Socialism is no Joke [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

quartermaster

August 27th, 2009, 04:53 PM

I believe if true market forces are allowed to prevail within the United States health care system, then prices will go down substantially. In the current system, what we have is not capitalism, but corporationism, which was created by government subsidization and government favoritism (soundly thorough interest groups and lobbying). If we were to eliminate that government created system, and allowed the free market to prevail, the increase in competition would, by law, force prices to go down. Health care should be treated as any other commodity, as free market competition allows for prices to be lowered and thus more affordable (I believe that should be coupled with the elimination of the income tax, thus allowing individuals to choose their health care with an increase of income, as it were).

Now, the way in which we meet these ends I do not pretend know (as the current system is in such disarray, and has a health care oligopoly created by the government), but I believe our goals should be with that in mind. What Western Europe chooses to do is their business, and it apparently works enough for them, but I do not believe such a system as the NHS need exist here in the US, nor would be run very well by the United States government (it is their failed policies and intervention that allowed for the US healthcare industry to get out of control in regards to prices). I further believe, that with market forces applied, health care prices will go down, but the incentive to be a doctor would remain the same, as doctors would not be being paid by the government, but a private organization (which, on balance, pay more than any government agency could), ergo, they would advance in salary through their works, and not a pay chart.

I hope you don't mind me also posting something on the matter, but this Facebook group makes great points, and what's more, it is made up of citizens of the UK. It's a long read, but certainly worth it:

The NHS doesn't save you - medical practitioners do and they deserve to work in a better funded system.

The debate about Obamacare verses the existing US system, verses the British NHS has been bogged down by pointless exchanges of anecdotes and quoting of irrelevant statistics.

This Facebook group seeks to clarify the debate and make a forceful point. The NHS is not the envy of the world. It is a deeply flawed system and results in the preventable deaths of more 17,000 people every year. The US healthcare system is also deeply flawed, but on objective measures it is better than the NHS. To reform US healthcare, the President must not go further down the road of socialised medicine but use consumer-led, market-based reforms.

British nurse and Director of Nurses for Reform, Dr. Helen Evans, increasingly socialised medicine inexorably leads to a Sovietised nightmare. She believes that Obamacare will drag the US down an unappealing road.

In her recent book ‘Sixty Years On – Who Cares for the NHS?’ she describes the full story of British state healthcare. She points out how hundreds of thousands of patients often wait many weeks and months on waiting lists, while thousands of others spend ages just trying to get on to them. She describes a system where political voice means that often professional and middle class people access more than 40 per cent more resources per illness episode - over and above those received by patients further down the social scale. Highlighting widespread neglect of the elderly, the mentally ill and the disadvantaged she not only points out that more than 10 per cent of NHS hospital patients pick up infections that they did not have prior to being admitted but that thousands of NHS hospital patients also die each year through malnutrition.

It was Dr. Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute who famously commented:

“If a privatised health service had made many of its patients wait for 18 months for their operations, put them on trolleys in corridors when they arrived, given more than a quarter of them an illness which they did not have when they arrived, and confiscated the organs of their dead babies without bothering to seek their permission, or even to tell them, people would have blamed privatisation. For that matter if one of its practitioners had murdered 150 of his patients, or one of its surgeons had removed healthy kidneys instead of diseased ones, or one of its teams had conducted smear tests so incompetently that operable disease was not treated, while healthy women were unnecessarily subjected to distressing operations, all this would somehow have been put down to the reckless pursuit of profit, or to putting shareholders ahead of patients.”

Now, the first point on comparing the UK and US health systems. To compare health systems you have to compare how effective treatment is for a patient who needs treatment. For example, if a woman diagnosed as having any cancer in the US had a 62.9 per cent chance of being alive in five years. In the UK a woman has a 52.7 per cent chance of being alive in five years.

Some people will try to confuse the argument with subjective measures such as “equality” or “access”. Others will try to use life expectancy or infant mortality as measures, but these are both misleading – especially with the US. The US has lower life expectancy than Britain for a number of reasons, including too many young Americans living in inner cities shooting each other. This can be seen a result of the prohibition of drugs or the ease people can access guns, not the US healthcare system. In much of the world a baby that dies shortly after birth is listed as stillborn and therefore doesn’t affect infant mortality figures. In the US a baby with a pulse at birth is recorded as a live birth. If the baby subsequently dies, it affects infant mortality (and for that matter life expectancy) statistics. This is a reflection on US statistical gathering and morality, not the US health system.

Report after report rates the NHS poorly in international comparisons. One, published by Eurocare in 2007, found that Britain has one of the worst five-year cancer survival rates in the OECD and certainly well behind the best in the study, the United States. England has a female cancer survival rate of only 52.7 per cent, compared with 62.9 per cent for the United States or 61.8 per cent for Iceland. Britain performed poorer than former communist countries such as Slovenia, not to mention Spain and Malta. For males, a similar story is told, with England having a survival rate of only 44.8 per cent compared with the United States at 66.3 per cent. Again, it also falls below Spain, Ireland and Italy. Another report in the British Medical Journal concluded that Britain has some of the poorest stroke treatment rates in Europe.

Every year, more than 17,000 people receiving die needlessly in the NHS because of poor levels of treatment. The figures, compiled by the Taxpayers' Alliance, is calculated using data given to the World Health Organisation. It compares the number of people who died prematurely, even though their illness was treatable, in five European countries.

Britain performs worse on this measure of "mortality amenable to healthcare" than Spain, France, the Netherlands and Germany. If it had achieved the average of those four, 17,157 fewer deaths would have occurred in 2004 (the most recent year for which the data is available). That is more than five times the death toll from road accidents. As the US has better cancer survival rates, the figures compared to the US will be much worse.

Defenders of the NHS will also claim that this increased expenditure is the only reason why the NHS performs so badly in comparison, ignoring the poor performance of the Scottish NHS despite receiving more money per capita than the English NHS (£2,313 per head compared to £1,915 in 2006/07).

One of the most successful health systems in the world is Singapore’s, with health outcomes that equal or surpass many European nations, yet spends only 3.5 per cent of GDP on health compared with Britain’s 8.4 per cent.

This Facebook group is not defending the US healthcare system. Indeed we believe the US to have a deeply flawed system, but one that is better than Britain’s.

We believe that of all healthcare systems, bearing in mind that nowhere is there a truly market based system free of Government interference, Singapore has a better system than most, involving individual savings accounts encouraging people to take responsibility for their own healthcare, while providing for the poor. (See: http://www.progressive-vision.org/policies/health.htm )

However, there are many misconceptions about the US system:

Myth 1: The poor are denied healthcare in the US.

Not so. Since the 1960s the US has operated a system called Medicaid that provides free healthcare to the poorest in society.

Myth 2: 47 million Americans have no access to healthcare

47 million Americans have no insurance, but they still have access to healthcare. Some of these people choose not to insure (see http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php ) and others take care of themselves. Furthermore many of the 40 million are only uninsured temporarily while between jobs, and others are in the bracket of the population that are wealthy enough not to need to insure.

Myth 3: Drug companies are profiteering.

Developing drugs is an expensive business and for every commercial drug that makes it to market, 99 others never become public or earn a penny for the companies developing them. If we want the advanced and expensive medicines responsible for our lengthening live expectancy and improved quality of life we will have to fund the R&D.

We say again, the US system is deeply flawed. Why for example is healthcare tied to employment – your car insurance isn’t so tied. Regulations that limit people to buying healthcare only from their own state also restricts competition, reduces quality and forces people to buy cover the don’t need – this is state failure, not market failure.

Defenders of the NHS and fans of Barack Obama, note one thing. Not even Barack Obama is advocating going as far as having the state own and operate all the hospitals and providing free healthcare for all Americans. While his policies may be leading America down the path of the NHS, he is either opposed to a NHS style system or he is misleading America. No senior US politician is advocating the NHS, because as bad as the US system may be, it is not as bad as the NHS.

A reminder as this debate continues:

1/ Anecdotes can be illustrative, but prove nothing. That your great aunt was happy with her free hip replacement on this NHS, proves little. Just as an NHS horror story proves little. We can match UK verses US health horror stories all day, but little will be achieved. Objective facts prove an argument.

2/ We want to see a better system in which people have more responsibility for their health and healthacare, where there really is choice and where competition drives up quality. We do not want, for the UK or America or indeed any country, bland egalitarianism where obsession with equality of access drives down quality, access and successful outcomes enforcing mediocrity for everyone.

3, Opposing the NHS doesn’t mean we love the US system. We want a system that delivers excellent standards of care – something that the NHS has proven itself incapable of.

Whisper

August 27th, 2009, 07:01 PM

You don't live in Canada apparently...

I've never heard anything except complaints about Canada NHC...

My friend broke her leg in an accident. It was over two weeks later before they could give her surgery. Some waits in Canada can be over a year. Now, you have an injury that takes you out of work and you can't get surgery for over a year....umm....kind of takes away your income doesn't it? What do you do...file for disability? I suppose, however, you will still have to live in pain that a surgery would end.

first of all speaking as a Canadian who lives in Canada
I will take what we have over your system anyday
for every "horror story" you bring up for Canada I'm sure there's a hundred american ones
46 million with NO COVERAGE AT ALL that's more then my entire country
so stop clinging to a joe the plumber mentality

Second of all
Obama's approach is NOTHING LIKE CANADA'S!!!

theOperaGhost

August 27th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Whisper

August 27th, 2009, 08:04 PM

Tiberius

August 27th, 2009, 08:20 PM

Everyone has the basic right to access to health care and surely a country as prominent in the world as the USA should be seen to uphold these international human rights. Something needs to be done in America to ensure that everyone (employed and unemployed alike) has access to health care.

However much people complain about the NHS, I must say that when we've had emergencies they have been brilliant.

Sorry, but that's complete and total bullshit. You know those quote 49,000,000 Americans who you say have no access to health care? Guess what, they do. All of them. In the U.S there's a federal law that states that no doctor or hospital can deny health care to anyone, whether they have insurence or not. I've been to the hospital a few times in my life and each time, it took them hours and one time a day to ask if I had insurence. We all have health care in America not all of us have health insurence. Now, out of those 49 million, about 7 million pay for it out of pocket and can do so. The next lot which is about 20 million people are actually able get medicare/medicade that now about it or don't. After that, there's about 17 million illegal aliens who SHOULDN'T BE OFFERED ANY TYPE OF HEALTH CARE EXCEPT A GUN AND ONE BULLET. Down to the last bit which is about 5 million people who aren't able to be covered because of job loss or other reasons. Please do your math on America before saying something as, dare I say it, ignorant as that.

Whisper

August 27th, 2009, 08:36 PM

Please do your math on America before saying something

I fully agree with this
and if in this debate i present data that is proven to be false i apologies, to be honest i don't care what America decides, i'm not American its none of my business

the republicans have dragged us into this
Canada should have NOTHING to do with this
the system Obama is proposing is not like ours
the reason we were dragged into it and are being treated like crap in the media is the republican opposition is attempting fear mongering

instead of trying to attack the issue with facts, a solid logic and strong ideology
they are confusing the issue and using propaganda by attacking my home

Canada's system would never work for America
as nations we are fundamentally to different
But it works for us
it has flaws same as yours
but overall it works well for my home

quartermaster

August 27th, 2009, 08:41 PM

if that's your mentality then i hate to break it to ya
but you already are! OHNOZZZ!
you have a socialized postal service and millitary already
riddle me that would ya

Quite right, the United States has many features that are socialist in nature, and that includes the US postal service (which will lose a projected 4.7 billion this year, and thus be 7 billion in the hole by the end of fiscal year 2009) , US public school system (which experiences budget cuts on a whim and is of sub-par quality to its private counterparts) and even the US military (despite popular beliefs). Thus, universal health care would be, by definition, an extension of socialist policies within the United States; for people like me who believe we cannot afford such health care and think that there is a better alternative through the free market, this is a cause for OHNOZZZ!

Whisper

August 27th, 2009, 08:48 PM

RaeNose

August 27th, 2009, 08:59 PM

First of all, it is not a "right" for health care. People treat it as the Government's responsibility to provide health care. The government plans on providing a more affordable health care system for those who can't afford normal health care.

With the way it is right now, the health care system will not be beneficial TO AMERICA. People in America have been known to exploit universal health care and any health care that is cheaper than the one they are paying for. Take Hawaii, they had a cost reduction on health care that helped pay for children that had parents who could not apply for medicare and were too poor to pay for normal health insurance. Soon after, people found loop holes in which the children could receive free health care and the parents did not have to pay for it. Those people will go straight to a cheaper alternative instead of paying full price, causing the insurance companies to go down in flames and more Americans will lose their jobs. You know, when it gets to a point where a 17 year old can't get a job flipping burgers, you know you have a problem. The recession was starting to show a glimmer of hope (10,000 less Americans were laid off of their jobs this month than last year). Also, that bill is a menace. Not even all the tax money will go to the health care. So much will go to the democrat's pet groups that have put them through into politics. That thing fills up 2 4inch binders! It's absolutely ridiculous!

quartermaster

August 27th, 2009, 09:05 PM

here's a though cut back on the military budget
in 05 it was 3/4 of a trillion dollar business
if you can find that much money to kill people
you can find some to help people

but like i said
i don't care, like...at all
about your health system, it's YOUR system the american people should decide
but based off of informed decesions and facts
not due to propaganda or one sided views

its not you im mad at or anyone here
just the media is begining to bother me

I agree, the military budget should be cut substantially, especially considering the scope of the US enemies (we have congressmen calling for more F-22’s, and though I love the plane, we do not need it right now; the basic premise is spend for the war you are fighting today), but I do not believe in taking that money and reallocating it anywhere else, besides paying off our debts. The United States is in a debt crises, and the key is for the government to cut spending, and that includes military; however, do not cut spending in one area to reallocate it in another, unnecessary place. Don't get me wrong on this, people should have affordable, accessible health care, I just don't believe the government should be the organization providing it.

I believe in such dire times as this, with the US debt being higher than ever, per capita, spending should be cut across the board, so we are in agreement about the military. Further, I understand that the free market is not the answer to "all" of our problems, but I believe in this case, it can provide the needs of the people, while during the intervening time, allow for the United States government to control its spending, thus allowing them to not have to provide such services that the free market can do for a better price and of a better quality.

I also agree that facts should prevail over fear-mongering about other systems, but fear and paranoia has always sold better than straight facts.

RaeNose

August 27th, 2009, 09:14 PM

Well, the president honestly doesn't have much to do with it. He's almost like a powerless figurehead. Congress and the Supreme court have all the real power.
Btw, Bush was supposed to start pulling out troops in July... just saying. Supposedly, Obama has a set date to pull everyone out of Iraq by October or something like that. Hopefully, this will cut some of the budget down.
Another thing that would bring the budget and the deficit down would be if the legislature didn't spend all of the people's money on useless crap. Their million dollar private jets and homes. Lobster lunches and dinners every day. It's absolute tyranny! Complete idiocy.

theOperaGhost

August 27th, 2009, 09:36 PM

i'm not even touching the first part until your deluded sense of reality is fixed first babe
"socalized communist country"
because of putting in universal healthcare...reeeeaaaallly?

if that's your mentality then i hate to break it to ya
but you already are! OHNOZZZ!
you have a socialized postal service and millitary already
riddle me that would ya

Ok, we are socialized already. Whatever. I'm conservative. I can't stand what Obama is doing. That's all I have to say. My views will never cohere to liberal views, so why do I even argue them anymore.

RaeNose

August 27th, 2009, 09:42 PM

Again... It's not Obama doing it. It's the democratic chairmen of congress.
They honestly don't fear him as a leader, so they do whatever they want and get away with it because Obama cares too much about what people think about him.
When you lead, you care about stuff like that.
He obviously didn't read Machiavellian theory.

Whisper

August 27th, 2009, 10:23 PM

Ok, we are socialized already. Whatever. I'm conservative. I can't stand what Obama is doing. That's all I have to say. My views will never cohere to liberal views, so why do I even argue them anymore.

im not trying to ridicule you hun
i dont think the world will ever be that cut and dry

personally some things i'm liberal (http://www.liberal.ca/), somethings I'm conservative (http://conservative.ca/), somethings i'm new democrat (http://www.ndp.ca/)

I will never follow one party or ideology
because the world isn't black and white

Tiberius

August 27th, 2009, 11:59 PM

im not trying to ridicule you hun
i dont think the world will ever be that cut and dry

personally some things i'm liberal (http://www.liberal.ca/), somethings I'm conservative (http://conservative.ca/), somethings i'm new democrat (http://www.ndp.ca/)

I will never follow one party or ideology
because the world isn't black and white

And on everything, you're Canadian. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. You guys are always playing different sides when it comes to American politics :P

theOperaGhost

August 28th, 2009, 12:00 AM

I know you're not trying to. I'm just overly defensive, so I kind of bring it on myself.

