month brought to the door by delivery truck. "From each according to ability, to each according to need." The description of utopia.

Oops, then there is reality. It'll never happen. (nor will your "idea") A system that rewards sloth with a non-poverty minimum standard of living is doomed to failure.

Again, one does not work all their life looking forward to a poverty level retirement. Healthy, happy people are not sloths. That's the point some people can't grasp.

It's human nature to want to better oneself. Sure, there are exceptions but on the whole healthy, happy people take pride in accomplishing things. Those who end up getting government assistance in their old age did not plan it that way. That was not their goal.

PostmodernProphet
01-04-2010, 06:46 AM
Isn't there a bible quote somewhere about people who live in glass houses?


lol, no.....that comes from Ben Franklin actually....

ZappasGuitar
01-04-2010, 01:37 PM
lol, no.....that comes from Ben Franklin actually....

Well smack my ass and call me Sally!

I've been mixing my metaphors again!

Got to stay away from this place when I'm indulging my love of barley pops....

Damocles
01-04-2010, 02:20 PM
lol, no.....that comes from Ben Franklin actually....
So does the one about gods helping those who help themselves...

apple0154
01-04-2010, 06:29 PM
So does the one about gods helping those who help themselves...

God helps those who help themselves, however, God help those caught helping themselves!

Good Luck
01-04-2010, 10:23 PM
A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level.
Yet when we propose a cover-only-the-needy type health care plan, you claim it cannot work. Again, you bite your own tail.

Which is it to be? Government plans that only cover the needy, or all encompassing socialist plans? Make up your mind.


As for the rest, I strongly suggest you study some social history. The current state of mobile population came about because people were no longer tied to family due to government programs which (deliberately?) weakened or eliminated those ties. Of course business is going to take full advantage of the new attitudes that diminish interpersonal relationships, but had the attitudes of society not turned to government to accept what was once considered personal responsibility, there is no way the current trend of moving employees around like chess pieces would never have come about.

And the rest of your post, asking about resentment for this, resentment for that, is the diatribe of the selfishness and egocentrism of modern liberalism. Why SHOULD people resent taking care of family? Do you consider it a normal attitude to resent caring for an unusually sick child? The why should such attitudes apply to the elder members of the family, who put THEIR lives on hold to raise the generation now resenting them for being a burden? It's the bullshit of pure egocentrism fed to the current generations under the lie of a progressive society "caring" for others. (How is handing it of to an amorphous entity under government "caring"? Caring means PERSONAL involvement. Handing the job to some impersonal agency is NOT caring, it is the act of assuaging guilt feelings that result from self indulgent egocentrism.

And to directly answer your question, I quite like my mother-in-law. She's one hell of a lady, not to mention the best cook in the lower 48. If something were to happen so she became a dependent, I would feel honored if she chose my household. If she were to have any type of financial troubles, I have no problem with providing any assistance she needs. And my wife had no problems with the situation when it was my father who needed our support.

When the care of the elderly was expected to be a personal responsibility, there was no resentment of it except by an unusually selfish minority; just as today there is no resentment of children by parents - except by an unusually selfish minority. It was progressivism that has promoted the idea that families - and neighbors - should push their obligations off on the government. The result is a society which focuses on the self - career, hobbies, self-indulgence. Anything that gets in the way of that takes a second seat. Don't get to know the neighbors, you may not want to move when your next promotion comes through. Wife or husband gets in the way of pursuit of happiness - dump them under no-fault divorce laws. Parents - they have their SS check. Send them greeting cards as various occasions call for. If they get sick, stick them in a nursing home. Children - dump them in day care, after school care, etc. - that is, those who are not killed out of hand before birth because they are not wanted.

The entire philosophy that has been erroneously labeled liberalism is based on and focused on individual self indulgence. It wants government to accept responsibility for the elderly because caring for ones own family members might be too much a bother. Progressivism promotes government to be the primary provider for the poor, because people who promote it are too egocentric to bother with it themselves. Pay taxes, (BUT MAKE SURE SOMEONE ELSE PAYS MORE TAXES) and send an occasional check to a favored charity is the outside limit people expect of themselves. Liberalism has attacked marriage, family, community, and society all under the "Don't I deserve to be happy?" mantra. Yet, hypocritically, they point to conservatives as the selfish ones for resenting the support of untold numbers of government officials and bureaucrats with unacceptably high tax rates advertised as helping the needy.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 06:03 AM
So apple believes the cost of healthcare should be all one's worldly assets?

That's price fixing. never effective.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 06:24 AM
This Cadillac Man
Needs a Cadillac Plan
And a bronze tan

apple0154
01-05-2010, 07:29 AM
Yet when we propose a cover-only-the-needy type health care plan, you claim it cannot work. Again, you bite your own tail.

Which is it to be? Government plans that only cover the needy, or all encompassing socialist plans? Make up your mind.

You just don't get it, do you? When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it. Look at welfare. Which is the more common refrain; "I feel empathy for the individual on welfare" or "Just another lazy bum"?

If, and that's a big "if", the government would implement a cover-only-the-needy type plan it would be better for all, however, for a number of reasons those type of plans seldom pass. There has to be something in it for everyone which is why SS is structured the way it is and which is why medical has to be universal.

As I mentioned before people rant about someone getting a welfare check.

(EXCERPT)However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.(END)
http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/

Imagine when a medical bill comes in for 10 or 20 thousand or 40 or 50 thousand. HA!


When the care of the elderly was expected to be a personal responsibility, there was no resentment of it except by an unusually selfish minority;

So what happens to the elderly person who has an unusually selfish family? Do we let him starve or do we give him SS? Do we force families to live together?