I'm also liberal in some things and strongly conservative in others. We don't need to be any more socialized.

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 03:41 AM

Sorry, but that's complete and total bullshit. You know those quote 49,000,000 Americans who you say have no access to health care? Guess what, they do. All of them. In the U.S there's a federal law that states that no doctor or hospital can deny health care to anyone, whether they have insurence or not. I've been to the hospital a few times in my life and each time, it took them hours and one time a day to ask if I had insurence. We all have health care in America not all of us have health insurence. Now, out of those 49 million, about 7 million pay for it out of pocket and can do so. The next lot which is about 20 million people are actually able get medicare/medicade that now about it or don't. After that, there's about 17 million illegal aliens who SHOULDN'T BE OFFERED ANY TYPE OF HEALTH CARE EXCEPT A GUN AND ONE BULLET. Down to the last bit which is about 5 million people who aren't able to be covered because of job loss or other reasons. Please do your math on America before saying something as, dare I say it, ignorant as that.I had done some reading thank you.

I know that about 30% of your population have had difficulties accessing health care.
I also know that access to health care is directly linked to race and income.
I also know it would save the US money.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

And look at this: The UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place.

-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs-united-states-republican-healthFirst of all, it is not a "right" for health care. People treat it as the Government's responsibility to provide health care. The government plans on providing a more affordable health care system for those who can't afford normal health care.All I have to say to that is: Universal Declartation of Human Rights Article 25(a)

quartermaster

August 28th, 2009, 04:01 AM

I had done some reading thank you.

All I have to say to that is: Universal Declartation of Human Rights Article 25(a)

Yes, that is the usual argument I read, and though the US is, indeed, a signatory, we respect our constitution and Bill of Rights more than we do any charters. As far as the United States is concerned, the right to health care is not outlined in any of the previous documents, thus it is not a legal right within the United States. The UDHR holds no legal force in the United States and thus is meaningless in real terms as to what rights truly are in this country. Right or wrong (no pun intended), the United States really only respects its constitution in regards to charters that have any real clout(we United States citizens have a sense of national sovereignty that is, admittedly, seen as a bit overzealous, if not overly nationalistic, in comparison to our European counterparts).

Further, it is relatively understood that the NHS currently beats the US system as far as health coverage goes, however, many in the US believe that if we are to reform the US health care system, the NHS route is not the one of which to take. We believe that there is a better way to meet our health care needs that don't involve a government run system (I urge you to read the literature I posted on the previous page).

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 04:16 AM

Yes, that is the usual argument I read, and though the US is, indeed, a signatory, we respect our constitution and Bill of Rights more than we do any charters. As far as the United States is concerned, the right to health care is not outlined in any of the previous documents, thus it is not a legal right within the United States. The UDHR holds no legal force in the United States and thus is meaningless in real terms as to what rights truly are in this country. Right or wrong (no pun intended), the United States really only respects its constitution in regards to charters that have any real clout(we United States citizens have a sense of national sovereignty that is, admittedly, seen as a bit overzealous, if not overly nationalistic, in comparison to our European counterparts).
The UDHR is applicable to all people regardless of nationality, race, gender, religion or any other variable.

While it isn't legally binding, the rights outlined in it were separated into two legally binding Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Both of these have been signed by the USA and as such the US Government is legally bound to provide their constituents with their universal human rights.

Oh, this was added after I'd started replying the first time round.Further, it is relatively understood that the NHS currently beats the US system as far as health coverage goes, however, many in the US believe that if we are to reform the US health care system, the NHS route is not the one of which to take. We believe that there is a better way to meet our health care needs that don't involve a government run system (I urge you to read the literature I posted on the previous page).Lol. That text you copied and pasted on the first page is so biased it's almost unbelievable.
Where does it mention anything good about the NHS? Where does it talk about its successes? You can't only look at one side of the argument.
Also, it says that people will use infant mortality rates etc as proof that the US is worse than the UK in terms of health care and that this is an unacceptable way to go about it - but then they use these types of statistics to attack the UK's NHS! Talk about hypocritical! Lol.

The bottom line is that while there are flaws in the NHS, it is better than the one currently utilised by the USA.
I have given evidence that universal health care would be beneficial by ensuring that the USA are providing everyone with access to adequate health care in accordance with the UHDR and the

quartermaster

August 28th, 2009, 06:53 AM

While it isn't legally binding, the rights outlined in it were separated into two legally binding Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Both of these have been signed by the USA and as such the US Government is legally bound to provide their constituents with their universal human rights.

The UDHR is applicable to all people regardless of nationality, race, gender, religion or any other variable.

Ignoratio elenchi

While it isn't legally binding, the rights outlined in it were separated into two legally binding Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Both of these have been signed by the USA and as such the US Government is legally bound to provide their constituents with their universal human rights.

I acknowledge that, and yet the United States government does not recognize it beyond basic words. The US is only as legally bound to provide a service as the obligator is able to enforce it. Thus, though the US may have been a signatory, it is only as legally bounded to the "rights" as much as it (the US) holds itself to providing such services. Of course, to the international community, the United States is bounded to such terms, but within the United States where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the arbiters, such charters hold no weight. The basic rights of the people of the United States are defined in the Constitution and through the laws, as those are the only charters of rights that the United States acknowledges.

That text you copied and pasted on the first page is so biased it's almost unbelievable.
Where does it mention anything good about the NHS? Where does it talk about its successes? You can't only look at one side of the argument.

Unbelievable? How so? It is an argument, which is by nature, biased…

From your statements, it is clear you misunderstand the purpose of the piece, it is not supposed to outline the good of the NHS, it is to explain why they disagree with it. Of course it is biased, it is an argument, not a news article! I have done substantial research on this issue, and I believe they brought up some very good points in regards to why the NHS is flawed in many ways and why the United States should not strive toward such a goal. Your folly in thinking is expecting it not to be biased, as if it is a news piece; it is not a news piece, it is a Facebook equivalent of a political action committee, and thus their message will be on the ends that they wish to be met. They are simply stating their points and why they believe what they do; even in the classical Greek form of argumentation, you do not have to address the other side in your case summary. I never put anyone under the pretense that this group did not have an agenda, that is your own folly.

The bottom line is that while there are flaws in the NHS, it is better than the one currently utilised by the USA.

Strawman, as far as I am concerned; of course, the NHS is better than the current US system, but the argument at hand (as I understand it to be) is that the United States can find a better alternative than government run health care, that is my bottom line.

I have given evidence that universal health care would be beneficial by ensuring that the USA are providing everyone with access to adequate health care in accordance with the UHDR and the

I am afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Everyone in the United States does have access to health care, that is to be sure, thus that is a non-issue; the issue is affordable health care. I believe that the issue of affordable health care can be handled better through the free market; that is a statement I have said many a time in this thread. I never said the NHS was a bad system, I am not fooled by the veil of Republican propaganda, I simply believe that such a system would not work within the United States, and would not be the most beneficial of systems given the relative options.

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 09:36 AM

I acknowledge that, and yet the United States government does not recognize it beyond basic words. The US is only as legally bound to provide a service as the obligator is able to enforce it. Thus, though the US may have been a signatory, it is only as legally bounded to the "rights" as much as it (the US) holds itself to providing such services. Of course, to the international community, the United States is bounded to such terms, but within the United States where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the arbiters, such charters hold no weight. The basic rights of the people of the United States are defined in the Constitution and through the laws, as those are the only charters of rights that the United States acknowledges.The US Government has signed the Covenants and as such are legally bound by them.
Unbelievable? How so? It is an argument, which is by nature, biased…

From your statements, it is clear you misunderstand the purpose of the piece, it is not supposed to outline the good of the NHS, it is to explain why they disagree with it. Of course it is biased, it is an argument, not a news article! I have done substantial research on this issue, and I believe they brought up some very good points in regards to why the NHS is flawed in many ways and why the United States should not strive toward such a goal. Your folly in thinking is expecting it not to be biased, as if it is a news piece; it is not a news piece, it is a Facebook equivalent of a political action committee, and thus their message will be on the ends that they wish to be met. They are simply stating their points and why they believe what they do; even in the classical Greek form of argumentation, you do not have to address the other side in your case summary. I never put anyone under the pretense that this group did not have an agenda, that is your own folly.I just expect people to look at something as wide-reaching as this to look at it objectively and to draw their conclusions from both sides of the argument. That is not unreasonable of me.

They left huge points out like the higher cardiovascular mortality rates in the US when compared to the UK or the greater life expectancy of those born in the UK compared to the US.
Strawman, as far as I am concerned; of course, the NHS is better than the current US system, but the argument at hand (as I understand it to be) is that the United States can find a better alternative than government run health care, that is my bottom line.What is your "better alternative" that ensures everyone's human rights are satisfied?
I am afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Everyone in the United States does have access to health care, that is to be sure, thus that is a non-issue; the issue is affordable health care. I believe that the issue of affordable health care can be handled better through the free market; that is a statement I have said many a time in this thread. I never said the NHS was a bad system, I am not fooled by the veil of Republican propaganda, I simply believe that such a system would not work within the United States, and would not be the most beneficial of systems given the relative options.Ahem, excuse me but this says otherwise:Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.

-- http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
That page also outlines how a universal health care system would save the US money.

Tiberius

August 28th, 2009, 11:52 AM

I had done some reading thank you.

I know that about 30% of your population have had difficulties accessing health care.
I also know that access to health care is directly linked to race and income.
I also know it would save the US money.

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

And look at this: All I have to say to that is: Universal Declartation of Human Rights Article 25(a)

I'm sorry, but please find a site that isn't biased about the information-Cardinal rule number one when it comes to debating.

And no, it's not related to race and income, no one is denided access to health care in the U.S- A common foreign mistake.

People who have analyzed the three current health care bills floating around in Crongress, all say that it's going to increase taxes(that's also called not saving money on the consumers part)and decrease the amount of coverage given to people because you're going to have to take the amount of care that's out there now and spread it around more people. It's just something that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't want.

From your wonderful biased site:
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960." Ever wonder why that is? I'll tell you it's not because of our health care system, it's the murders that are increasing among certain groups in this country. We also have a love-affair with cars and that means that you're more likely to be killed by a car than you are by someone shooting/stabbing you to death(there are many other ways that people die in this country). 42,116 car related deaths to 15,522 murders is a big difference and it all lowers the life expectancy in the U.S

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 12:35 PM

I'm sorry, but please find a site that isn't biased about the information-Cardinal rule number one when it comes to debating.

And no, it's not related to race and income, no one is denided access to health care in the U.S- A common foreign mistake.Have you even read my source? It's a credible American site and is written by two American doctors.
Lol, I don't think you could get less foreign.

Where's your source to back your claims up with?
As of yet, you have offered nothing apart from your opinion which is just laughable in a debate.
Try constructing your argument properly before lecturing anyone else on it.

People who have analyzed the three current health care bills floating around in Crongress, all say that it's going to increase taxes(that's also called not saving money on the consumers part)and decrease the amount of coverage given to people because you're going to have to take the amount of care that's out there now and spread it around more people. It's just something that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't want.I draw your attention again to that websiteFact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits From your wonderful biased site:
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960." Ever wonder why that is? I'll tell you it's not because of our health care system, it's the murders that are increasing among certain groups in this country. We also have a love-affair with cars and that means that you're more likely to be killed by a car than you are by someone shooting/stabbing you to death(there are many other ways that people die in this country). 42,116 car related deaths to 15,522 murders is a big difference and it all lowers the life expectancy in the U.SAnd any evidence to support the claim that it's an increase in murders that's responsible?
Your argument does nothing to acknowledge or address these which are clearly very relevant to the effectiveness of the current health care system:
The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

antimonic

August 28th, 2009, 03:58 PM

right behind Botswana

Behind Botswana? lol wow

quartermaster

August 28th, 2009, 04:00 PM

The US Government has signed the Covenants and as such are legally bound by them.

You have said that before, do you think if you type it many times, it will make your claim true?

Law only has as much authority as the obligating body has the ability to enforce it. There is nothing to enforce such a charter, it is, amongst others, an agreement of services, but the United States is only legally bound to its treaties and its laws; the Constitution does not recognize that the United States is bound to any other charter but itself, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land, overruling any other document. In the United States, rights are not defined as services, as what one most do for others, rights are a declared protection of citizens from usurpations of the government and fellow citizens. Ergo, any pretense of a right to health care would be of a contrary nature as to what rights are, within the American system of government and laws.

I just expect people to look at something as wide-reaching as this to look at it objectively and to draw their conclusions from both sides of the argument. That is not unreasonable of me.

Yes, but first, as British citizens, they no doubt have looked at this from an objective view and have, in turn, constructed their opinions accordingly. Moreover, I cannot emphasize enough that what I posted is not a debate between two parties, but it is simply their side of the health care argument, and the NHS as they see it, and they do draw upon some valid points. Objectivity in the creation of points is not the purpose of a PAC or an interest group. It is our job, as readers, citizens and researchers to look at both sides, it is not the job of a source (primary or secondary), to provide such information. You take what you can from each source and argument, but you do not expect an interest group source to state both sides of a spectrum in their summary of points. Once again, the idea that any such source should have reciprocity in their summary of points is contrary to the most basic form of argumentation, and most poignantly to the classical Greek form of argumentation.

They left huge points out like the higher cardiovascular mortality rates in the US when compared to the UK or the greater life expectancy of those born in the UK compared to the US.

And why is it necessary to do so? It is irrelevant to their point, they acknowledge that there are many views to the debate, they are simply presenting their view. As such, they are presenting their points with their data, because this is a statement of goals and beliefs, not an Editorial piece.

What is your "better alternative" that ensures everyone's human rights are satisfied?

plurium interrogationum

Very fallacious of you, we have not established this as a grounds for argumentation, because it has yet to be established if health care is a basic human right in the United States. That is your claim, but as per the Constitution and laws of the United States, I would disagree.

That page also outlines how a universal health care system would save the US money.

And now for a few of my points from the Pacific Research Institute, Wall Street Journal, ATR and The Washington Post:

… published by the Pacific Research Institute, takes all health-care spending in the United States and subtracts the costs of the two flagship government-run programs, Medicare and Medicaid. It then takes that remaining spending and compares its cost increases over time with Medicare's cost increases over time.
The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.
Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.

Pacific Research Institute

A chart to accompany the above research (these are reposts on the investors site from the PRI archives)
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISS_090622.png&caption=

The following tax increases will directly hit Americans making less than $250,000 per year:
• a tax on individuals failing to sign up for health care equal to the lesser of 2.5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) or the average individual premium amount. There is no income floor on this, so this would hit any uninsured American of any income
• a tax on employers for not providing a health care plan equal to 8% of payroll. This becomes 0, 4, or 6 percent of payroll as payday totals dip below $400,000 annually. This will even hit the smallest of small businesses, those making profits of less than $250,000
• codification of the "economic substance doctrine," whereby taxpayers would not be able to engage in legal tax avoidance techniques without demonstrating a bona fide business purpose. This would apply not only to large companies and wealthy individuals, but any taxpayer of any income who engages in a legal tax avoidance technique

http://www.atr.org/house-dem-healthcare-tax-hikebr-breaks-a3533#

President Obama's primary goal is to extend formal health insurance to those low-income individuals who are currently uninsured despite the nearly $300-billion-a-year Medicaid program. Doing so the Obama way would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. There surely must be better and less costly ways to improve the health and health care of that low-income group.

Although the president claims he can finance the enormous increase in costs by raising taxes only on high-income individuals, tax experts know that this won't work. Experience shows that raising the top income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent -- the effect of adding the proposed health surcharge to the increase resulting from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income taxpayers -- would change the behavior of high-income individuals in ways that would shrink their taxable incomes and therefore produce less revenue. The result would be larger deficits and higher taxes on the middle class. Because of the unprecedented deficits forecast for the next decade, this is definitely not a time to start a major new spending program.

Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701905.html

Which brings me to me next point; your source continues to try to discredit the private sector option, while using data from the current system. Such is incomparable because the United States has not seen free competition in the health care industry since the 1970’s. The US government’s relative intervention over the years through subsidization and interest group lobbying has created a corporate oligopoly on health care. You cannot compare the current system to a possible free market alternative, which by economic law, will force prices down due to competition, to the current system of corporationsim, where a few “favored” corporations were able to create a monopolistic enterprise on the health care industry (once again, through the government lobby system).

My fundamental premise can be stated briefly: allow for a free market to prevail within the current medical industry, thus allowing prices to go down. Insurance will be used in its previous form, which is to cover events that are unlikely to happen. Within that, you couple health care lowered prices through free market competition and the elimination of an income tax, to allow citizens to choose their doctor and health provider with their increase of income. The idea is freedom of choice in choosing your health care and freedom in health care allocation as per one’s needs and one’s desires.

The reality is that the House health bill, which the Administration praised to the rafters, will force drastic changes in almost all insurance coverage, including the employer plans that currently work best. About 177 million people—or 62% of those under age 65—get insurance today through their jobs, and while rising costs are a problem, according to every survey most employees are happy with the coverage. A major reason for this relative success is a 1974 federal law known by the acronym Erisa, or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Erisa allows employers that self-insure—that is, those large enough to build their own risk pools and pay benefits directly—to offer uniform plans across state lines. This lets thousands of businesses avoid, for the most part, the costly federal and state regulations on covered treatments, pricing, rate setting and so on. It also gives them flexibility to design insurance to recruit and retain workers in a competitive labor market. Roughly 75% of employer-based coverage is governed by Erisa’s “freedom of purchase” rules.
Goodbye to all that. The House bill says that after a five-year grace period all Erisa insurance offerings will have to win government approval—both by the Department of Labor and a new “health choices commissioner” who will set federal standards for what is an acceptable health plan.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574298661486528186.html

Then again, 151 businesses and industry groups that depend on Erisa agree that the House bill will result in fewer insurance choices for employees, not more, once all benefits are exposed to political tampering. In a letter to Mrs. Pelosi this week, the coalition—including everyone from American Airlines to Xerox—says the bill includes “numerous provisions that increase the requirements and burdens on employer-sponsored coverage and limit employer flexibility to meet the needs of their workforce by requiring them to meet federal one-size-fits-all standards after a five-year ‘grace period.’”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320230068948584.html

Beyond that, the private corporate hegemony is also strictly regulated by many government regulations that serve to inconvenience and further drive prices up, such is an example:

First, if a senior moves from one state to another, he does not lose his traditional Medicare coverage. However, when a working-age American moves between states, or even between jobs, the law only allows him to keep his coverage for 18 months (although some states extend this period for some people), via a very ineffective program called Cobra. The federal government has caused fragmentation for people with private health insurance through the tax code, but it does not impose the same burden on Medicare beneficiaries.

http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/publications/government-health-care-competition-the-audacity-of-hope-against-experience

Graham’s points, that I think deserve some thought:

• Instead of a new government plan to compete against private health insurers, President Obama needs to remove the barriers that the government currently maintains against individual choice.

• Even the most benign government enterprise, the U.S. Postal Service, cannot compete against private couriers without a monopoly on basic letter delivery.

• By proposing to eliminate Medicare Advantage, a program that allows private insurers to compete for Medicare dollars, President Obama demonstrates that he cannot tolerate private competition against a government program.

theOperaGhost

August 28th, 2009, 04:45 PM

I'm sorry, but please find a site that isn't biased about the information-Cardinal rule number one when it comes to debating.

And no, it's not related to race and income, no one is denided access to health care in the U.S- A common foreign mistake.

People who have analyzed the three current health care bills floating around in Crongress, all say that it's going to increase taxes(that's also called not saving money on the consumers part)and decrease the amount of coverage given to people because you're going to have to take the amount of care that's out there now and spread it around more people. It's just something that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't want.

From your wonderful biased site:
Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960." Ever wonder why that is? I'll tell you it's not because of our health care system, it's the murders that are increasing among certain groups in this country. We also have a love-affair with cars and that means that you're more likely to be killed by a car than you are by someone shooting/stabbing you to death(there are many other ways that people die in this country). 42,116 car related deaths to 15,522 murders is a big difference and it all lowers the life expectancy in the U.S

Have you even read my source? It's a credible American site and is written by two American doctors.
Lol, I don't think you could get less foreign.

Where's your source to back your claims up with?
As of yet, you have offered nothing apart from your opinion which is just laughable in a debate.
Try constructing your argument properly before lecturing anyone else on it.

I draw your attention again to that websiteAnd any evidence to support the claim that it's an increase in murders that's responsible?
Your argument does nothing to acknowledge or address these which are clearly very relevant to the effectiveness of the current health care system:
The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Do you really think the health care system is the only reason our life expectancy is lower than other places? Ignorant...

Traffic related deaths are very high in America, and those deaths have NOTHING to do with health care. I'm sure if we were on government controlled health care, accident trauma victims would receive poor quality care and probably have to wait for it. It is my theory that traffic related deaths would actually increase with government controlled health care. This is of course a theory.

Next we have crime. I will say that murders have gone down in the past 20 years. The late 80s and early 90s was a rough time apparently. However I believe the year I've been seeing is 1960...we've gone down to something or other since 1960. Get a more recent statistic if you want it to be relevant. I can almost guarantee you that murder rates have risen since the 1960s.

Infant mortality rates. I can contribute this to many things. Drug use. Girls becoming pregnant before they are fully developed and capable of having children. I'd say drug use and simply just a different life style have contributed the most to higher infant mortality rates. However, I can't really see how government controlling health would make the quality of health care any better. I'm actually quite sure quality would go down the shitter.

The immunization issue. I really don't know much about it, but I'm pretty sure that is not the fault of our current health care system. People have the choice to get immunized or not. Many, many people refuse. A lot of immunizations are free, at least if they are offered by your employer or school. Nearly all the immunizations I've received have been free through both my employer and my schools.

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 06:12 PM

Behind Botswana? lol wowLol, yeah that surprised me too.

You have said that before, do you think if you type it many times, it will make your claim true?

Law only has as much authority as the obligating body has the ability to enforce it. There is nothing to enforce such a charter, it is, amongst others, an agreement of services, but the United States is only legally bound to its treaties and its laws; the Constitution does not recognize that the United States is bound to any other charter but itself, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land, overruling any other document. In the United States, rights are not defined as services, as what one most do for others, rights are a declared protection of citizens from usurpations of the government and fellow citizens. Ergo, any pretense of a right to health care would be of a contrary nature as to what rights are, within the American system of government and laws.Lol! Are you really this ignorant?
The Member States of the UN (which includes the US) agreed on all the human rights contained in the UDHR which includes the right to access of adequate health care. It is article 25 subsection a.
This is proof that it is a recognised human right.
How can you not see that?

Yes, but first, as British citizens, they no doubt have looked at this from an objective view and have, in turn, constructed their opinions accordingly.Never assume things you don't know.

plurium interrogationum

Very fallacious of you, we have not established this as a grounds for argumentation, because it has yet to be established if health care is a basic human right in the United States. That is your claim, but as per the Constitution and laws of the United States, I would disagree.Well, tbh, the US currently have it wrong and hopefully Obama will be successful in introducing a new system of universal health care.

No one is born less deserving of adequate health care than others.
No one grows up being less deserving of adequate health care than others.
Everyone has the right to receive satisfactory treatment by trained medical staff.
How much money you earn shouldn't be allowed to influence it at all.

And now for a few of my points from the Pacific Research Institute, Wall Street Journal, ATR and The Washington Post:

A chart to accompany the above research (these are reposts on the investors site from the PRI archives)
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISS_090622.png&caption=
Comparing your Medicare/Medicaid costs with the non-Medicare costs does not give an accurate insight into the situation if a single payer universal health care system were introduced.

http://www.atr.org/house-dem-healthcare-tax-hikebr-breaks-a3533#

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701905.html I'm not advocating everyone being made to buy health insurance so these are irrelevant.

Which brings me to me next point; your source continues to try to discredit the private sector option, while using data from the current system. Such is incomparableIsn't that what one of yours tries to do actually...Comparing the current situation with a hypothetical one.
The US government’s relative intervention over the years through subsidization and interest group lobbying has created a corporate oligopoly on health care. You cannot compare the current system to a possible free market alternative, which by economic law, will force prices down due to competition, to the current system of corporationsim, where a few “favored” corporations were able to create a monopolistic enterprise on the health care industry (once again, through the government lobby system).It doesn't try to discredit the current system (tbh it doesn't even have to try when an African country actually has better overall immunisation rates). Lol, all it does is say "this is way they do things here and what the situation in the US is", "this is what studies carried out in some States have found" and "this is what it's like in other countries with different systems".

My fundamental premise can be stated briefly: allow for a free market to prevail within the current medical industry, thus allowing prices to go down. Insurance will be used in its previous form, which is to cover events that are unlikely to happen. Within that, you couple health care lowered prices through free market competition and the elimination of an income tax, to allow citizens to choose their doctor and health provider with their increase of income. The idea is freedom of choice in choosing your health care and freedom in health care allocation as per one’s needs and one’s desires.If that were to work then fair enough.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574298661486528186.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320230068948584.html I can see the reasoning behind that but not entirely sure if I agree with it.

Beyond that, the private corporate hegemony is also strictly regulated by many government regulations that serve to inconvenience and further drive prices up, such is an example:Lol, that's not fair or right.

Graham’s points, that I think deserve some thought:

• Instead of a new government plan to compete against private health insurers, President Obama needs to remove the barriers that the government currently maintains against individual choice.

• Even the most benign government enterprise, the U.S. Postal Service, cannot compete against private couriers without a monopoly on basic letter delivery.

• By proposing to eliminate Medicare Advantage, a program that allows private insurers to compete for Medicare dollars, President Obama demonstrates that he cannot tolerate private competition against a government program.
I don't agree in forcing people to buy health insurance so a lot of the current system and his proposed system seems ridiculous to me.
The way we have it in the UK is better IMO - we pay our taxes and get free health care of an adequate standard.
If you want to buy health insurance and get a higher quality of care then there are a number of providers for you to choose from.
You can choose your health care providers, your standard of care based on your income, your insurance providers and your insurance coverage.
There are problems with the NHS but they are not crippling the system.

Do you really think the health care system is the only reason our life expectancy is lower than other places? Ignorant...

Traffic related deaths are very high in America, and those deaths have NOTHING to do with health care. I'm sure if we were on government controlled health care, accident trauma victims would receive poor quality care and probably have to wait for it. It is my theory that traffic related deaths would actually increase with government controlled health care. This is of course a theory.

Next we have crime. I will say that murders have gone down in the past 20 years. The late 80s and early 90s was a rough time apparently. However I believe the year I've been seeing is 1960...we've gone down to something or other since 1960. Get a more recent statistic if you want it to be relevant. I can almost guarantee you that murder rates have risen since the 1960s.

Infant mortality rates. I can contribute this to many things. Drug use. Girls becoming pregnant before they are fully developed and capable of having children. I'd say drug use and simply just a different life style have contributed the most to higher infant mortality rates. However, I can't really see how government controlling health would make the quality of health care any better. I'm actually quite sure quality would go down the shitter.

The immunization issue. I really don't know much about it, but I'm pretty sure that is not the fault of our current health care system. People have the choice to get immunized or not. Many, many people refuse. A lot of immunizations are free, at least if they are offered by your employer or school. Nearly all the immunizations I've received have been free through both my employer and my schools.Lol, where on earth did I say that the mortality rates were caused by the health care system?
I merely pointed out that Tiberius' claims that the increase in mortality rates were due to murder and car accidents isn't one that is backed up by any of the evidence in any of the sources brought up in this thread. Also, the statistics are more recent than 1960. This is clear because the web page states that it is an outline of a talk in 1999 and that the ranking for mortality rates has fallen from 1st (1945) and 13th (1960) to 20th.

When a developing African nation actually does better in teh WHO rankings for immunisations than a developed country then you know that something is very, very wrong. The health care system should be doing more to educate people about immunisations. With a better education on immunisations, more people would be protected and less would suffer from serious illnesses and/or die.

In fact it is reasonable to link the poor levels of immunisations with some of the deaths that occur.

RaeNose

August 28th, 2009, 06:40 PM

I think it's hilarious how more foreign people are concerned with this argument than the Americans when they will most likely not be affected by this.
Unless our government tanks...
Of course, no one's going to listen to anything I've said, as has been shown before, because people are too concerned with attacking people than laying down their facts and leaving it at that.

quartermaster

August 28th, 2009, 07:17 PM

Lol, yeah that surprised me too.

Lol! Are you really this ignorant?
The Member States of the UN (which includes the US) agreed on all the human rights contained in the UDHR which includes the right to access of adequate health care. It is article 25 subsection a.
This is proof that it is a recognised human right.
How can you not see that?

Never assume things you don't know.

Well, tbh, the US currently have it wrong and hopefully Obama will be successful in introducing a new system of universal health care.

No one is born less deserving of adequate health care than others.
No one grows up being less deserving of adequate health care than others.
Everyone has the right to receive satisfactory treatment by trained medical staff.
How much money you earn shouldn't be allowed to influence it at all.

Comparing your Medicare/Medicaid costs with the non-Medicare costs does not give an accurate insight into the situation if a single payer universal health care system were introduced.

I'm not advocating everyone being made to buy health insurance so these are irrelevant.

Isn't that what one of yours tries to do actually...Comparing the current situation with a hypothetical one.
It doesn't try to discredit the current system (tbh it doesn't even have to try when an African country actually has better overall immunisation rates). Lol, all it does is say "this is way they do things here and what the situation in the US is", "this is what studies carried out in some States have found" and "this is what it's like in other countries with different systems".

If that were to work then fair enough.

I can see the reasoning behind that but not entirely sure if I agree with it.

Lol, that's not fair or right.

I don't agree in forcing people to buy health insurance so a lot of the current system and his proposed system seems ridiculous to me.
The way we have it in the UK is better IMO - we pay our taxes and get free health care of an adequate standard.
If you want to buy health insurance and get a higher quality of care then there are a number of providers for you to choose from.
You can choose your health care providers, your standard of care based on your income, your insurance providers and your insurance coverage.
There are problems with the NHS but they are not crippling the system.

Now I am ignorant? Because I understand how United States law really works and the geopolitical implications of NOT signing such a charter? In addition, I understand that the United States is the sole authority within its land, and thus picks and chooses what it recognizes as a right, in the true sense (you seem to have issues understanding that the signing of a charter only has as much clout as the country is willing to pursue or truly recognize). Despite the charter, the United States government does not recognize Health Care as a right, as our laws are not dictated by any mandate beyond our own legislative bodies and our Constitution. And I quote, "How can you not see that?"

But…but…but…you signed the charter…irrelevant, our rights are clearly defined in our documents, and that is how it works.

You continue to be condescending in nature in your posts, and I do not appreciate it, however, I have taken greater offenses. I will reply to your posts in due time, however I am busy at the moment; I had hoped we could have an actual debate where we could keep the condescension out of it, but you have proven yourself to be very fallacious in argumentation (proven by my several fallacies I have found, in counting), and have now resorted to the worst of all, the ad hominem.

RaeNose

August 28th, 2009, 07:20 PM

It's not Obama's plan! He can't do crap!!!
It's the Chairmen of Congress's fault and the one's who actually wrote the bill.
Americans, in the majority, DO NOT WANT THIS BILL PASSED. Only the radical democrats do.

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 07:33 PM

Now I am ignorant? Because I understand how United States law really works and the geopolitical implications of NOT signing such a charter? In addition, I understand that the United States is the sole authority within its land, and thus picks and chooses what it recognizes as a right, in the true sense (you seem to have issues understanding that the signing of a charter only has as much clout as the country is willing to pursue or truly recognize). Despite the charter, the United States government does not recognize Health Care as a right, as our laws are not dictated by any mandate beyond our own legislative bodies and our Constitution. And I quote, "How can you not see that?"I was not talking about legally defined rights in the USA. I was talking about universal human rights as outlined by the UN Member States (which does indeed include the USA) and the UDHR is supporting evidence to back my statements up with.

Lol. I'm actually intrigued to see how you think I've been so condescending.

RaeNose

August 28th, 2009, 07:41 PM

I give up.
This is pointless.
They're not even from America and they're arguing.

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 07:47 PM

I give up.
This is pointless.
They're not even from America and they're arguing.
Why are you posting if you aren't actually bringing anything to the topic?

RaeNose

August 28th, 2009, 07:48 PM

I am.
You just aren't paying attention.
Whatever.
I'll go back to whatever the hell it was that I was doing before I tried to point out my case.

Sapphire

August 28th, 2009, 07:55 PM

I am.
You just aren't paying attention.
Whatever.
I'll go back to whatever the hell it was that I was doing before I tried to point out my case.You didn't in the post before this one ^

I don't see why I have to justify my participation in this debate to you.
I also don't see the point in addressing your claim that most Americans don't want this reform to occur because unless the reform involved the opportunity to access free health care then I wouldn't want either the current or the proposed reform.