The rest of your post details exactly why we need social programs; from children not being supported to broken marriages to neglect of the elderly.

Try and understand those things were happening before programs were implemented. Maybe not on as large a scale but those are the reasons programs were implemented in the first place.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Yet when we propose a cover-only-the-needy type health care plan, you claim it cannot work. Again, you bite your own tail.

Which is it to be? Government plans that only cover the needy, or all encompassing socialist plans? Make up your mind.


As for the rest, I strongly suggest you study some social history. The current state of mobile population came about because people were no longer tied to family due to government programs which (deliberately?) weakened or eliminated those ties. Of course business is going to take full advantage of the new attitudes that diminish interpersonal relationships, but had the attitudes of society not turned to government to accept what was once considered personal responsibility, there is no way the current trend of moving employees around like chess pieces would never have come about.

And the rest of your post, asking about resentment for this, resentment for that, is the diatribe of the selfishness and egocentrism of modern liberalism. Why SHOULD people resent taking care of family? Do you consider it a normal attitude to resent caring for an unusually sick child? The why should such attitudes apply to the elder members of the family, who put THEIR lives on hold to raise the generation now resenting them for being a burden? It's the bullshit of pure egocentrism fed to the current generations under the lie of a progressive society "caring" for others. (How is handing it of to an amorphous entity under government "caring"? Caring means PERSONAL involvement. Handing the job to some impersonal agency is NOT caring, it is the act of assuaging guilt feelings that result from self indulgent egocentrism.

And to directly answer your question, I quite like my mother-in-law. She's one hell of a lady, not to mention the best cook in the lower 48. If something were to happen so she became a dependent, I would feel honored if she chose my household. If she were to have any type of financial troubles, I have no problem with providing any assistance she needs. And my wife had no problems with the situation when it was my father who needed our support.

When the care of the elderly was expected to be a personal responsibility, there was no resentment of it except by an unusually selfish minority; just as today there is no resentment of children by parents - except by an unusually selfish minority. It was progressivism that has promoted the idea that families - and neighbors - should push their obligations off on the government. The result is a society which focuses on the self - career, hobbies, self-indulgence. Anything that gets in the way of that takes a second seat. Don't get to know the neighbors, you may not want to move when your next promotion comes through. Wife or husband gets in the way of pursuit of happiness - dump them under no-fault divorce laws. Parents - they have their SS check. Send them greeting cards as various occasions call for. If they get sick, stick them in a nursing home. Children - dump them in day care, after school care, etc. - that is, those who are not killed out of hand before birth because they are not wanted.

The entire philosophy that has been erroneously labeled liberalism is based on and focused on individual self indulgence. It wants government to accept responsibility for the elderly because caring for ones own family members might be too much a bother. Progressivism promotes government to be the primary provider for the poor, because people who promote it are too egocentric to bother with it themselves. Pay taxes, (BUT MAKE SURE SOMEONE ELSE PAYS MORE TAXES) and send an occasional check to a favored charity is the outside limit people expect of themselves. Liberalism has attacked marriage, family, community, and society all under the "Don't I deserve to be happy?" mantra. Yet, hypocritically, they point to conservatives as the selfish ones for resenting the support of untold numbers of government officials and bureaucrats with unacceptably high tax rates advertised as helping the needy.

apple0154
01-05-2010, 07:41 AM
So apple believes the cost of healthcare should be all one's worldly assets?

Huh?

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 07:52 AM
Huh?

What?

apple0154
01-05-2010, 07:56 AM
What?

Where do you get the idea I believe healthcare should be all one's worldly assets?

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 08:07 AM
"A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level. "



Doy.

apple0154
01-05-2010, 08:08 AM
"A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level. "



Doy.

That was referring to SS, not medical.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 08:10 AM
That was referring to SS, not medical.

SUUUURE it was.

Should SS cost all our worldy assets?

apple0154
01-05-2010, 08:20 AM
SUUUURE it was.

Should SS cost all our worldy assets?

In msg 194 I wrote, "A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level."

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 08:44 AM
In msg 194 I wrote, "A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level."

Why would receiving ss mean giving up major assets?

Damocles
01-05-2010, 08:48 AM
Why would receiving ss mean giving up major assets?
Because you have to "show need"... We all pay in, only those who "show need" get to partake in the subsistence program. In his mind the perfect plan is one that everybody pays into, but only those he deems worthy by class get to actually participate in.

IMO, the perfect plan would be one that ensures people save, but when they retire they get to spend the money they saved and pass it on to future generations. The only people spending others money would be on welfare, and very rare as almost all would have saved per the "plan" while they worked. Instead we have a ponzi scheme where we all pay in, and never get a positive return.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 08:57 AM
Because you have to "show need"... We all pay in, only those who "show need" get to partake in the subsistence program. In his mind the perfect plan is one that everybody pays into, but only those he deems worthy by class get to actually participate in.

IMO, the perfect plan would be one that ensures people save, but when they retire they get to spend the money they saved and pass it on to future generations. The only people spending others money would be on welfare, and very rare as almost all would have saved per the "plan" while they worked. Instead we have a ponzi scheme where we all pay in, and never get a positive return.

That's what i thought too.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 08:58 AM
Libtards get fucked up tag team style here, above the plane.

USFREEDOM911
01-05-2010, 10:18 AM
You just don't get it, do you? When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it. Look at welfare. Which is the more common refrain; "I feel empathy for the individual on welfare" or "Just another lazy bum"?

If, and that's a big "if", the government would implement a cover-only-the-needy type plan it would be better for all, however, for a number of reasons those type of plans seldom pass. There has to be something in it for everyone which is why SS is structured the way it is and which is why medical has to be universal.