Are you happy now that you've got a response after getting stroppy?

quartermaster

August 29th, 2009, 02:57 AM

I was not talking about legally defined rights in the USA. I was talking about universal human rights as outlined by the UN Member States (which does indeed include the USA) and the UDHR is supporting evidence to back my statements up with.

Indeed, I never tried to refute the fact that the US signed the UDHR, I am simply saying in real terms, the US does not recognize health care as a right, it never has. In order to drive that point home, I am simply pointing out that the only rights the US government recognizes are those outlined in our documents and laws. Within that idea, the legally defined rights within the United States are important to understand, as they are what the US bounds itself to maintain, any other charter is simply geopolitical, but not truly applied or recognized.

Never assume things you don't know.

Fair enough, it is not a source regardless, just a group that brought out points that I believe to be of merit.

Well, tbh, the US currently have it wrong and hopefully Obama will be successful in introducing a new system of universal health care.

We have our first agreement! I believe the US does have it wrong, and our health care system should be reformed. Our health care prices are too high and I believe they should be lowered substantially, but I do not believe the government should be the organization providing health care services. I do not wish Obama to succeed in this health care debate, because, once again, I believe the free market alternative is much better than his plan.

No one is born less deserving of adequate health care than others.
No one grows up being less deserving of adequate health care than others.

No one is born less deserving of having a lot of money or more deserving of having an affluent upbringing, or what have you, however, given our world, it happens, so your argument fails to deliver beyond basic government entitlement dribble. However, I do believe everyone in the United States should have access to affordable, quality health care, however, it should not be the government (especially the United States government, which is plagued by mismanagement and inability) providing such services.

Comparing your Medicare/Medicaid costs with the non-Medicare costs does not give an accurate insight into the situation if a single payer universal health care system were introduced.

Care to explain why that is? Because as far as I can see, that is nothing more than conjecture on your part, Medicare and Medicaid are government run systems, just as the one you advocate (not to mention, a long the lines of how the American system would be run). I suppose it is all right when comparing the public and private sector on premiums and premium allocation, as your article does, but it is incomparable when comparing premium costs. I suppose comparing the two systems is only acceptable when it supports your argument, fair enough, duly noted.

I'm not advocating everyone being made to buy health insurance so these are irrelevant.

Where did you get that idea out of either of these sources I posted? There is nothing within either of these articles that suggests that this plan is to force people to buy health insurance, nothing at all. I am afraid I am just a bit confused; these documents support my point that the United States would have a massive increase in taxes and over one trillion dollars in added debt from a plan that would only be a fraction of what the NHS is. Thus, when I say the United States cannot afford it, I bring these figures; the middle class will be further fleeced by increased taxes, the upper class may begin to change trends to lower their tax brackets (and businesses, given previous trends, may in turn begin to leave the higher bracket states) and the United States will be burdened with an additional trillion dollars.

Isn't that what one of yours tries to do actually...Comparing the current situation with a hypothetical one.

No, because Medicare and Medicaid are stand-alone operations undeterred by regulation; essentially, they work as stand-alone systems, that are insulated from outside forces or the private sector. They are, in scope, mini-examples of a national one-payer system; on the inverse, we have actually not seen the private sector work without enormous government intervention and regulations. In such, in this current system, the private sector is manipulated and does not reflect a true free-market system, but instead a system shaped by government regulation. That is why, on balance, they are incomparable, given the current system; even then, with all the barriers put up for the current corporate, government induced model, it still outperformed Medicare/Medicaid price-wise (previous figure).

It doesn't try to discredit the current system (tbh it doesn't even have to try when an African country actually has better overall immunisation rates). Lol, all it does is say "this is way they do things here and what the situation in the US is", "this is what studies carried out in some States have found" and "this is what it's like in other countries with different systems".

That is discrediting the current system, my friend. In argumentation, one does not always need a line of logic to make one’s point, many a time, facts suffice just as well. Make no mistake, I agree the current system is broken, and I think it should be reformed. That said, I part with your source in the ways in which it believes the health care industry should be reformed, as I believe the government is quite responsible for the health care mess that the United States has today. Once again, I do not particularly fault this article for trying to discredit the current system, as our system needs massive reform, I just think instead of trying to emulate the European systems, we can try an alternative system that may work better and be more efficient for our needs.

I don't agree in forcing people to buy health insurance so a lot of the current system and his proposed system seems ridiculous to me.

I don’t agree with forcing people to do much of anything besides paying taxes, so I agree, people should not be forced to buy health insurance. I believe that with free market, competition driven prices, health insurance will only be needed for the most extreme of cases, and regular health services will be cheap enough to be covered out of pocket.

Zephyr

August 29th, 2009, 04:53 AM

Sapphire

August 29th, 2009, 05:00 AM

Very well said, Steph!

Tiberius

August 29th, 2009, 09:56 AM

Everything has it's pros and cons.
Sure, it means that taxes will go up a little bit,
But everybody will have access to proper healthcare.

This is not a socialist reform,
As private health care will still be available.
My parents get their coverage through work,
And their company is going to stay with offering private health insurance to those who want it.

But seriously, with the current system, while doctors can't refuse you service if you arn't insured,
You still get stuck with ALL of the hospital bills.

My friend Lynn, recent burn victim, has absolutely no health insurance,
Before or after the incident.
By the time she's recovered, they'll be approximately $1 Million in debt,
Because of all of the costs that include:
Life-Flighting her to Portland, surgery costs, physical therapy, ointments for her skin grafts, medications, check-ups, etc.
They have some help, yes, but they'll still be paying for most of the bill in the end.
Don't you think that's a little fucked up,
When it was some drunk idiot who caught her on fire?

The health care reform is going to benefit people like that,
Rather than screwing them over with the current system.
It'll make prescriptions cheaper,
People with pre-existing conditions will be able to receive treatment rather than insurance companies turning them down,
The uninsured who cannot afford private insurance will have coverage.

What's so wrong with that?

I think that everybody is entitled to healthcare,
Not just those who can afford it.

Steph, with the bills in congress, sure, we'll have a private and a public option for 5 years. After that, they(the government) will remove the private option and take-over all health, so enjoy those 5 years. During that period the government is going to give buisness' an "incentive" to only offer the public option. By doing that, they are going to stomp-out privte health care sooner than 5 years. Next, you said that medication is going to be cheeper, it won't. Well, it will when you go to pay for it at the counter, but you'll feel the effects of that when you go to file your taxes. It's unfortunate what happened to your friend but in Oregon, if I'm not mistaken, has made it illigal for insurence companies to offer an Emergency Plan which provides a very cheap means of younger people to get health insurence for when things like that happen. It's really only for emgerencies, hence the name.

The Batman

August 29th, 2009, 02:29 PM

Whisper

August 29th, 2009, 02:54 PM

Steph, with the bills in congress, sure, we'll have a private and a public option for 5 years. After that, they(the government) will remove the private option and take-over all health, so enjoy those 5 years. During that period the government is going to give buisness' an "incentive" to only offer the public option. By doing that, they are going to stomp-out privte health care sooner than 5 years. Next, you said that medication is going to be cheeper, it won't. Well, it will when you go to pay for it at the counter, but you'll feel the effects of that when you go to file your taxes. It's unfortunate what happened to your friend but in Oregon, if I'm not mistaken, has made it illigal for insurence companies to offer an Emergency Plan which provides a very cheap means of younger people to get health insurence for when things like that happen. It's really only for emgerencies, hence the name.

wtf are you talking about
even Canada has private clinics for those who choose them
and private coverage options provided by private insurance companies that you can add onto the governmental coverage if you so wish (I have it)

my sister practically grew up in a hospital till she was 9 er 10 with kidney problems
we never paid a dime
I've been to the hospital many times had multiple surgeries, bones set, expensive tests, etc...
never
paid
a
dime

health is a right

quartermaster

August 29th, 2009, 03:00 PM

What is so wrong about offering people health care that can't afford it? I have no health insurance if i get in an accident I'm fucked. People need this bill and just because people are scared of socialism they don't want it? Dude that's a bullshit excuse IMO, if you're willing to have millions of people in debt or with a major health problem becuase they can't afford the hospital bill just because you don't like our current president or out of a false fear of socialism then really take a look in the mirror.

What if, per adventure, there was a better way to provide health care, a way to make it as cheap as any other service and more efficient than a government service.The people would then not be inundated with further taxes and the government not inundated with an even larger deficit.

Who decided that socialized medicine is the best route for the United States to take?
Who made the rule that if you disagree with such medicine you automatically don't care about people?
Why do we as Americans continue to follow the trend that "Europe does it" therefore it must be good?
Are we not capable of finding a system that may actually work better for our needs as a free enterprise country that was built on the basic premise of having a smaller government?

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

“The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases”

-Thomas Jefferson

The Batman

August 29th, 2009, 03:12 PM

Tiberius

August 29th, 2009, 03:53 PM

wtf are you talking about
even Canada has private clinics for those who choose them
and private coverage options provided by private insurance companies that you can add onto the governmental coverage if you so wish (I have it)

my sister practically grew up in a hospital till she was 9 er 10 with kidney problems
we never paid a dime
I've been to the hospital many times had multiple surgeries, bones set, expensive tests, etc...
never
paid
a
dime

health is a right
I'm sorry, Cody, but health care isn't a right, it's a privledge. Health care is a modern idea and people went for thousands of years without it, since when is it a right? As Benjamin Franklin once put it "God helps those who help themselves." Like I said before, all States should have to allow an Emergency Plan from private insurence companies. That's what younger people can afford when their workplaces don't offer it and it covers them when they really need it and it covers all of those expenses.

quartermaster

August 29th, 2009, 05:04 PM

If you only say that universal health care leads to socialism without providing a better alternative then you are not thinking about the people who need it. I'm not thinking of Europe or Canada or any other country I'm thinking of the people I see that can't afford to go to the doctor for a simple check up. If you think that there is a better way then write it and send it to congress instead of just bitching about how you don't like the new one.

Friend, you don't even know me, so please don't accuse me of doing anything, except posing simple questions. Your response also clearly shows that you have not read even one of my previous posts within this thread, as you would have seen that I have proposed an alternative that I think will work better. It is not my plan, however, it is a plan that many people agree with, including many economists and doctors, so once again, please don't just mouth off to someone if you don't know anything about them or their views. There is quite a large following for this plan, and I'm just another member of that following, the only thing I "bitch" about is the fact that this health care bill is trying to be forced down our throats, when alternative plans were not even openly put on the table.

So please, do not attack me, and most certainly lecture me, when you have not even taken the time to look at my posts.

The Batman

August 29th, 2009, 05:17 PM

That wasn't a direct attack on you dude don't take it so personal and really it wasn't even directed at you I've read your posts in this thread. It was to the people that are saying it's leading to socialism without providing a better solution.

quartermaster

August 29th, 2009, 05:21 PM

tripolar

August 29th, 2009, 06:48 PM

To everyone that fighting about the health-care bill. Guess what its going to happen, democratic president + democratic senate and congress = pass.

So if you don't like it, like it.

I think it needs to be re-worked but the democrats already said they will go through without republican support.

Whisper

August 29th, 2009, 07:13 PM

I'm sorry, Cody, but health care isn't a right, it's a privledge. Health care is a modern idea and people went for thousands of years without it, since when is it a right? As Benjamin Franklin once put it "God helps those who help themselves." Like I said before, all States should have to allow an Emergency Plan from private insurence companies. That's what younger people can afford when their workplaces don't offer it and it covers them when they really need it and it covers all of those expenses.

What is it with Americans and god
Health IS a right, maybe not in America; land of capitalism, look out for number one mentality

But in the rest of the western world its a right
The fact that you honestly believe it isn't to me is as alien a concept as honor killings

As a Canadian
I pay less
My life expectancy is longer
My infant mortality rate is lower

It has problem's I'm not denying that
But they're better then your American alternative by light years

quartermaster

August 29th, 2009, 08:59 PM

What is it with Americans and god

I don't know, it kind of has to do with that whole Puritan and Pilgrim thing, I'm just thinking out loud.

tripolar

August 29th, 2009, 09:29 PM

but health care isn't a right, it's a privledge.

And that is why everyone hates the U.S.

Health care is a modern idea and people went for thousands of years without it, since when is it a right?

Those thousands of years, there was barely and medicine of care. You got a cold or the flu you were pretty much dead. Times are different there is better technology and it can be spread out to everyone.

If you are a citizen (not an alien) you deserve health care. The United States is the most powerful and advanced country in the world, yet everyone but the upper class are seen as shit. Lots of homeless and lack of health care. You say it isn't a right, remember not all businesses are required to give out health care to workers. So these workers have to pay for there families and insurance companies who are run by a bunch of crooks and cronies try to get tremendous amounts of money.

Lets a single lower class mother is working a minimum wage job to pay for her kids, but her job doesn't pay for insurance. Now this woman will have to pay for food, electric, taxes, water/sewage, clothes and then has to try to pay for insurance on top of that.

Just like Thomas said above about the people saying universal health care leads to socialism. Those people, media (*cough* Glenn Beck *cough*) and politicians are jerks that don't care about people below them. The worst example of this was a few years ago a lot of senior citizens were crossing the boarder into Canada for lower costing prescription drugs and the pharmaceutical companies and U.S. government see these people as drug runners, but they can't afford the medication they need because of all the costs.

I love the Canadian universal health care system, but the U.S. politicians are idiots and instead of spending $1 trillion on modeling the Canadian version were its free , they decide to spend $1 trillion on an "overhaul" and people still have to pay for insurance.

theOperaGhost

August 29th, 2009, 09:41 PM

And that is why everyone hates the U.S.

Those thousands of years, there was barely and medicine of care. You got a cold or the flu you were pretty much dead. Times are different there is better technology and it can be spread out to everyone.

If you are a citizen (not an alien) you deserve health care. The United States is the most powerful and advanced country in the world, yet everyone but the upper class are seen as shit. Lots of homeless and lack of health care. You say it isn't a right, remember not all businesses are required to give out health care to workers. So these workers have to pay for there families and insurance companies who are run by a bunch of crooks and cronies try to get tremendous amounts of money.

Lets a single lower class mother is working a minimum wage job to pay for her kids, but her job doesn't pay for insurance. Now this woman will have to pay for food, electric, taxes, water/sewage, clothes and then has to try to pay for insurance on top of that.

Just like Thomas said above about the people saying universal health care leads to socialism. Those people, media (*cough* Glenn Beck *cough*) and politicians are jerks that don't care about people below them. The worst example of this was a few years ago a lot of senior citizens were crossing the boarder into Canada for lower costing prescription drugs and the pharmaceutical companies and U.S. government see these people as drug runners, but they can't afford the medication they need because of all the costs.

I love the Canadian universal health care system, but the U.S. politicians are idiots and instead of spending $1 trillion on modeling the Canadian version were its free , they decide to spend $1 trillion on an "overhaul" and people still have to pay for insurance.

So instead of paying those "crooks and cronnies" of the insurance companies, you'd rather pay the biggest and most corrupt "crooks and cronnies," the government? And I just can't see how anyone can love Canada's universal health care system, since all I've ever heard about it is shit. And no, this shit isn't coming from the media. I hear all of it from my Canadian friends who say they absolutely hate Canada's system.

tripolar

August 29th, 2009, 10:22 PM

So instead of paying those "crooks and cronnies" of the insurance companies, you'd rather pay the biggest and most corrupt "crooks and cronnies," the government? And I just can't see how anyone can love Canada's universal health care system, since all I've ever heard about it is shit. And no, this shit isn't coming from the media. I hear all of it from my Canadian friends who say they absolutely hate Canada's system.

The government is worse than the insurance companies. What i mean is free health care for all. Hate the Canadian system? its free atleast the poor can get health care. Sure it has problems, but its not as bad as other places.

The Batman

August 29th, 2009, 10:46 PM

So instead of paying those "crooks and cronnies" of the insurance companies, you'd rather pay the biggest and most corrupt "crooks and cronnies," the government? And I just can't see how anyone can love Canada's universal health care system, since all I've ever heard about it is shit. And no, this shit isn't coming from the media. I hear all of it from my Canadian friends who say they absolutely hate Canada's system.

It's better to develop your own opinion on it instead of just going by what you heard.

Tiberius

August 29th, 2009, 10:51 PM

theOperaGhost

August 30th, 2009, 12:57 AM

It's better to develop your own opinion on it instead of just going by what you heard.