As I mentioned before people rant about someone getting a welfare check.

(EXCERPT)However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300.(END)
http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/

Imagine when a medical bill comes in for 10 or 20 thousand or 40 or 50 thousand. HA!



So what happens to the elderly person who has an unusually selfish family? Do we let him starve or do we give him SS? Do we force families to live together?

The rest of your post details exactly why we need social programs; from children not being supported to broken marriages to neglect of the elderly.

Try and understand those things were happening before programs were implemented. Maybe not on as large a scale but those are the reasons programs were implemented in the first place.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



You've been watching the STAR TREK marathon again, haven't you!! :good4u:

apple0154
01-05-2010, 10:33 AM
Why would receiving ss mean giving up major assets?

IF the program was run on an as-needed scheme but it isn't.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 10:44 AM
IF the program was run on an as-needed scheme but it isn't.

THEN what?

and furthermore, why?

apple0154
01-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Because you have to "show need"... We all pay in, only those who "show need" get to partake in the subsistence program. In his mind the perfect plan is one that everybody pays into, but only those he deems worthy by class get to actually participate in.

IMO, the perfect plan would be one that ensures people save, but when they retire they get to spend the money they saved and pass it on to future generations. The only people spending others money would be on welfare, and very rare as almost all would have saved per the "plan" while they worked. Instead we have a ponzi scheme where we all pay in, and never get a positive return.

Thank-you, Damocles. Twice.

Once for your explanation in the first paragraph although "class" should read "need" and, again, for the second paragraph which is why I wrote in msg 202, "When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it."

That's why anything less than universal health care does not work.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 10:47 AM
How does someone answer a question starting with half of an if/ then statement?

what an idiot.

apple0154
01-05-2010, 10:53 AM
You've been watching the STAR TREK marathon again, haven't you!! :good4u:

Actually, I rented the new one and watched it last night. :)

http://www.startrekmovie.com/

apple0154
01-05-2010, 10:57 AM
THEN what?

and furthermore, why?

Huh?

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 11:17 AM
Huh?

You still didn't answer why in your ideal system people would lose all assets if they used the service.

Damocles
01-05-2010, 12:48 PM
Thank-you, Damocles. Twice.

Once for your explanation in the first paragraph although "class" should read "need" and, again, for the second paragraph which is why I wrote in msg 202, "When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it."

That's why anything less than universal health care does not work.
You are mixing programs and confusing your own argument. We are speaking of Social Security.

Your "ideal" would be one where only those who are in need partake and then stress that it "wouldn't work" because people "wouldn't like it" and then throw in health care without regard to the subject at hand.

I suggest we give welfare to those that need it rather than force all people into it regardless of need, including that of health care. I also suggest (now talking about SS so you won't get confused) that people be subject to enforced savings (like SS, but with an actual account) that they can spend at will upon retirement passing the unused portion to their family as it is theirs and we save the insurance program for those who are in need rather than forcing everybody into subsistence welfare that never pays a return, one that they are forced to pay a lifetime for without regard for value to cost.

apple0154
01-05-2010, 12:55 PM
You still didn't answer why in your ideal system people would lose all assets if they used the service.

You're such a comical fella. I and Damocles explained it to you.

This is the last time so listen up. The service would be reserved for people who didn't have resources. An extreme example would be a guy who lived in a one room apartment rather than the guy who lived in and owned a million dollar home.

If you are still unable to comprehend I can't help you any further.

Does that face paint contain lead? Are you aware lead poisoning has been linked to learning disabilities?

apple0154
01-05-2010, 02:19 PM
You are mixing programs and confusing your own argument. We are speaking of Social Security.

Your "ideal" would be one where only those who are in need partake and then stress that it "wouldn't work" because people "wouldn't like it" and then throw in health care without regard to the subject at hand.

Health care and SS have the same thing in common. There was a need to help some of the elderly, however, if the government simply decided to base help on a "need basis" people would have cried, "Stealing from the rich" so SS was made universal.

The same problem exists with medical. To imply the current system could stay the same while help would be available for those who couldn't afford it is the perfect example of what Obama describes as "old, worn out arguments". It doesn't work.

While people like to describe a universal system as the government trying to put everyone into a mediocre system the reality of it is some of the people do not want others getting something for nothing. If that wasn't the case the solution would be simple. Keep your plan and help pay for your neighbor. Problem solved.

Some people call it human nature but I see it as cultural/societal indoctrination when it comes to helping people. How can we, as a society, place true value on helping others when the "goal in life" is to be financially superior to as many people as possible?

There was a time when feeding someone meant we had less food. Before technology there was a limited amount of work one man could do. Helping one with life's necessities meant the helper did without themselves. That is not the case today.


I suggest we give welfare to those that need it rather than force all people into it regardless of need, including that of health care. I also suggest (now talking about SS so you won't get confused) that people be subject to enforced savings (like SS, but with an actual account) that they can spend at will upon retirement passing the unused portion to their family as it is theirs and we save the insurance program for those who are in need rather than forcing everybody into subsistence welfare that never pays a return, one that they are forced to pay a lifetime for without regard for value to cost.

That's fine but we're still going to end up with the same problem. The guy who works at a small, family owned business is not going to make anywhere near the equivalent of the fella who works for a large, multi-national company with benefits or even a decent sized, unionized company. There will always be those requiring assistance. Where do we get the money to help them?

Was it you who said 85% of the people are happy with their medical insurance plans? Let's say 85% of the people retire comfortably. What leads you to believe the 85% of retirees who are happy are going to be willing to pay for the 15% of retirees who require assistance when the 85% of those who are happy with their medical coverage rant about paying higher taxes to help the people requiring medical assistance?