Thomas...that's kind of impossible since I don't live in fucking Canada! I bet if I took a survey of every Canadian at this college (about 1,200 students are Canadian, I think) I would come up with a majority of them with the same kind of horror stories. Like I said, I've never heard a good story about Canada's health care (minus it being free) and I know a LOT of Canadians. I personally just don't think it is the government's obligation to provide health care for people. Especially if people come in with drug related problems and such. I know for damn sure I don't want to be paying someone's health bill for a fucking drug overdose.

And OMG, Chris provided a video from CNN too!!!! I never thought anyone besides Fox News would be against universal health care! This makes me happy! Go Fox News!

Whisper

August 30th, 2009, 02:43 AM

So instead of paying those "crooks and cronnies" of the insurance companies, you'd rather pay the biggest and most corrupt "crooks and cronnies," the government? And I just can't see how anyone can love Canada's universal health care system, since all I've ever heard about it is shit. And no, this shit isn't coming from the media. I hear all of it from my Canadian friends who say they absolutely hate Canada's system.
it has saved my life
got rid of my mums cancer saved my dads life and fixed my sisters kidneys time and time again

I LOVE CANADA'S SYSTEM
there you go right from a born n bred Canadian mouth
it has problems but its better then anything u have

quartermaster

August 30th, 2009, 02:47 AM

And that is why everyone hates the U.S.

Let them hate the U.S., we have gone through history without caring what everyone has thought of us, actually caring about such trivial things is a new American phenomenon. A country should act in its citizen's best interest, not off of what everyone else thinks, because regardless, those countries are going to continue commerce and maintain diplomatic relations (many a time out of their own self interest).

It is with the reason that a country should act in its citizen's best interest that I believe health care should be reformed within this country, but most certainly not because other countries will hate us for not agreeing with their ideas towards a certain human right or some government entitlement.

Zephyr

August 30th, 2009, 05:11 AM

Strength

August 30th, 2009, 07:43 AM

I fully agree with the OP!

theOperaGhost

August 30th, 2009, 11:35 AM

The whole praying to God thing...
Yeah...
So what do you tell people of other beliefs?
Welcome to the modern world.
Times change,
As do beliefs.
We've made huge advances in medical care since thousands of years ago,
So don't even try to say that people don't need health care now since they didn't HAVE it available back then.

As an Atheist, I'm not going to be praying to 'God' for better health.

And it's a false misconception that the government will be controlling with the health care.
The truth is that YOU make your own decisions as far as your own treatments go, which doctors you go to, everything.
The government is simply making it so that everybody has access to proper healthcare.
Other than paying for the healthcare, the government won't be doing anything else.
And yes, I'm aware that if this bill passes, it'll raise my taxes, I already noted that in my first post.
Money is something I'd be willing to lose some of if it means it's going towards a greater good,
Which is helping those in need out.

You might be willing to give your money to people who can't afford health care, but I'm not. I know I'm not the biggest humanitarian around (obviously :P), but I believe in earning whatever you get. I already have a problem with giving money to the social security and medicare system. I don't want to add another thing that will take MY money out of MY check. I earned that money, I don't want someone else having it. I especially hate paying social security, since it will be ran dry by the time I will be able to draw on it.

tripolar

August 30th, 2009, 12:12 PM

You might be willing to give your money to people who can't afford health care, but I'm not. I know I'm not the biggest humanitarian around (obviously :P), but I believe in earning whatever you get. I already have a problem with giving money to the social security and medicare system. I don't want to add another thing that will take MY money out of MY check. I earned that money, I don't want someone else having it. I especially hate paying social security, since it will be ran dry by the time I will be able to draw on it.

Then don't pay your taxes and when the IRS comes tell them that.

The whole praying to God thing...

As an Atheist, I'm not going to be praying to 'God' for better health.

And when people think that god can fix anything that's wrong this happens: http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148950290&ocid=hotmail

That is when people pray for health to be fixed instead of seeing medical professionals.

theOperaGhost

August 30th, 2009, 12:58 PM

Then don't pay your taxes and when the IRS comes tell them that.

No, I'm a good American citizen. I don't want to be like those fucking illegal immigrants free loading off this country. I just can't believe you people want to pay MORE taxes to help people who probably aren't paying their taxes in the first place. I say you've got to fend for yourself before dishing out to people who can't. Why can't you all be like normal people and hold fund raisers and benefits when you have medical expenses you can't cover? I'd much rather DONATE to a benefit or fund raiser than PAY taxes to the government for people's health care.

Θάνατος

August 30th, 2009, 02:07 PM

For once, Jared and I do see eye to eye on an issue here. I am of busting my ass so every fucking illegal alien or refugee can come here and have a better life than me.

I pay my taxes so refugees can come to this country and take our jobs away from us because the government gives the businesses tax breaks if they will hire these people. Then to top it all of they are here tax free for 6 years while they are using the good and services that I have provided to them through my tax dollars. Refugees can come buy a business and not have to pay taxes and then at the end of that 6 ears sell the business to another refugee and that refugee won't have to pay taxes for that business until they are here six years. Pretty fucked up system we have here and now.

Stop the burden of the American taxpayer with all of the government handouts.

Whisper

August 30th, 2009, 10:45 PM

statements like that say allot about ones society and values as a whole
its funny when you think how religious America is
"love thy neighbor" lawl

I have no problem paying taxes, and if they came on the news and said our healthcare is in dire condition we need to raise the GST back to 7%, where it was at before the neo-american Harper came to power, I wouldn't think twice about it.
we take care of our own, I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help a fellow citizen because I know that WHEN (not if) I'm in the hospital they do the same.
If I could wish for anything
It would be that we model OUR healthcare system after France
But that will never happen
We're to close to the states

I love how your one argument really is you REFUSE to pay more, or anything really to anybody, you're only okay with paying for something that benefits you DIRECTLY
yet you pay more for medical then I do, my life expectancy is longer, infant mortality is lower, "pre-existing condition" is a phrase that just doesn't exist here, etc.....

theOperaGhost

August 30th, 2009, 11:50 PM

tripolar

August 31st, 2009, 10:44 PM

I never said refuse. I will be pissed about. Will I be able to do anything about it? No. Democrats control the government, so whatever they want, they will basically get. I'll have to accept it, I suppose. I will be very upset about it, along with (the last time I heard anyway) 51% of the population (don't quote me on it).

Don't get me wrong, I support health care reform. I will never support socialized health care though. There's nothing I can do except bitch about it though...not like my vote will ever count in anything.

The government is never evenly balanced, during the first 6 years of the Bush administration it was republican controlled.

First off i do not agree with the democrats plan towards health care reform.

Your right no citizen's vote will ever count towards anything. Its not even socialized but for some reason when it relates to government control everyone's favorite words are "socialized" and "communist". When something is socialist it involves major changes like everyone salaries are controlled or, the government controls food distribution. Not a government health care system.

MisterMonster

August 31st, 2009, 11:09 PM

the thing is though, i could just go "racist" and you'd all be put in prison

theOperaGhost

August 31st, 2009, 11:14 PM

the thing is though, i could just go "racist" and you'd all be put in prison

Yes, because everyone who is against anything Obama thinks is racist...logical thinking, dumbass...

Whisper

August 31st, 2009, 11:24 PM

Yes, because everyone who is against anything Obama thinks is racist...logical thinking, dumbass...

agreed
if anything you trying to use the color of his skin as a weapon to win in a debate makes you the "racist" because your expecting us to take pitty or feel socially pressured to make nice based off his skin

Obama is a big boy, he's more then proved that
this has nothing to do with race
dumbass

Mirataku

August 31st, 2009, 11:35 PM

why are americans so scared of socialism. There is a major difference between socialism and communisim as there are between a democracy and right wing dictatorship. Socialism itself relies on the care and protection of citizens by a state. Europe is an example of correct socialism. Yes we have market economies, high level of freedom and a high level of personal happiness, development, healthcare coverage and education. Now I am not saying that America possess none of this, as our areas have evloved differently. Americans view freedom as the ability to perform to the best of ones abilities, without unneccesary contstraints from the state such as high taxes to fund healthcare. This is accepted as the individualism that allows each person to be "free". Europe developed democracy as representative governments. This means that the views of the majority with neccessary protection for the minority allows freedom. After the second world war, America's economy was not as gravely effected as Europe. With or economies in ruins, the citizenry wanted a better life as payment for the human and material cost of WW2. This intiated the system of welfare states and programs such as Universal Health care coverage, free education, and state subsidies. Thus both social democracy and neo-liberalism are both good systems. But they just view "freedom" in different ways.

Eagle1

September 1st, 2009, 03:54 AM

I didn't write this, I'm just sharing....

Barack The Joker Obama has been laughing his way through his first year in office. He continues to throw around billions like it's confetti. His promises of curtailing job losses never materialize despite all the comical stimulus projects he has funded. Obama has shown that he would be more at home under the big top than in the White House.

America was built with the values of individual liberty, self-reliance, and personal responsibility. The US economy is one of the greatest in the world thanks in part to the principles of capitalism upon which it was founded. President Obama seems committed to redefining America's economy. In just a few short months he has forced the government into industries like finance and automobiles. Billions have been invested into ridiculous stimulus projects which the private market would have never supported, all while the national debt skyrockets. While the consequences of these actions have largely been ignored by the media and the public, Obama's next joke affects everyone. Obama is trying to force socialized health care on all Americans. If he succeeds it will mean the end of the private health care industry, lower quality care, long lines, and higher prices for all. Obama's Health Care reform attempt is just the latest in a series of attempts to move the US towards socialism. This is the closest that the US has ever been to becoming a socialist economy and we are not even 1/4th of the way through the current presidential term. The freedom of all Americans is on the line. Socialism Is No Joke.
http://www.new.facebook.com/pages/Socialism-Is-No-Joke/246605145124?v=info&viewas=1434660665&ref=pymk

What do you think about this?

I for one can't stand that Obama is trying to turn the US into a socialism.

I will give my arguments if other people do.

I agree completely our government is too big they say its still "of the people and bye the people" but in reality the government does whatever it wants not what the people want. Thomas Jefferson believed their should be a revolution every 20 years and I agree the time has come make no mistake their WILL be another civil war if the government tries to even TOUCH the 2nd amendment the NRA has done well up until now but they will not last forever if you agree with me than you should visit this site http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ and watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D680st4cRIM&feature=related
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAI

if you don't agree then don't watch

Whisper

September 1st, 2009, 03:57 AM

I agree completely our government is too big they say its still "of the people and bye the people" but in reality the government does whatever it wants not what the people want. Thomas Jefferson believed their should be a revolution every 20 years and I agree the time has come make no mistake their WILL be another civil war if the government tries to even TOUCH the 2nd amendment the NRA has done well up until now but they will not last forever if you agree with me than you should visit this site http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ and watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D680st4cRIM&feature=related
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf2K4-BQYAI

if you don't agree then don't watch

So instead of invading another country
you'll just kick the crap out of eachother?....again
maybe (just a thought here)
you should try another method

off topic though

Eagle1

September 1st, 2009, 05:21 AM

So instead of invading another country
you'll just kick the crap out of eachother?....again
maybe (just a thought here)
you should try another method

off topic though

if thats what it takes to keep our rights america lost many lives to achieve our freedom and if we give in then it would have been for nothing. plus no offence but its not your place to judge. (this is how I feel) now back on topic:yes:

quartermaster

September 1st, 2009, 05:22 AM

I have no problem paying taxes, and if they came on the news and said our healthcare is in dire condition we need to raise the GST back to 7%, where it was at before the neo-american Harper came to power, I wouldn't think twice about it.
we take care of our own, I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help a fellow citizen because I know that WHEN (not if) I'm in the hospital they do the same.
If I could wish for anything
It would be that we model OUR healthcare system after France
But that will never happen
We're to close to the states

I love how your one argument really is you REFUSE to pay more, or anything really to anybody, you're only okay with paying for something that benefits you DIRECTLY
yet you pay more for medical then I do, my life expectancy is longer, infant mortality is lower, "pre-existing condition" is a phrase that just doesn't exist here, etc.....

Understand, and please be clear, we acknowledge that out current medical system is flawed and needs to be reformed (which is why I am dismayed as to why so many people from the UK and Canada continue to contend that we do not, and then proceed to bash our current system, as if we approve of it), however, we believe that a government controlled system is not the way to go about reforming it.

The United States was founded on the basic premise that the government is a necessary evil and thus, we always view the government as inherently separate from the people. Europe's liberal democracies and parliamentarian systems are defined by the government and the people being one in the same (in basic premise); it is a simple matter of how the systems came to be. That said, United States citizens believe that the best liberty is obtained through a smaller government as opposed to a larger government, and more poignantly, a welfare state, as it is an example of the government's continued encroachment upon the lives of citizens.

Thus, increased taxes are also seen as the government taking the hard-earned profits of citizens to increase its size and hegemony upon the people. The American persona is defined by the idea that if the government is, indeed, only a necessary evil, then the growth of the government calls into action an increase in governmental power, and thus allows for usurpation and further government control. In the modern palette of the United States, the Obama health care bill is seen by many as the continued and expanded efforts of the government to create citizen dependence upon the government, where such dependence (just as has happened over the years with welfare) legitimizes the growth of the government in order to accommodate its “services” (this of which, contradicting the idea of a modest, small government). An example of the original “American persona” can be seen in the very founding of the United States, by the weak nature of the Articles of Confederation, where the federal government did not even have the power to tax.

Foreigners mistaken the massive opposition to this health care plan as a textbook example of American greed or American ambivalence to human lives, but such a pretense germinates because many foreigners (yourself included) misunderstand the basic American persona. Americans believe that the best liberty is obtained when the government has as little control over the lives and pursuits of the people. It is not a matter of selfishness in not wanting to pay extra taxes; it is about the government forcing increased taxes on people to fund a governmental system of increased control over a sector. Essentially, it is the idea of being forced to prop up a system of further government control that many citizens oppose; this, all at once, coupled with the government creating a zero-sum game scenario, where it is either one supports their reform, or reform will not come (an elimination of meaningful health care debate). Further, the government’s continued health care plan push does not even attempt address the relative economic instability of the current American market, as it (health care bill) will add more than one trillion dollars in increased debt (debt of which we continue to load off upon creditors such as China who in a swift move of decoupling could send shockwaves down our economy, as it were).

When did government controlled health care become the only "moral" way of maintaining a health care system?

When did Europe and Canada get a monopoly on morality? If we do not agree with your ideas towards what services government supplies then we are hypocrites and don't "love our neighbors"

It's ridiculous and a fallacious argument at best...

Eagle1

September 1st, 2009, 05:26 AM

understand, and please be clear, we acknowledge that out current medical system is flawed and needs to be reformed (which is why i am dismayed as to why so many people from the uk and canada continue to contend that we do not, and then proceed to bash our current system, as if we approve of it), however, we believe that a government controlled system is not the way to go about reforming it.

The united states was founded on the basic premise that the government is a necessary evil and thus, we always view the government as inherently separate from the people. Europe's liberal democracies and parliamentarian systems are defined by the government and the people being one in the same (in basic premise); it is a simple matter of how the systems came to be. That said, united states citizens believe that the best liberty is obtained through a smaller government as opposed to a larger government, and more poignantly, a welfare state, as it is an example of the government's continued encroachment upon the lives of citizens.

Thus, increased taxes are also seen as the government taking the hard-earned profits of citizens to increase its size and hegemony upon the people. The american persona is defined by the idea that if the government is, indeed, only a necessary evil, then the growth of the government calls into action an increase in governmental power, and thus allows for usurpation and further government control. In the modern palette of the united states, the obama health care bill is seen by many as the continued and expanded efforts of the government to create citizen dependence upon the government, where such dependence (just as has happened over the years with welfare) legitimizes the growth of the government in order to accommodate its “services” (this of which, contradicting the idea of a modest, small government). An example of the original “american persona” can be seen in the very founding of the united states, by the weak nature of the articles of confederation, where the federal government did not even have the power to tax.

Foreigners mistaken the massive opposition to this health care plan as a textbook example of american greed or american ambivalence to human lives, but such a pretense germinates because many foreigners (yourself included) misunderstand the basic american persona. Americans believe that the best liberty is obtained when the government has as little control over the lives and pursuits of the people. It is not a matter of selfishness in not wanting to pay extra taxes; it is about the government forcing increased taxes on people to fund a governmental system of increased control over a sector. Essentially, it is the idea of being forced to prop up a system of further government control that many citizens oppose; this, all at once, coupled with the government creating a zero-sum game scenario, where it is either one supports their reform, or reform will not come (an elimination of meaningful health care debate). Further, the government’s continued health care plan push does not even attempt address the relative economic instability of the current american market, as it (health care bill) will add more than one trillion dollars in increased debt (debt of which we continue to load off upon creditors such as china who in a swift move of decoupling could send shockwaves down our economy, as it were).