Regardless of how logical it sounds it just does not work. Look at all the welfare schemes/plans/benefits.

"These programs are cash assistance (TANF), the child support program, child care, energy or utility assistance, food assistance, medical assistance, and vocational rehabilitation services." http://www.welfareinfo.org/programs/

Imagine retirees having a somewhat similar set-up. Who qualifies for what? Where they live? Who they live with? Are their benefits reduced if they look after their grandchildren part time?

It would be a nightmare. Why? Because many people always think someone is getting something for nothing. It doesn't matter if a person is living in abject poverty. Let them account for that extra hot dog. Show need for that Kraft Dinner.

It's a disgusting shame when they live in a country of plenty.

(Nothing like a good rant to make one feel better.) :)

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 02:23 PM
You're such a comical fella. I and Damocles explained it to you.

This is the last time so listen up. The service would be reserved for people who didn't have resources. An extreme example would be a guy who lived in a one room apartment rather than the guy who lived in and owned a million dollar home.

If you are still unable to comprehend I can't help you any further.

Does that face paint contain lead? Are you aware lead poisoning has been linked to learning disabilities?

Damo was mocking you, you cretin.

Hermes Thoth
01-05-2010, 02:30 PM
While people like to describe a universal system as the government trying to put everyone into a mediocre system the reality of it is some of the people do not want others getting something for nothing.


Wrong. When lefties like you insist on full control of healthcare, it's really to extend state power over life and death, and to implement your eugenics plans.

Damocles
01-05-2010, 03:35 PM
Health care and SS have the same thing in common. There was a need to help some of the elderly, however, if the government simply decided to base help on a "need basis" people would have cried, "Stealing from the rich" so SS was made universal.

The same problem exists with medical. To imply the current system could stay the same while help would be available for those who couldn't afford it is the perfect example of what Obama describes as "old, worn out arguments". It doesn't work.

While people like to describe a universal system as the government trying to put everyone into a mediocre system the reality of it is some of the people do not want others getting something for nothing. If that wasn't the case the solution would be simple. Keep your plan and help pay for your neighbor. Problem solved.

Some people call it human nature but I see it as cultural/societal indoctrination when it comes to helping people. How can we, as a society, place true value on helping others when the "goal in life" is to be financially superior to as many people as possible?

There was a time when feeding someone meant we had less food. Before technology there was a limited amount of work one man could do. Helping one with life's necessities meant the helper did without themselves. That is not the case today.



That's fine but we're still going to end up with the same problem. The guy who works at a small, family owned business is not going to make anywhere near the equivalent of the fella who works for a large, multi-national company with benefits or even a decent sized, unionized company. There will always be those requiring assistance. Where do we get the money to help them?

Was it you who said 85% of the people are happy with their medical insurance plans? Let's say 85% of the people retire comfortably. What leads you to believe the 85% of retirees who are happy are going to be willing to pay for the 15% of retirees who require assistance when the 85% of those who are happy with their medical coverage rant about paying higher taxes to help the people requiring medical assistance?

Regardless of how logical it sounds it just does not work. Look at all the welfare schemes/plans/benefits.

"These programs are cash assistance (TANF), the child support program, child care, energy or utility assistance, food assistance, medical assistance, and vocational rehabilitation services." http://www.welfareinfo.org/programs/

Imagine retirees having a somewhat similar set-up. Who qualifies for what? Where they live? Who they live with? Are their benefits reduced if they look after their grandchildren part time?

It would be a nightmare. Why? Because many people always think someone is getting something for nothing. It doesn't matter if a person is living in abject poverty. Let them account for that extra hot dog. Show need for that Kraft Dinner.

It's a disgusting shame when they live in a country of plenty.

(Nothing like a good rant to make one feel better.) :)
What makes me think that? Because they already do. On top of paying for them they are also forced into inadequate plans that have no value to cost.

USFREEDOM911
01-05-2010, 10:30 PM
Actually, I rented the new one and watched it last night. :)

http://www.startrekmovie.com/


It is OH-SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO obvious.

Good Luck
01-05-2010, 10:56 PM
You just don't get it, do you? When there is a plan to cover only the needy people generally don't like it. Look at welfare. Which is the more common refrain; "I feel empathy for the individual on welfare" or "Just another lazy bum"?

If, and that's a big "if", the government would implement a cover-only-the-needy type plan it would be better for all, however, for a number of reasons those type of plans seldom pass. There has to be something in it for everyone which is why SS is structured the way it is and which is why medical has to be universal.

As I mentioned before people rant about someone getting a welfare check.
I am the one who does not get it? YOU were the one who was advocating changing SS to a system which only covers those who need it, in order to make it sustainable over the long term.


A plan, properly structured, would only pay out to those in need. People would not take advantage of it because it would mean they would have to retire without major assets and be content to live at a basic level.
Those are your words, speaking about a properly designed SS plan. Cover the needy only. Limited in scope, limited in power. Yet then you make a complete about-face and claim it cannot work for health care because people would COMPLAIN too much for it to pass? And to support your idiotic stance, you use welfare plans, which are aimed only at the needy, which people complain about, and yet WHICH PASSED INTO LAW!!

Your whole defense of a universal plan over a free market plan with a government provided safety net is based on self-conflicted arguments.

The point is that Security Security, AS DESIGNED, is not sustainable in the long term. It will (has already) outgrown its revenue source and will need ever increasing subsidies until the burden of subsidy collapses the whole network. The only way to keep it going is to substantially redesign the program, increasing revenue sources (tax the rich) and limiting benefits to a narrowed band of the population (give to the poor), which you yourself admit, and support.

So what makes you think a universal health care plan will fare any better in the long run? SS is doomed to failure, yet you want another plan based on the same structure. Talk about the working definition of insanity. A universal health care plan is doomed to outgrowing its revenue sources, requiring ever increasing subsidies exactly as SS has proven. The end result, as will eventually happen with SS, will be a revamp where the universal socialist part is tossed in the garbage where it belongs, and a sustainable plan replace it where the only wealth redistribution will be for the actual needy. If that is the inevitable end result, why the hell not start out that way and forgo all the future troubles, to include massive deficit spending on a failed program until people finally give up and scrap the stupid plan for something that is more sustainable?

Your insistence that we only go with universal because that is what can be passed is assinine in the extreme. It's a stupid lame assed excuse, which has been pointed out many times before. You have been brain washed by your liberal philosophy into believing a universal plan is the only idea that will work because they TOLD you so. Drag your brains out of the donkey's ass and think for yourself for once.




So what happens to the elderly person who has an unusually selfish family? Do we let him starve or do we give him SS?
Duh! Help them. Why is it you keep trying to imply not using over size government bureaucracies means not helping at all? Why do you insist we have to give to everyone in order to give to those who need it? Because lame assed excuses and self conflicting rhetoric are your only defense for supporting an ever increasing usurpation of power by the government.



The rest of your post details exactly why we need social programs; from children not being supported to broken marriages to neglect of the elderly.
No, there was a need for ASSISTANCE programs. Making them into social programs is what has caused more problems than they relieved.


Try and understand those things were happening before programs were implemented. Maybe not on as large a scale but those are the reasons programs were implemented in the first place.
EXACTLY. When the dipshits came out with their entitlement BS, the resulting programs ENCOURAGE the very factors that result in the need for a support programs in the first place. The more we spend on socialist based government programs, the more it grows. If the types of programs you support work, why is it the dependency on those programs has ballooned since their inception?

What you cannot see (rectal walls in the way of seeing reality) is the entire government "help" system was DESIGNED with those results in mind. They saw a real problem, and USED it to create in the minds of the gullible, the selfish, and egocentric the "need" for huge government bureaucracies, and ever increasing government encroachments on economic factors until the whole structure is based on a complex interaction of government-sponsored playing card houses. Your purpose I can acknowledge is honorable, but you have joined a corrupted philosophy whose real purpose is subjugation of the lower classes to provide a steady -and growing through a continually diminished middle class- power base.

apple0154
01-06-2010, 06:12 AM
Damo was mocking you, you cretin.

Noooooooo. Reeeeeally?

You are a comical fella. Your picture evokes a feel-good feeling similar to the smile button. :)

Hermes Thoth
01-06-2010, 06:13 AM
Noooooooo. Reeeeeally?

You are a comical fella. Your picture evokes a feel-good feeling similar to the smile button. :)

You have mutated genitalia.

apple0154
01-06-2010, 06:15 AM
Wrong. When lefties like you insist on full control of healthcare, it's really to extend state power over life and death, and to implement your eugenics plans.

Where do you get such strange ideas?

Hermes Thoth
01-06-2010, 06:17 AM
Where do you get such strange ideas?

Smashing my nuts in a vise until i enter a paranormal state.

apple0154
01-06-2010, 07:50 AM
Those are your words, speaking about a properly designed SS plan. Cover the needy only. Limited in scope, limited in power. Yet then you make a complete about-face and claim it cannot work for health care because people would COMPLAIN too much for it to pass? And to support your idiotic stance, you use welfare plans, which are aimed only at the needy, which people complain about, and yet WHICH PASSED INTO LAW!!

Your whole defense of a universal plan over a free market plan with a government provided safety net is based on self-conflicted arguments.

Do try to follow along. As I noted in my previous post a welfare type set-up for SS would be a nightmare because of the special programs, the entitlement requirements, the exclusions,etc, etc, etc. would drive elderly folks insane.

The easiest way is to tax back the benefits using a sliding scale as some other countries already do. Here's an example. Let's say ones SS benefit is $1000/mth. If their total income is $20,000/yr or less they are entitled to the full amount.

The next person has a total yearly income of $40,000. They collect their $1000 monthly check and when filing income tax they have to pay back a portion of the $12,000 they collected that year. Say $3,000, just to post a figure.

The next person's yearly income is $80,000. They collect their $1000 monthly check and when they file income tax they have to pay back $6,000.

No one is going to plan their retirement so they collect only $20,000/yr so they'll be entitled to $12,000 from SS if they can plan for a $40,000/yr retirement and collect $9,000 from the government.

The point is everyone will be covered based on need and few, if any, will take advantage of the system.


So what makes you think a universal health care plan will fare any better in the long run?

Lack of greed as a motivating factor. Even though one pays into a universal health plan they will not insist on collecting benefits by deliberately breaking their arm. In a sense it's self-policing. Only those who require medical attention will receive it which is not the case with SS. Everyone receives SS whether or not they require it.


SS is doomed to failure, yet you want another plan based on the same structure. Talk about the working definition of insanity. A universal health care plan is doomed to outgrowing its revenue sources, requiring ever increasing subsidies exactly as SS has proven.

No, it won't. As I explained above everyone wants the benefits of SS. Such is not the case with medical. People are not going to be breaking bones and deliberately contracting illnesses so as to be able to benefit from free medical.

To say a country can not afford a universal medical plan is to say the country is unable to look after it's ill which is not only utter nonsense but borders on the barbaric.