When did government controlled health care become the only "moral" way of maintaining a health care system?

When did europe and canada get a monopoly on morality? If we do not agree with your ideas towards what services government supplies then we are hypocrites and don't "love our neighbors"

it's ridiculous and a fallacious argument at best...

thank you

Antares

September 1st, 2009, 06:44 PM

I did not see this thread.

Okay, socialism.
It has good intent, however a government can't just leave its people high and dry.
According to the constitution they have to provide us:

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

We can't be tranquil nor be...happy basically when people are friggin poor, losing their jobs, and about to die.

Now, I fully support Obama's plan because at least he is doing something.
Versus Bush who...passed a few hundered BILLION dollars to feed our banks.
What did Obama do? The exact same thing. So where is the problem???
Tell me what is the difference when CONGRESS passes a bill that has all types of programs stuffed in it to promote the "general welfare" of its people just like FDR did in the great depression and other presidents have done generally (like LBJ).

People are making Obama out as this evil demon that wants to take away everything and make this Nazi America when that is not the case.

So now that we got that out of the way, capitalism has a good principal but you need to maintain socialism to some extent. Otherwise our government would not be serving us and then, according to Locke's theory, we would need a new one.

I totally agree with Kodie and for some points Carole.
I think we need a government option because insurance agencies are becoming the most corrupt private companies in the world. How?
Poeple pay billions of dollars in bills a year and these comapnies dont do shit for them.

Case in point, Katrina. People had all this damage. They had insurance. But then the insurance company tries to spin it a different way and people get screwed up the bumhole.
Thats not okay.
Same with healthcare. People get these illnesses from things they can't control and the insurance company decides not to pay for it for whatever reason.
That is completely unaccpetbale especially when you believe that everyone should have the right to...live.

We need a public option because in my opinion, that is the only way we will be able to reduce this mess in our private sector and provide people with a way to live. No bars held.

And as for Canada and Englands public health care, its doin fine because its been working for years. If it was unbearable people would have given it up already.

Now what do you have to say to that OP?

theOperaGhost

September 1st, 2009, 06:59 PM

I did not see this thread.

Okay, socialism.
It has good intent, however a government can't just leave its people high and dry.
According to the constitution they have to provide us:

We can't be tranquil nor be...happy basically when people are friggin poor, losing their jobs, and about to die.

Now, I fully support Obama's plan because at least he is doing something.
Versus Bush who...passed a few hundered BILLION dollars to feed our banks.
What did Obama do? The exact same thing. So where is the problem???
Tell me what is the difference when CONGRESS passes a bill that has all types of programs stuffed in it to promote the "general welfare" of its people just like FDR did in the great depression and other presidents have done generally (like LBJ).

People are making Obama out as this evil demon that wants to take away everything and make this Nazi America when that is not the case.

So now that we got that out of the way, capitalism has a good principal but you need to maintain socialism to some extent. Otherwise our government would not be serving us and then, according to Locke's theory, we would need a new one.

I totally agree with Kodie and for some points Carole.
I think we need a government option because insurance agencies are becoming the most corrupt private companies in the world. How?
Poeple pay billions of dollars in bills a year and these comapnies dont do shit for them.

Case in point, Katrina. People had all this damage. They had insurance. But then the insurance company tries to spin it a different way and people get screwed up the bumhole.
Thats not okay.
Same with healthcare. People get these illnesses from things they can't control and the insurance company decides not to pay for it for whatever reason.
That is completely unaccpetbale especially when you believe that everyone should have the right to...live.

We need a public option because in my opinion, that is the only way we will be able to reduce this mess in our private sector and provide people with a way to live. No bars held.

And as for Canada and Englands public health care, its doin fine because its been working for years. If it was unbearable people would have given it up already.

Now what do you have to say to that OP?

Well that statement about everyone making Obama out to be an evil demon is completely two-faced. Democrats make Bush out to be a war-hungry monster and that is completely fine. Democrats burn effigies of Bush and that is completely fine. Now the tables turn and Republicans disagree with Obama and now WE'RE the monsters. We're all racist because we disagree with a black president's views. It's a complete double standard.

I have no experience with insurance not covering things, so I can't speak for that. However, I still disagree about insurance companies being completely corrupt. I feel that the government is WAY more corrupt than any insurance company is, so why should the government control all health care? The government is one of the most corrupt bodies of people around.

I also don't know about all those Katrina victims having insurance. I highly doubt that over 55% of the people had insurance.

Would you fully support Obama's plan just because "he's doing something" if it were a completely corrupt plan? Say Obama decides to "do something" about the huge illegal immigration problem and calls for snipers to be placed all along the border and shoot anyone who crosses illegally? Would you support that just because he's "doing something"? Just because he's doing something is not justification to support his plans.

The Batman

September 1st, 2009, 07:04 PM

Well that statement about everyone making Obama out to be an evil demon is completely two-faced. Democrats make Bush out to be a war-hungry monster and that is completely fine. Democrats burn effigies of Bush and that is completely fine. Now the tables turn and Republicans disagree with Obama and now WE'RE the monsters. We're all racist because we disagree with a black president's views. It's a complete double standard.
8 years of Bush and 6 months of Obama. I think we pretty much had him figured out by the end but really this guy came in with you guys judging him. The whole racist shit is really played out no one cares about his color.

Antares

September 1st, 2009, 07:06 PM

Also, please do not post Michelle Bachman again. As a minnesotan, i can definitively say shes stupider than Sarah Palin.

Now, lets get on to some videos from me.
The movie, Sicko.
I suggest you all watch it. Especially if you are against making healthcare public.

GOZmvaFfjtk
PwGLdYBm1bY

EDIT: I totally agree with umm...Thomas above.
No one really gave Obama the chance. Especially from the conservatives.
Also, how can you say Bush isn't a war hungry monster when hes going and fighting wars that have NOTHING to actually protecting us. Like seriously, was Iraq REALLY a threat. I don't believe they were.
So yes, bush was a war hungry monster.
Plus no one said anything about putting "white" in front of Bushes name. Now we want to put "black" in front of Obamas. Lets just drop the race card and focus on policies. I think if Obama were white, he wouldn't be getting as much heat as he is now. For what? Nothing.

Jared, I love you and all but I want to see you get brain cancer and then have the insurance company deny paying for it and then you die because you are a lower middle class citizen who doesn't matter to anyone.

Then we will see how you feel about adding a public OPTION that ensures you get the healthcare you deserve to see the people that love you another day.

Like I have stated to you sooo many times. This government OPTION isn't going to contorl every single person in the united states. Its an option. You dont hae to do it if you dont want.

Also, Katrina. As a person that has family in that area and that know...a lot of about that area. Most of the victims were working class citizens who have the same american morals you do. It wasn't just poor people in new orleans. It was rich people in the southern tip of lousiana, rich people that lived in the french quarter, poor people that lived on farms in missisippi. I can assure you that a good chunk of those people got their lives messed up because of a crooked governemnt that didnt have the balls to back them and a crooked private insurance sector.

As for your last statement, I fully support not trusting anyone until I know all the facts. i have said this before and i will say it again, I have attempted to educate myself on the plan that he and congress is proposing and I am not doing simply because he is president. I want a government option because i am confidence it can make people live a better life.

If he wanted to shoot people, i wouldn't back him. I think thats too harsh especially when they haven't crossed yet :P

theOperaGhost

September 1st, 2009, 07:12 PM

I refuse to watch anything by Michael Moore...It's the most propaganda filled bullshit there is in the world.

Antares

September 1st, 2009, 07:28 PM

I refuse to watch anything by Michael Moore...It's the most propaganda filled bullshit there is in the world.

Well then you are one of the most close-minded, stubborn people to not listen to two sides of a debate.

Shame.

In that case, I will allow myself to not watch any more of your hero, Glenn Beck clips posted in this thread.

How can you have a debate without actually understanding the point of the other side.

This thread should be locked.

Bougainvillea

September 1st, 2009, 07:35 PM

Exactly.

I watched that documentary.
Moore was trying to make the horrors of our health care system public. If you don't agree with trying to show the people what's really happening, then I REALLY don't know what to say to you.

theOperaGhost

September 1st, 2009, 07:59 PM

Well then you are one of the most close-minded, stubborn people to not listen to two sides of a debate.

Shame.

In that case, I will allow myself to not watch any more of your hero, Glenn Beck clips posted in this thread.

How can you have a debate without actually understanding the point of the other side.

This thread should be locked.

I'm willing to debate, but not when you use Michael Moore. I've seen his bullshit before. If someone seriously believes that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, I'm not going to believe a word they say, so why watch it? I'm actually quite open minded. I watch CNN. I do understand the point of the other side. I'm all for health care reform. I'm just not for government control of health care. I'd have a better chance of getting the money I need for brain cancer treatment from my insurance company then I would from the government.

You don't have to watch Glenn Beck, but I'll tell you that he gives way more truths than that dumb son of a bitch Michael Moore does. God I'd love it if he were dead.

Tiberius

September 1st, 2009, 08:01 PM

I'd love to see the horrors of the NHS or the Canadian systems. That'd be a wonderful docutmentery. I have MANY family memebers who are doctors and are in the medical system as practitioners, this doesn't happen like that fat shit says it does. Moore can go munch on his sheet pizzia and die of a heart attack-before we spend money caring for his lard-ridden hide.

quartermaster

September 1st, 2009, 08:21 PM

I would argue you should form your own opinion from credited sources, not biased pieces from Beck or Moore. They both have an agenda, and thus they are going to present and skew their facts to favor their arguments (that is different than just presenting facts to favor your argument). I draw an issue with both sides in this thread, as I am seeing very little attempt (excluding Sapphire) to present balanced information. I mean really? Michael Moore and Glenn Beck? Is this the intellectual scope of sources we are willing to present in an argument? Presenting exposés by these mainstream demagogues? They are modern day muckrakers...

Well then you are one of the most close-minded, stubborn people to not listen to two sides of a debate.

If dismissing information that is skewed and biased to an extreme extent is being “close-minded” in today’s world, then we have reached quite an unfortunate precipice in our world. For the record (and this goes for you regarding Beck), dismissing certain very biased sources for its skewed information should not be considered close-minded, but simply logically discriminatory. Do your own research with sources that are credible (you could never use Beck or Moore in a college research paper), and actually read or watch programs where facts are presented fairly (better yet, watch a debate when applicable). However, forming opinions off extremely biased pieces (this goes for both sides) is not only extremely lazy, but a folly in reasoning.

If you don't agree with trying to show the people what's really happening, then I REALLY don't know what to say to you.

No one said that, so I guess you're in the clear then, aren’t you?

On another note Venus, Bush is a neoconservative, neoconservatives are defined by their progressive liberal style of economics and their liberal ideas regarding global interventionism. Neoconservatives are only truly conservative in their social aspects, but as far as military policy, economic policy and the size of the government, they mimic more the progressive liberal. You can think of neoconservatives as populists, because they are most certainly not American conservatives. That is my main qualm with both parties, they have betrayed their classical liberal roots and push for expanded government and interventionist policies through progressive liberalism. However, this is far off topic, but I just thought you would know that continuing to group people is dangerous in argumentation, because we agree (albeit, I am not as extreme) on Bush.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-Thomas Jefferson

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"
-Thomas Jefferson

Antares

September 1st, 2009, 09:21 PM

I'm willing to debate, but not when you use Michael Moore. I've seen his bullshit before. If someone seriously believes that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, I'm not going to believe a word they say, so why watch it? I'm actually quite open minded. I watch CNN. I do understand the point of the other side. I'm all for health care reform. I'm just not for government control of health care. I'd have a better chance of getting the money I need for brain cancer treatment from my insurance company then I would from the government.

You don't have to watch Glenn Beck, but I'll tell you that he gives way more truths than that dumb son of a bitch Michael Moore does. God I'd love it if he were dead.

I am not using Michael Moore to prove my sole point for me. I am using his documentary to show you that Canada and the UKs health systems work, and that people have researched and presented these, years ago. Way before Obama was even president and proposed this.

I think you need to take a step back from his 9/11 documentary and realize this is a completely different one. Also, in 9/11 he backed his stuff with facts otherwise it wouldn't be put in a video for 300 million people to watch. I am not as naive as you to sit here and believe every single thing the government tells me because as it is proved time and time again, everything you see isn't really there. There are backstories to almost anything.

Also, you are one sick bastard if you think someone should die basically because you don't agree with them. I don't trust Glenn Beck because I have seen videos of him lieing before. I have never seen any proof that Moore lies. If you want me to believe you and your claim that he is "dumb son of a bitch" who you would love to "see dead" then back it up.

I'd love to see the horrors of the NHS or the Canadian systems. That'd be a wonderful docutmentery. I have MANY family memebers who are doctors and are in the medical system as practitioners, this doesn't happen like that fat shit says it does. Moore can go munch on his sheet pizzia and die of a heart attack-before we spend money caring for his lard-ridden hide.

Umm, I would also love to see a documentary on the shitty care that goes on within the borders of the United States.

It must be really horrible to have a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate in countries that have national health care....

I should really stay out of Canada....
People always get care! What a crime!!

I would argue you should form your own opinion from credited sources, not biased pieces from Beck or Moore. They both have an agenda, and thus they are going to present and skew their facts to favor their arguments (that is different than just presenting facts to favor your argument). I draw an issue with both sides in this thread, as I am seeing very little attempt (excluding Sapphire) to present balanced information. I mean really? Michael Moore and Glenn Beck? Is this the intellectual scope of sources we are willing to present in an argument? Presenting exposés by these mainstream demagogues? They are modern day muckrakers...

I am forming my own opinion. I am not listing the sources but I can...
I only posted Michael Moores documentary for two reasons. A. To counter Tiberius' videos and B. to demonstrate that those healthcare systems are working just fine.

I am not having Michael Moore argue for me. I think I can do that on my own.

dismissing certain very biased sources for its skewed information should not be considered close-minded, but simply logically discriminatory.

Fine, thats Jared :P:P:P
Jared you're logically discriminatory!

As far as political parties quartermaster, I wish they all would go away or I think we should elect more moderates. However, I do think Bush was a war-monster like Jared mocked :P

quartermaster

September 1st, 2009, 10:54 PM

I am forming my own opinion. I am not listing the sources but I can...
I only posted Michael Moores documentary for two reasons. A. To counter Tiberius' videos and B. to demonstrate that those healthcare systems are working just fine.

I am not having Michael Moore argue for me. I think I can do that on my own.

Anecdotal and visual evidence are some of the worst kinds of evidence, the best way to prove anything is through research and relative statistics (which is what Sapphire did, which is respectable), just food for thought. Further, to counter one demagogue with another demagogue does not further your case nor your ends, but merely reflects the limited scope of your argumentation (I'm not attacking you or the other poster, I am simply stating an academic truth).

Fine, thats Jared :P:P:P
Jared you're logically discriminatory!

Tongue and cheek or not, when constructing an argument and performing a research paper, part of your method is discriminating sources. Be not fooled by the negative connotation that the word "discriminatory" holds, in academia it is many a time a good thing to do when choosing sources.

As far as political parties quartermaster, I wish they all would go away or I think we should elect more moderates. However, I do think Bush was a war-monster like Jared mocked :P

Make no mistake, I am not a Bush supporter by any means, but I don't believe Bush to be any more than of a "war monster" than Clinton (Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Kosovo, and Operation Desert Fox in Iraq). Understand, just because the scope of the wars fought by Bush was larger, does not mean that Clinton did not try to meet geopolitical ends across the globe through military means. The scope of what Bush did was greater due to the threat of which he could justify; the same was with Clinton (terrorist bombings abroad etc.), he met geopolitical ends in so far as he could justify the action.

Iraq is a much more complicated issue that is usually given the most simplistic of responses, "Al Qaeda was not there." The latter statement is true, but the actual ends to be met in Iraq were a lot more complex and an issue of which I do not have the inclination to address for the purposes of this thread. Nonetheless, I believe both Clinton and Bush bombed other countries and sent US troops abroad with the "world police" mentality, and I find that line of thought unacceptable. I would prefer a president who understands that the United States is not, and should never be the “World police,” and one who further, does not embrace the traditional idea of “Carrying the white man’s burden” (An idea of which goes back to the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893, held in Chicago).

Antares

September 2nd, 2009, 02:34 AM

Whisper

September 2nd, 2009, 11:39 AM

Obviously the true academic format for debating doesn't exist on this site the most part. Mostly because people don't bother to use do it or they haven't learned it. I see it more like teenagers voicing their feelings and arguing with each other.