Your insistence that we only go with universal because that is what can be passed is assinine in the extreme. It's a stupid lame assed excuse, which has been pointed out many times before. You have been brain washed by your liberal philosophy into believing a universal plan is the only idea that will work because they TOLD you so. Drag your brains out of the donkey's ass and think for yourself for once.

Why do you have such an aversion to learning?


Duh! Help them. Why is it you keep trying to imply not using over size government bureaucracies means not helping at all? Why do you insist we have to give to everyone in order to give to those who need it? Because lame assed excuses and self conflicting rhetoric are your only defense for supporting an ever increasing usurpation of power by the government.

Learn. Please learn. People won't contribute to programs unless there is something in it for them. The solution to SS is to tax back the benefits. As far as medical goes people hope they won't have to collect.

If you want to see the result of a "help as needed only" program check out welfare. Assorted governments have changed coverage on a whim. Obstacle courses have been set up to deliberately prevent people from receiving assistance. Is that how you want medical and pension plans to be run, government agencies whose only task is to trip people up, to set up entitlement requirements so they can poke through every aspect of your life?


EXACTLY. When the dipshits came out with their entitlement BS, the resulting programs ENCOURAGE the very factors that result in the need for a support programs in the first place. The more we spend on socialist based government programs, the more it grows. If the types of programs you support work, why is it the dependency on those programs has ballooned since their inception?

I explained that. Society has changed. People are more mobile. Extended families do not inhabit a large farm house and live out their lives there. But more importantly people find they are better off being mobile and can afford to support an elderly parent even though they are not living together.


What you cannot see (rectal walls in the way of seeing reality) is the entire government "help" system was DESIGNED with those results in mind. They saw a real problem, and USED it to create in the minds of the gullible, the selfish, and egocentric the "need" for huge government bureaucracies, and ever increasing government encroachments on economic factors until the whole structure is based on a complex interaction of government-sponsored playing card houses. Your purpose I can acknowledge is honorable, but you have joined a corrupted philosophy whose real purpose is subjugation of the lower classes to provide a steady -and growing through a continually diminished middle class- power base.

Once again, those problems which the government addresses were there first. That's why the government is addressing them. Private individuals kept mentioning the need for something to be done but nothing was done.

Those problems have been there for, literally, centuries. How do we look after the needy? With all the progress society has made people are still hungry and cold. It's outrageous!

Change. It's long overdue.

apple0154
01-06-2010, 07:53 AM
Smashing my nuts in a vise until i enter a paranormal state.

:rofl: I imagine that would lead to an out-of-body experience. :lol:

Good Luck
01-06-2010, 07:16 PM
The solution for SS is to increase the complexity of tax codes? Give it to the people and then take it back? Yep. They won't catch onto that, will they? Typical brainless fucking central government TAX things until you get what you want "answer". And you think I need to learn something? I've learned that you haven't a foggy fucking clue about reality. I've learned that you will support socialism even while admitting it fails miserably. I've learned that you think people are stupid, thinking they are somehow fooled into thinking they benefit from SS when their contributions invested privately would result in 3-4 times the retirement income they get from SS. I've learned that you think you can further fool them by taxing their SS benefits at 40%, 50%, 100%, and think they won't notice and toss any politician stupid enough to try your "solution" out of office so fast they'll bounce twice.

I've learned you can admit a socialist design is not sustainable in the long run, thus needing significant changes to make it sustainable, but in the same breath support the creation of another government socialist program based on the same unsustainable design, because you think you can fool the people into accepting it under the "everyone will benefit" lie.

I've learned that your whole approach to government help systems is what you think you can fool the people into accepting, instead of focusing on what is actually needed. I've learned that despite the FACT that we have a progressive tax system which hits upper middle class hardest while leaving the truly rich alone, despite the FACT that we have multiple assistance programs which are specifically aimed at assisting the needy (including Medicaid), you still hold to your fiction that a health plan aimed only at the needy can never pass because "too many people would complain if they don't benefit".

It will never cease to amaze me how people who are otherwise reasonably intelligent can hold to the idea that the way to help people who are cold, hungry, and/or sick is to create stupid, unsustainable programs whose primary result is to make ever larger portions of society cold, hungry, and/or sick.

apple0154
01-06-2010, 07:56 PM
The solution for SS is to increase the complexity of tax codes? Give it to the people and then take it back? Yep. They won't catch onto that, will they? Typical brainless fucking central government TAX things until you get what you want "answer". And you think I need to learn something? I've learned that you haven't a foggy fucking clue about reality. I've learned that you will support socialism even while admitting it fails miserably. I've learned that you think people are stupid, thinking they are somehow fooled into thinking they benefit from SS when their contributions invested privately would result in 3-4 times the retirement income they get from SS. I've learned that you think you can further fool them by taxing their SS benefits at 40%, 50%, 100%, and think they won't notice and toss any politician stupid enough to try your "solution" out of office so fast they'll bounce twice.

I've learned you can admit a socialist design is not sustainable in the long run, thus needing significant changes to make it sustainable, but in the same breath support the creation of another government socialist program based on the same unsustainable design, because you think you can fool the people into accepting it under the "everyone will benefit" lie.

I've learned that your whole approach to government help systems is what you think you can fool the people into accepting, instead of focusing on what is actually needed. I've learned that despite the FACT that we have a progressive tax system which hits upper middle class hardest while leaving the truly rich alone, despite the FACT that we have multiple assistance programs which are specifically aimed at assisting the needy (including Medicaid), you still hold to your fiction that a health plan aimed only at the needy can never pass because "too many people would complain if they don't benefit".

It will never cease to amaze me how people who are otherwise reasonably intelligent can hold to the idea that the way to help people who are cold, hungry, and/or sick is to create stupid, unsustainable programs whose primary result is to make ever larger portions of society cold, hungry, and/or sick.

Nonsense. You've learned nothing. You have no idea how the rest of the world operates.

Countries can and do look after their citizens and contrary to the BS you digest those citizens vote for governments who support such programs.

It's not a matter of lying or fooling anyone. If someone requires help and the government has the resources they do not give those resources to those who do not require them.

If you have difficulty understanding that it's no wonder you have difficulty understanding anything about social programs.

Good Luck
01-06-2010, 09:34 PM
Nonsense. You've learned nothing. You have no idea how the rest of the world operates.
How much of the rest of the world have you seen first hand? I have learned a lot over the years. I have not "learned" from you because you spout absolute nonsense.


Countries can and do look after their citizens and contrary to the BS you digest those citizens vote for governments who support such programs.
I have no problem with assistance programs that only benefit those in need - as long as they are not designed to be dependence traps. But if they do not give to those without need, explain your (and their) undying dedication to universal socialist programs in which "everyone benefits" is the selling point?


It's not a matter of lying or fooling anyone. If someone requires help and the government has the resources they do not give those resources to those who do not require them.
Bullshit. Your own words show you supporting a do-nothing piece of shit legislation because your political masters intend to use it to push through a plan the people have clearly stated they do not want. Your own words state clearly you support the intent to sell the people on a system that provides benefits to everyone, while simultaneously supporting a counter scheme to tax those benefits back from those who do not need them. If that is not an intent to fool the people, what the fuck is it? It certainly is not being upfront and honest. Your entire political philosophy is based on lying to the people so you can "help" them later on. (Help them because your fucked up system will make it necessary.)


If you have difficulty understanding that it's no wonder you have difficulty understanding anything about social programs.
It is readily apparent you are the one in the dark about social programs. You support them, but do not even know how or why they have come about, you know zero about their original intent, and are completely clueless why they are not sustainable in the long term. You support a health care system based on a system you fully admit is not sustainable and needs to be significantly revamped - and you do so because you admit the only way to foist it on the people is to lie to them about your intent.

Hermes Thoth
01-07-2010, 06:06 AM
If someone requires help and the government has the resources they do not give those resources to those who do not require them.


100% moronic.

apple0154
01-07-2010, 06:57 AM
I have no problem with assistance programs that only benefit those in need - as long as they are not designed to be dependence traps. But if they do not give to those without need, explain your (and their) undying dedication to universal socialist programs in which "everyone benefits" is the selling point?

If you're referring to SS people would benefit on a sliding scale.

As for dependence traps, again, there are people who are so afraid of someone getting something for nothing or abusing the system they go to the absurd to ensure it doesn't happen. For example, if a welfare recipient gets part time work.

I would rather see those requiring help receiving it even if that means the occasional person abuses the system rather than by ensuring abuse does not occur it results in some people in need not being helped.



Bullshit. Your own words show you supporting a do-nothing piece of shit legislation because your political masters intend to use it to push through a plan the people have clearly stated they do not want. Your own words state clearly you support the intent to sell the people on a system that provides benefits to everyone, while simultaneously supporting a counter scheme to tax those benefits back from those who do not need them. If that is not an intent to fool the people, what the fuck is it? It certainly is not being upfront and honest. Your entire political philosophy is based on lying to the people so you can "help" them later on. (Help them because your fucked up system will make it necessary.)

What plan(s) are you talking about? First you say "political masters intend to use it to push through a plan" which I assume you're referring to medical and then you go on to say, "tax those benefits back from those who do not need them" which sounds like you're referring to SS.


It is readily apparent you are the one in the dark about social programs. You support them, but do not even know how or why they have come about, you know zero about their original intent, and are completely clueless why they are not sustainable in the long term. You support a health care system based on a system you fully admit is not sustainable and needs to be significantly revamped - and you do so because you admit the only way to foist it on the people is to lie to them about your intent.

A health plan is sustainable. To say it isn't is to say a country can not look after it's ill. That is complete nonsense.

Universal health plans have been in existence in some countries for two or three generations. That's hundreds of millions of people who have benefited from them while some folks have gone on and on about how they're not sustainable. After 40 or 50 or 60 years the cost is still less than what the average US citizen pays.

All universal plans have slight differences and are tweaked to fit the corresponding country, however, they are all universal, less expensive and preferred by the citizens. What is it about that statement you have difficulty understanding?

As for why social programs came about it's because there was a need. People were doing without the basics and either no one was helping or the help wasn't sufficient.Therefore, the government stepped in.

There has been plenty of time to come up with a solution to the medical problem. The will wasn't there. So, now it's time to get it done. As I mentioned before the topic will change from "how do we fix the medical problem" to "how do we adjust the universal plan". People will be focused. They will be working on the same goal rather than everyone going off in different directions, nothing being agreed on, then dropped entirely.

Change. It's time has come.

apple0154
01-07-2010, 07:00 AM
100% moronic.

How is my comical friend this morning?

Hermes Thoth
01-07-2010, 07:02 AM
I would rather see those requiring help receiving it even if that means the occasional person abuses the system rather than by ensuring abuse does not occur it results in some people in need not being helped.


.

Because you buy power with other peoples money.

Totalitarians LOVE IT when the population is dependant.

apple0154
01-07-2010, 11:27 AM
Because you buy power with other peoples money.

Totalitarians LOVE IT when the population is dependant.

More nonsense.

People want to improve their lives. The ones who are dependent on government help are ill or uneducated or, in some way, having difficulty getting ahead. Instead of continually seeking ways to cut their benefits by way of adding entitlement restrictions we should be helping them. Empowering them. Not belittling them.