You might not agree with his stance (i don't)
but his argument is sound
if anything you're describing yourself there hun
I took an entire course on Epistemology

Antares

September 2nd, 2009, 03:57 PM

I am describing myself.
Im basically saying that I don't want to use the 'true academic format' of argumentation.

The Joker

September 3rd, 2009, 03:45 AM

You don't live in Canada apparently...

I've never heard anything except complaints about Canada NHC...

My friend broke her leg in an accident. It was over two weeks later before they could give her surgery. Some waits in Canada can be over a year. Now, you have an injury that takes you out of work and you can't get surgery for over a year....umm....kind of takes away your income doesn't it? What do you do...file for disability? I suppose, however, you will still have to live in pain that a surgery would end.

If your friend was poor, then she wouldn't get that surgery at all in the first place. Universal health care is equal. If someone breaks their arm, say, two months before someone else breaks their arm, but the second person is richer, is it fair to let them go first?

quartermaster

September 3rd, 2009, 09:49 AM

theOperaGhost

September 3rd, 2009, 11:59 AM

If your friend was poor, then she wouldn't get that surgery at all in the first place. Universal health care is equal. If someone breaks their arm, say, two months before someone else breaks their arm, but the second person is richer, is it fair to let them go first?

In America, you wouldn't be waiting 2 months to get your broken arm fixed in the first place. That would just be insane. A hospital can't really refuse someone health care. A person without insurance WILL be billed and they will likely be in debt for the rest of their lives, but at least they won't have to wait 2 months for a simple surgery.

Whisper

September 3rd, 2009, 12:48 PM

In America, you wouldn't be waiting 2 months to get your broken arm fixed in the first place. That would just be insane. A hospital can't really refuse someone health care. A person without insurance WILL be billed and they will likely be in debt for the rest of their lives, but at least they won't have to wait 2 months for a simple surgery.
I snapped my right arm like a twig
It was set almost immediately after they took the x-rays which happened as soon as I was carried into the hospital

I've never in my entire life herd of someone waiting 2 months to have a bone set
it would have already begun healing in the new position and would have to be re-broken

If you guys are going to accuse us of falsities
don't engage in them yourself

theOperaGhost

September 3rd, 2009, 01:37 PM

I've never in my entire life herd of someone waiting 2 months to have a bone set
it would have already begun healing in the new position and would have to be re-broken

I have heard of it, although it was only 2 weeks. A friend of mine was in a wakeboarding accident and broke her leg and had to wait 2 weeks. This was in Canada and she is a Canadian citizen and has been all her life. This is just one example. I've heard many examples like it from other people too.

In America, I had a friend get hit by a boat when he was on a jet-ski. Shattered his femur. He was in surgery the same day.

The Batman

September 3rd, 2009, 01:39 PM

Just because Canada has some of those horror stories it doesn't mean it'll happen here. Our health care system will be different and if I'm not mistaken Cody has already said that a few times.

Whisper

September 3rd, 2009, 03:23 PM

True it will be nothing like Canada's a uniquely American perspective on a gov plan in co-operation with private companies

I have heard of it, although it was only 2 weeks. A friend of mine was in a wakeboarding accident and broke her leg and had to wait 2 weeks. This was in Canada and she is a Canadian citizen and has been all her life. This is just one example. I've heard many examples like it from other people too.

In America, I had a friend get hit by a boat when he was on a jet-ski. Shattered his femur. He was in surgery the same day.

I think you're talking out of your ass hun
First it was 2 months now its 2 weeks?
quite the sudden changed of story there...

I've never herd in my entire life through myself, family, friends, the news etc... of a person being just left with a broken bone unset for 2 weeks

If your going to slam Canada
sort out your facts..

The Joker

September 3rd, 2009, 03:28 PM

theOperaGhost

September 3rd, 2009, 03:40 PM

Cody, I haven't changed my story. I've said the whole time I've talked about this friend that it was 2 weeks. Now, when I said two months, I was going off of Matt's example. I've bolded what I was going off of.

If your friend was poor, then she wouldn't get that surgery at all in the first place. Universal health care is equal. If someone breaks their arm, say, two months before someone else breaks their arm, but the second person is richer, is it fair to let them go first?

In this post, I was following up on Matt's hypothetical situation. I have no personal experience or knowledge of a person waiting 2 weeks to get a broken arm fixed.

In America, you wouldn't be waiting 2 months to get your broken arm fixed in the first place. That would just be insane. A hospital can't really refuse someone health care. A person without insurance WILL be billed and they will likely be in debt for the rest of their lives, but at least they won't have to wait 2 months for a simple surgery.

I snapped my right arm like a twig
It was set almost immediately after they took the x-rays which happened as soon as I was carried into the hospital

I've never in my entire life herd of someone waiting 2 months to have a bone set
it would have already begun healing in the new position and would have to be re-broken

If you guys are going to accuse us of falsities
don't engage in them yourself

Now I can see there being some confusion in the next thing I said. You said you've never heard of someone waiting 2 months to have a bone set. I said that I have. That is not true. I have not heard of someone waiting two months, however I never said I knew anyone who waited 2 months. That 2 month reference was simply in response to the hypothetical situation posed by Matt. I still however feel that 2 weeks is quite ridiculous.

I have heard of it, although it was only 2 weeks. A friend of mine was in a wakeboarding accident and broke her leg and had to wait 2 weeks. This was in Canada and she is a Canadian citizen and has been all her life. This is just one example. I've heard many examples like it from other people too.

In America, I had a friend get hit by a boat when he was on a jet-ski. Shattered his femur. He was in surgery the same day.

True it will be nothing like Canada's a uniquely American perspective on a gov plan in co-operation with private companies

I think you're talking out of your ass hun
First it was 2 months now its 2 weeks?
quite the sudden changed of story there...

I've never herd in my entire life through myself, family, friends, the news etc... of a person being just left with a broken bone unset for 2 weeks

If your going to slam Canada
sort out your facts..

So all being told, I never suddenly changed my story, because I never said I knew anyone who waited 2 months for a broken bone to be set. Please don't only read the content of my posts, but also the posts I quote. And just to prove I have been consistent in my story of this girl, here is what I said when I started this thread...My story has not changed from the 2 week story yet.

My friend broke her leg in an accident. It was over two weeks later before they could give her surgery. Some waits in Canada can be over a year. Now, you have an injury that takes you out of work and you can't get surgery for over a year....umm....kind of takes away your income doesn't it? What do you do...file for disability? I suppose, however, you will still have to live in pain that a surgery would end.

Yeah, but being in debt for the rest of your life doesn't seem like a fair trade off.

To be honest, I'd rather have medical attention right away and be in debt than have to wait weeks, months or years for free health care.

The Joker

September 4th, 2009, 01:12 AM

I'm not saying they would be denied health care, but if they don't have any money on them at all. Really, if you are in debt the rest of your life, than you can't afford most things needed to survive, such as food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Whisper

September 4th, 2009, 03:01 AM

To be honest, I'd rather have medical attention right away and be in debt than have to wait weeks, months or years for free health care.

your still missing 2 key points

1 - your system won't be based off ours so dragging canada into this is mute, republicans srsly fuckin fear mongering. I love how this is an attack on your freedoms but the patriot act is just fine :roll:

2 - you don't understand the Canadian system, like....at all. I don't care what you've herd, your (other) Canadian friends are idiots.
In Canada its based off urgency determined by the sickness/injury and the severity
whoever told you they waited 2 weeks to set a bone is a bald faced liar, not only would they be bumped to the head of the line with a severe injury like that but there's no way in hell they'd be given a bed for 2 weeks to just sit there, beds are valuable commodity in Canada and they legally can't kick them out with a broken bone.

you have a long wait time for elective surgeries here (like my rib resections) because you are in no imminent danger, stable, functional, etc....but ER or severe cases are thrown onto an express lane

liveyoungdiefast

September 4th, 2009, 02:27 PM

I'm going to set this straight for you.

Republican party = Center right to far right
Democratic party = Moderate right to center right

Both are capitalist parties and America has been ruled by a capitalist oligarchy for the last 200 or so years. I would place Obama on the moderate right, much less to the right than southern Democrats and maybe only losing out to those like Dennis Kucinich, Pete Stark, and a few others. America works on a principle of a strongly capitalist leaning mixed market.

European dominant 'left' parties, more accurately represent the center and the moderate left.

A center leftist would be Chavez.

A far leftist would be Raul Castro.

China on the other hand uses 'market socialism' which is something all itself.

For America to be a socialist country the following things would have to happen

- Free and publicly owned and supported utilities
- Mass public transportation replacing the use of cars in most cases
- A redistribution of wealth in which even the middle class would receive extraordinary amounts
- Governments planning the economy overall
- Abolition of the stock market

And many more things.

And of course, universe health care. Obama's public options is

- Partial government financial aid for a small amount of people to buy health insurance.

A more left option would be single payer in which case one national fund provided health care to all but in which case hospitals would still be mostly private and doctors would still be private employees.

So Obama's plan is not even close to single payer and single payer is not even socialized health care. Don't tell the mobs that though, they're just having so much fun barking like stupid dogs that they are. Fucking servants of the bourgeoisie.

ThatCanadianGuy

September 4th, 2009, 10:34 PM

theOperaGhost

September 4th, 2009, 11:56 PM

I don't have the patience to get through this thread. There are wayyy to many American citizens that are just plain damn ignorant of the facts. I live in Canada, and I have NEVER had any issue with getting heathcare. Ever. No wait times for surgery, injury etc. And guess what? The $5,000 surgery I needed was FREE. We pay taxes for healthcare, yes, but damn its friggin' worth it!

This video might clear things up though:

NevFL1rGeew

Canadians telling me they've never had a problem doesn't really phase me. Everyone is saying all American's have a problem with America's system, but I've lived in America my entire life and I've never had any problems with healthcare. No waits, nothing. Mine may not be free, but it didn't cost very much and paying for the insurance was definitely worth it.

Also, whoever gave me negative rep and said "That's bloody selfish - and what about when you need to fall back on social security or medicare?" My answer to that is simple...by the time I am old enough to draw social security, it will be completely depleted. I'm paying money into a system where I will never get it back, because it will all be given before I get any. I also think medicare and medicaid is enough of an involvement with the government in health care. I don't think the government should go beyond medicare, as it will just further Obama's socialization process.

Whisper

September 5th, 2009, 12:55 AM

i have neg rep from this thread too
fuck'em

obama doesn't have a socialized gov agenda...

theOperaGhost

September 5th, 2009, 12:57 AM

i have neg rep from this thread too
fuck'em

I don't care about the negative rep...lol. I just wanted to answer their stupid question. If they would have left their name, I wouldn't have had to call them out. I could have simply PMed them. Don't ask a question in a rep comment without leaving your name...I can't answer it then... :)

FUCK 'EM ALL!!!

Antares

September 5th, 2009, 09:10 PM

theOperaGhost

September 5th, 2009, 09:15 PM

I like James' video.

Also, Jared you SHOULD care if you have Canadians testifying that they never have wait times when that is one of your primary arguments.

If we adopt a NHS that is remotely similar to Canadas or Englands, that does NOT mean we will have the same problems as they have considering we will put our on spin on things and the fact that other factors have to be taken ino account for

Having Canadians testify that they do have to wait trumps the testimonies that they never have wait times. I have many Canadian sources saying they have long waits. So obviously, although they don't always have to wait, there are many examples of long waits.

Antares

September 5th, 2009, 09:42 PM

Okay, so lets compromise.

Some say they have to wait. Some say they dont have to wait.

Lets say that they may or may not have wait times depending on the situation but in general they wait times are acceptable considering people don't die too much up there due to waiting.

Tiberius

September 5th, 2009, 11:12 PM

I don't have the patience to get through this thread. There are wayyy to many American citizens that are just plain damn ignorant of the facts. I live in Canada, and I have NEVER had any issue with getting heathcare. Ever. No wait times for surgery, injury etc. And guess what? The $5,000 surgery I needed was FREE. We pay taxes for healthcare, yes, but damn its friggin' worth it!

This video might clear things up though:

NevFL1rGeew

Okay, the other day, I was in the doctors office getting an x-ray and there was a guy in front of me at the window talking to the nurse. The man didn't have insurence but, unlike me who has insurence, he didn't have to pay the $40 dollar co-pay that I had to for the x-ray. In fact, everything was covered for him. I'm not sure how this happened, but it did. THERE ARE people in America who don't have private insurence who do have insurence through the government- about 23 million such people.

Another little bit. I have to have a surgury in the upcoming future which normally costs $1000 beacuse the doctor that I'm seeing is one of the best in the state for what he does, and guess how much I'll have to pay out of the whole deal? A grand total of $50 for the co-pay and medication afterwards. Personally, I think that's a great thing and we shouldn't change that.

Antares

September 5th, 2009, 11:22 PM

Okay, the other day, I was in the doctors office getting an x-ray and there was a guy in front of me at the window talking to the nurse. The man didn't have insurence but, unlike me who has insurence, he didn't have to pay the $40 dollar co-pay that I had to for the x-ray. In fact, everything was covered for him. I'm not sure how this happened, but it did. THERE ARE people in America who don't have private insurence who do have insurence through the government- about 23 million such people.

Another little bit. I have to have a surgury in the upcoming future which normally costs $1000 beacuse the doctor that I'm seeing is one of the best in the state for what he does, and guess how much I'll have to pay out of the whole deal? A grand total of $50 for the co-pay and medication afterwards. Personally, I think that's a great thing and we shouldn't change that.

Okay...here is the deal.
Okay, under laws in my state you only have to be provided medical care if your life is in danger.
What that guy probably had is Medicare or Medicaid. Which are basically healthcare programs to help old people or less-privledged people.
Now the 40 dollar copay this is ridiculous. I mean, if we got public healthcare we probably wouldn't have to do that.

Now I don't really see your point but I would rather pay nothing than pay 50 bucks for basically nothing.

For instance, just for me to go to the ER its like 150 bucks. I think thats not something that should remain.

So NHC ftw (considering also that at least Canada doesn't pay shit out of pocket). Everything is out of paycheck, taxes.

Tiberius

September 5th, 2009, 11:28 PM

Okay...here is the deal.
Okay, under laws in my state you only have to be provided medical care if your life is in danger.
What that guy probably had is Medicare or Medicaid. Which are basically healthcare programs to help old people or less-privledged people.
Now the 40 dollar copay this is ridiculous. I mean, if we got public healthcare we probably wouldn't have to do that.

Now I don't really see your point but I would rather pay nothing than pay 50 bucks for basically nothing.

For instance, just for me to go to the ER its like 150 bucks. I think thats not something that should remain.

So NHC ftw (considering also that at least Canada doesn't pay shit out of pocket). Everything is out of paycheck, taxes.

John, you will pay for that. You won't pay for it up-front but in your taxes. Since it's America, the Congress is going to rape you for more money than you pay now for healthcare.

Θάνατος

September 5th, 2009, 11:40 PM

We all pay for health care if you pay any taxes at all.

A government subsidised hospital can't refuse to treat a patient reguardless of insurance or not.

This is the reason some states like California are having money troubles because of all the fucking illegal aliens needing medical care. They don't pay taxes and they definitely don't pay the hospital bill so the county and state have to pick up the tab for them.

Whisper

September 6th, 2009, 12:26 AM

Having Canadians testify that they do have to wait trumps the testimonies that they never have wait times. I have many Canadian sources saying they have long waits. So obviously, although they don't always have to wait, there are many examples of long waits.
i love your selective hearing there
similar practice with that whole god thing i suppose
you don't get to pick and choose sources that support YOUR opinions
you BASE your opinions OFF of sources

so if this is your standard practice
then everything you say is now deaf and mute because its as unreliable as Michael Moore

theOperaGhost

September 6th, 2009, 02:27 AM

i love your selective hearing there
similar practice with that whole god thing i suppose
you don't get to pick and choose sources that support YOUR opinions
you BASE your opinions OFF of sources

so if this is your standard practice
then everything you say is now deaf and mute because its as unreliable as Michael Moore

I really don't know what you mean by that whole god thing, as I don't believe in god, but anyway...

I've chosen to believe the negative. I don't ignore the fact that there are also positives. However, I don't think anyone should ignore the negatives. I do tend to focus on the negatives, not only because I'm rather pessimistic, but also because nobody else seems to.

Antares

September 7th, 2009, 12:49 AM

John, you will pay for that. You won't pay for it up-front but in your taxes. Since it's America, the Congress is going to rape you for more money than you pay now for healthcare.

Umm false.

I think this has been explained already.

What is better?
300 million people paying or 1 person?

I choose the 300 million. Why? Because its damn cheaper.