A healthy, happy person is not going to be content to live at a subsistence level.

cawacko
01-07-2010, 11:32 AM
apple, sorry to interupt in this thread again but what's your take on Obama promising to air the health care deliberations on C-SPAN and now not doing it from a leadership perspective?

cawacko
01-07-2010, 01:00 PM
Sorry to interupt a second time apple but as I think about it are you in favor of an imperial presidency where Congress and the Fed are suppose to do what the President says because he is the Supreme Leader? That's the impression I have gotten after our discussion of what leadership entails and the role of the President.

apple0154
01-07-2010, 01:36 PM
apple, sorry to interupt in this thread again but what's your take on Obama promising to air the health care deliberations on C-SPAN and now not doing it from a leadership perspective?

My way of thinking is the health care debate is like a trial. Many government reps are lawyers backed by big money and powerful interests. Having the debate public would be like having a trial where everything is admissible and the jurors going home every night to watch the spin on the news. Add to that people contacting the jurors and trying to persuade them to vote a certain way and you can see it's highly unlikely "justice" would be done.

Waiting lists become rationed care. End of life counseling becomes death panels. Whatever story can best be spun to incite and shock will make the news.

If universal medical was something new, never tried or implemented anywhere else, then a full examination of everything, regardless of how far-fetched, would be appropriate. If it took years, so be it. But such is not the case.

There isn't any country one can point to and say it switched back to the old system or any country in which the majority of citizens want to switch back. Universal medical has proven itself to be the most economical and efficient system in practice today.

With the current debt and the economy being sluggish if health care doesn't pass "today" it will be buried for a long time and history has shown us it doesn't take much to bury it.

I think one has to realize it's not about negotiating the best plan. It's about crossing the line Senator Harkin talked about. There are still a number of years before the plan goes into effect during which there will be plenty of time to seriously study other universal plans and do the necessary fine tuning.

Not one opponent has said let's take the French plan and change "this" or let's take the British plan and change "that" or the Australian plan or the Canadian plan and make adjustments.

So, to answer your question airing the deliberations on C-SPAN would be the death knell and that's not an option. It is better for Obama to break his word on airing the hearings than to let them go ahead knowing we'll end up with the same old, same old.

We must forge ahead.

cawacko
01-07-2010, 01:52 PM
My way of thinking is the health care debate is like a trial. Many government reps are lawyers backed by big money and powerful interests. Having the debate public would be like having a trial where everything is admissible and the jurors going home every night to watch the spin on the news. Add to that people contacting the jurors and trying to persuade them to vote a certain way and you can see it's highly unlikely "justice" would be done.

Waiting lists become rationed care. End of life counseling becomes death panels. Whatever story can best be spun to incite and shock will make the news.

If universal medical was something new, never tried or implemented anywhere else, then a full examination of everything, regardless of how far-fetched, would be appropriate. If it took years, so be it. But such is not the case.

There isn't any country one can point to and say it switched back to the old system or any country in which the majority of citizens want to switch back. Universal medical has proven itself to be the most economical and efficient system in practice today.

With the current debt and the economy being sluggish if health care doesn't pass "today" it will be buried for a long time and history has shown us it doesn't take much to bury it.

I think one has to realize it's not about negotiating the best plan. It's about crossing the line Senator Harkin talked about. There are still a number of years before the plan goes into effect during which there will be plenty of time to seriously study other universal plans and do the necessary fine tuning.

Not one opponent has said let's take the French plan and change "this" or let's take the British plan and change "that" or the Australian plan or the Canadian plan and make adjustments.

So, to answer your question airing the deliberations on C-SPAN would be the death knell and that's not an option. It is better for Obama to break his word on airing the hearings than to let them go ahead knowing we'll end up with the same old, same old.

We must forge ahead.

So in essence the people's voice shouldn't be heard? How'd you feel about the pill bill Tom Delay jammed up our *ss during a private vote in the middle of the night?

Doesn't it scream out to you that if you are so afraid the people won't like what their elected officials are doing in their name that they have to hide it something might be a little off?

Hermes Thoth
01-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Waiting lists are A SYMPTOM of rationed care. care will be rationed. The death panels are the panels of experts who decide set the policies on who can receive which treatments. They will be deciding who dies. It's a death panel. They already tried to outlaw mammograms once to save money.

apple0154
01-07-2010, 09:10 PM
So in essence the people's voice shouldn't be heard? How'd you feel about the pill bill Tom Delay jammed up our *ss during a private vote in the middle of the night?

Doesn't it scream out to you that if you are so afraid the people won't like what their elected officials are doing in their name that they have to hide it something might be a little off?

I'm sure the proposed bill isn't anywhere near perfect but it comes back to what Senator Harkin said. We have to cross that line between health care being a privilege or a right. Once it's established it is a right then the current bill can be worked on and all people's input welcome.

apple0154
01-07-2010, 09:28 PM
Waiting lists are A SYMPTOM of rationed care. care will be rationed. The death panels are the panels of experts who decide set the policies on who can receive which treatments. They will be deciding who dies. It's a death panel. They already tried to outlaw mammograms once to save money.

If a person does not have the money for health care are they not on a "waiting list", waiting to acquire enough money?

Doesn't every medical plan have experts who decide which treatments they will pay for? From interviews I've seen on TV and experiences of a family member it's not unusual for insurance companies to automatically deny coverage and wait to see of the client contests the decision.

By virtue of a plan being universal it has to cover more illnesses because it covers a more diverse group of people.

Finally, every country that implemented a universal plan never switched back and none are in the process of doing so. What more proof is needed?