Per capita the US spends 7 grand on healthcare per year. In canada, its 3 grand.

If we all payed into this "fund" if you will, it will mean cheaper healthcare for all.

And plus, I hate when people say "they are STEALING MONEY FROM YOUR BANK!" or whatever.
Its like 10 cents per paycheck.
Im sure you can work around that.

Watch James' video :D

theOperaGhost

September 7th, 2009, 01:52 AM

Umm false.

I think this has been explained already.

What is better?
300 million people paying or 1 person?

I choose the 300 million. Why? Because its damn cheaper.

Per capita the US spends 7 grand on healthcare per year. In canada, its 3 grand.

If we all payed into this "fund" if you will, it will mean cheaper healthcare for all.

And plus, I hate when people say "they are STEALING MONEY FROM YOUR BANK!" or whatever.
Its like 10 cents per paycheck.
Im sure you can work around that.

Watch James' video :D

It is way more than 10 cents per paycheck, John. Out of each of my paychecks, an average of $80-120 is taken out of it for: 1. ND State Tax (the smallest) 2. Federal Tax 3. Medicare and 4. Social Security. OVER $100! That is NOT 10 cents.

Θάνατος

September 7th, 2009, 02:01 AM

It is way more than 10 cents per paycheck, John. Out of each of my paychecks, an average of $80-120 is taken out of it for: 1. ND State Tax (the smallest) 2. Federal Tax 3. Medicare and 4. Social Security. OVER $100! That is NOT 10 cents.

Yeah I agree I paid $9.08 for medicare for one pay period and i get paid every two weeks. I have paid over $100 for the year.

I do have to pay $31 a paycheck for my insurance premium for my son.

I wish it would be cheaper but it is not so I have to pay that so he has medical insurance, my employer pays for me. :)

theOperaGhost

September 7th, 2009, 02:13 AM

Yeah I agree I paid $9.08 for medicare for one pay period and i get paid every two weeks. I have paid over $100 for the year.

I do have to pay $31 a paycheck for my insurance premium for my son.

I wish it would be cheaper but it is not so I have to pay that so he has medical insurance, my employer pays for me. :)

No, Rob, I'm averaging over $100 per pay check, not per year.

Antares

September 7th, 2009, 03:22 PM

Umm 10 cents was just a figure, i just threw something randomly out there.

100 bucks a paycheck...ok??

Welp at least you wont be paying Medicare anymore ;)

theOperaGhost

September 7th, 2009, 03:32 PM

Umm 10 cents was just a figure, i just threw something randomly out there.

100 bucks a paycheck...ok??

Welp at least you wont be paying Medicare anymore ;)

I'd rather not be paying social security anymore. It's a lost cause...

Next time I go home, I'll grab a pay stub and write out everything for you.

Hyper

September 10th, 2009, 04:17 AM

quartermaster

September 10th, 2009, 01:51 PM

I read this whole thread yesterday and my opinion of Americans just managed to drop even lower yet again.. I slowly had been led to the conclusion that Americans as a country with their people are no more stupid than any other but yet again I've been proven wrong.

If you want to know my experiences ( being a communist bastard since I live in a country with SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!!!! ) feel free to ask me here or PM me..

But seriously.. Wow...

Ohh and btw the best countries to live in the entire world are socialized

A matter of opinion, we find that in actuality, in many socialized countries (or countries with larger federal governments), their citizens have less disposable income than their American counterparts do. As such, one could argue that the "stupid" Americans have more economic freedom to some of their European counterparts (one could say that makes the United States better than those countries). To be sure, socialized countries do provide health care, but at the expense of coercion through increased taxes, but even then, it is still all a matter of perception.

As for you, to generalize a people as less intelligent because they do not favor your style of government or the way in which your country goes about providing health care, or for any reason, speaks more upon the close-mindedness and intelligence of yourself, than that of the people of which you generalize. As an American, I would love to have a debate with you in particular about health care, albeit my points have already been made, but I am sure I could make a special concession to accommodate one of such intellectual prowess as yourself.

By the way, in argumentation, anecdotal evidence will not add any weight to your premise, it will simply be an example to your point.

Hyper

September 10th, 2009, 03:24 PM

A matter of opinion, we find that in actuality, in many socialized countries (or countries with larger federal governments), their citizens have less disposable income than their American counterparts do. As such, one could argue that the "stupid" Americans have more economic freedom to some of their European counterparts (one could say that makes the United States better than those countries). To be sure, socialized countries do provide health care, but at the expense of coercion through increased taxes, but even then, it is still all a matter of perception.

As for you, to generalize a people as less intelligent because they do not favor your style of government or the way in which your country goes about providing health care, or for any reason, speaks more upon the close-mindedness and intelligence of yourself, than that of the people of which you generalize. As an American, I would love to have a debate with you in particular about health care, albeit my points have already been made, but I am sure I could make a special concession to accommodate one of such intellectual prowess as yourself.

By the way, in argumentation, anecdotal evidence will not add any weight to your premise, it will simply be an example to your point.

Yes amazing how you immediately try and proclaim your incredible intellectual superiority

First don't try to act smart if you can't read or if you have a tendency to assume to know what I think - what made me think that Americans are stupid ( yet again ) in this thread were the references of '' ONE BULLET ONE GUN FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS '' and the panic fear about ''socialized medicine'' and the general; it's bad - but I can't say why or '' I heard from a friend who heard from her friends BFF who heard from his girlfriends mother that ..... ''

And sure the US's SKT per person is larger than in Finland or Sweden but if you look things up you'll find out that in Northern Europe the protection of its citizens outshines the US by 10x.. Not to say that people are left to sleep in their crap without any help in the US but sights such as homeless going through dumpsters or collecting bottles are almost non existant in Northern Europe.

quartermaster

September 10th, 2009, 06:04 PM

Yes amazing how you immediately try and proclaim your incredible intellectual superiority

Ah, so it is not very nice being at the receiving end of condescension is it, friend?

However, I draw an issue with your post.

When did I "try and proclaim" my incredible intellectual superiority? When did I ever even attempt to do that? If you read any of my other posts within this thread, you will be faced with the unavoidable fact that my writing style remains the same in all of them. Was I sarcastic in my response to you? Most definitely (given your generalization, it was well warranted). Did I establish a condescending tone? Of course. Did I "try" to be intellectual? Of course not, there is nothing to gain from acting, if my ability is up to the challenge, my arguments will prevail, what does not suffice in argumentation is some fake “intellectual” masquerade; with that said, I challenge you to find one line that would prove your claim.

First don't try to act smart if you can't read or if you have a tendency to assume to know what I think -

Tell me, and please be clear, where exactly did I "try to act smart," and then proceed to "know what you thought?"

I simply took what you posted and responded accordingly, as you were not specific in your post and you further made a massive generalization. Such a generalization, my friend, is known as a logical fallacy, in which case, the folly of argumentation and reasoning is due to your own ineptitude in generalizing and not being clear; I on the contrary, remain free of blame.

what made me think that Americans are stupid ( yet again ) in this thread were the references of '' ONE BULLET ONE GUN FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS '' and the panic fear about ''socialized medicine'' and the general; it's bad - but I can't say why or '' I heard from a friend who heard from her friends BFF who heard from his girlfriends mother that ..... ''

There we are, you say, "Americans," as a whole; this is not only an example of a hasty generalization, but also cherry picking. You claim I was making "assumptions" of you from your post, but I did no such thing, as your errors in reasoning, as exemplified above, simply prompted an appropriate response. Your response may be to a legitimate target, such as with "ONE BULLET" etc., but that does not excuse generalization. If I read about the British Nationalist Party and watch one of their protests turn violent, am I to assume that most Brits are like that? If I see a French conservative party and its supporters rallying to ban the burka or in Switzerland, a movement to eliminate minarets on mosques, am I to assume that Europeans are intolerant of other cultures?

I slowly had been led to the conclusion that Americans as a country with their people are no more stupid than any other but yet again I've been proven wrong.

Allow me to re-quote your original accusation that prompted my original response. Now, as we can see, there are no assumptions made on my part, your comment is as clear as day; as to what you meant to say and what you said, perhaps there is a difference, but the text does not lie. Perhaps there is not a problem with my reading comprehension, but with your ability to communicate your points clearly.

And sure the US's SKT per person is larger than in Finland or Sweden but if you look things up you'll find out that in Northern Europe the protection of its citizens outshines the US by 10x.. Not to say that people are left to sleep in their crap without any help in the US but sights such as homeless going through dumpsters or collecting bottles are almost non existant [sic] in Northern Europe.

Yes, the benefit of a large central government's collection of taxes through coercion; I'll respond to this section a little later, when I have time to adequately communicate my points about Northern Europe.

vito22andolini

September 10th, 2009, 07:46 PM

theOperaGhost

September 11th, 2009, 12:53 AM

he he i always loose rep in debating treads , well its not like i care but anyways , ppl , Obama , a socialist , WTF ...this just comes from drunk ass red necks that are not happy to have a black prez , with mccain , we would already be in a world war that The US would have lost in a month so , lets just give him a chance

I don't know where you get any of your information...

First of all, you're implying that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist...not true at all...

Second, why the fuck would we already be in a world war that we would have lost with McCain as president?

You say lets give Obama a chance...why doesn't McCain get a chance? Hypocrite...

vito22andolini

September 11th, 2009, 06:46 AM

I don't know where you get any of your information...

First of all, you're implying that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist...not true at all...

Second, why the fuck would we already be in a world war that we would have lost with McCain as president?

You say lets give Obama a chance...why doesn't McCain get a chance? Hypocrite...

Im not saying that everyone who oposes him is racist , but , like 70% of the americans that dont like him ,

Well , we kinda all know that a republican prez is 10 times more likely to begin a war , and with the irak situation , its 50 times more likely . you'd loose cause the US cant win a fight against irak , they have more nukes and more weapons , still the US army is pretty good but is not in the bests , not at all .

im saying to give a chance to obama , because 1. HE won , not mccain and mccain wont live enough to see the next election. 2. Because Mccain cant be president for the next 3 years so why care about him ?

bennybronx

September 11th, 2009, 09:23 AM

why doesn't McCain get a chance?

Because Mccain lost.

theOperaGhost

September 11th, 2009, 11:51 AM

Im not saying that everyone who oposes him is racist , but , like 70% of the americans that dont like him ,

Well , we kinda all know that a republican prez is 10 times more likely to begin a war , and with the irak situation , its 50 times more likely . you'd loose cause the US cant win a fight against irak , they have more nukes and more weapons , still the US army is pretty good but is not in the bests , not at all .

im saying to give a chance to obama , because 1. HE won , not mccain and mccain wont live enough to see the next election. 2. Because Mccain cant be president for the next 3 years so why care about him ?

You are a dumbass...

All of your numbers are made up. Next, we're already in war and McCain was going to get us out of it, so he wouldn't have STARTED a war with Iraq. He wasn't 50 times more likely to start a war with Iraq if we're already IN a war with Iraq!

Plus, now you're saying Iraq has more nukes than us...I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD...hmm...

The US could easily wipe out Iraq...simple as that...The only countries the US has to worry about are Russia, China, and Korea...and possibly Iran...Iraq doesn't stand a chance.

Now your last statement...You wouldn't have given McCain a chance if he had won, which he should have. I've given Obama a chance and he's fucking everything up. Next, I don't know why EVERY fucking person thinks McCain is going to die tomorrow....he's not that old and he will likely live until the next election which he probably will not run in, sadly. Do I have to give Obama a chance for all 4 years he's in office (if he's not assassinated)? Simply because he's black? I hate that I have to like Obama because he's black, otherwise I'm a fucking racist...it's a double fucking standard and it pisses me off.

Another tip...don't make up statistics in a debate...

Maverick

September 11th, 2009, 05:05 PM

You are a dumbass...
Stick to the debate with facts and arguments not insults.

quartermaster

September 12th, 2009, 05:12 PM

Ohh and btw the best countries to live in the entire world are socialized

And sure the US's SKT per person is larger than in Finland or Sweden but if you look things up you'll find out that in Northern Europe the protection of its citizens outshines the US by 10x.. Not to say that people are left to sleep in their crap without any help in the US but sights such as homeless going through dumpsters or collecting bottles are almost non existant in Northern Europe.

Yes, these countries do afford their citizens with quite an extensive welfare system, however, we see that such "protections" are only possible through heavy taxes (thus, I would argue that they are not "protected" by the encroachment of a growing government and its heavy taxes) and interestingly enough, through the fairly free markets that are allowed to prevail.

In order to understand the Northern European fallacy of socialism’s success, we must first understand a little background, for the purposes of this response, I will be focusing on Sweden most poignantly, here is a compilation of excerpts from an article from Mises.org (it should be noted that for the purpose of my argument, all articles address Northern Europe on an even playing ground, before the systemic risks of a sub-prime crises or the global economic meltdown):

Until the second half of the 19th century, Sweden was fairly poor. But far-reaching free market reforms in the 1860s allowed Sweden to benefit from the spreading Industrial Revolution.

And so, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Sweden saw its economy rapidly industrializing, driven by the many Swedish inventors and entrepreneurs.

As a result of its free market policies, the resourcefulness of its people, and its successful avoidance of war, Sweden had the highest per-capita income growth in the world between 1870 and 1950, by which time Sweden had become one of the world's richest countries, behind only the United States and Switzerland, and Denmark (who have since also fallen behind because of high taxes).

Even in the early 1950s, Sweden was still one of the freest economies in the world, and government spending relative to GDP was in fact below the American level.

But between 1950 and 1976, Sweden experienced an expansion in government spending unprecedented during a period of peace, with government spending to GDP rising from about 20% in 1950 to more than 50% in 1975. Virtually every year, taxes were increased while the welfare state expanded relentlessly, both in the form of a sharp increase in the number of government employees and ever more transfer payment benefits.

During the first 20 years, this relentless government expansion took place seemingly without ill effect, as Sweden benefited from rapid global growth — although Sweden's growth had already started to slip in relative terms, from well above average to just average. This changed in the 1970s after Olof Palme, from the left wing of the Social Democratic party became Prime Minister. Palme stepped up the socialist transformation in Sweden, rapidly increasing anti-business regulations and sharply increased payroll taxes.

The payroll-tax increases, along with increasing wage demands from unions, made Swedish businesses highly uncompetitive on the global markets, something which Palme decided to solve by devaluing the Swedish krona. As a result, price inflation rose sharply, leading to repeated devaluations.

Worried that Swedish growth had trailed most other countries, Carlsson's government implemented a number of free-market reforms. Among these were the lifting of all currency controls in 1989 and a tax reform that dramatically reduced marginal tax rates (although they also reduced a number of deductions, including deductions for interest payments). Although these reforms have arguably contributed to improving the long-term economic performance of Sweden, they would contribute to precipitating the deep economic downturn in the early 1990s.

Meanwhile, as the economy started slowing significantly in 1990 after a series of tightening measures, consumer price inflation slowed. With the combination of continued high nominal interest rates, reduced capital gains taxation (and with that, reduced deductions for interest payments) and falling price inflation, real interest rates started rising significantly, helping to end the asset price bubbles. On top of all of this came the oil price shock following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and an economic downturn in key trading partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Finland. The end result was that Sweden slipped into a recession in late 1990.

As Sweden fell into a recession and its highly cyclical government budget balance started to deteriorate rapidly, investor confidence in the Swedish fixed-exchange-rate scheme started to deteriorate rapidly.
After this deep downturn, Sweden has performed much better for a number of reasons. The 20% decline in the value of the krona in late 1992 gave a strong boost to exports and together with the dramatic lowering of interest rates, this helped kick-start a cyclical recovery in late 1993. Moreover, a number of free market reforms implemented during Ingvar Carlsson and conservative Carl Bildt (who was Prime Minister between 1991 and 1994) had helped raise the structural growth potential of the Swedish economy.

Apart from the already mentioned reforms of reduced marginal tax rates and abolished currency controls, deregulated bank lending and significantly lower inflation, this included privatizations of several state-owned companies and deregulation of several key sectors, including the retail sector, the telecommunications sector and the airline industry. Also, when the massive budget deficit was eliminated, even the Social Democrats realized the need for deep spending cuts, which together with the typical cyclical decline in the burden of spending during booms helped reduce the extremely bloated burden of government spending somewhat.

All of this has helped Sweden recover in relative terms from the stagnation of the 1970s and 1980s and the deep economic downturn in the early 1990s. It is this relative recovery that is now seized upon by the Social Democrats and their sympathizers inside and outside of Sweden when they claim that the Swedish model of high taxes and a big welfare state is successful.
Yet as should be clear, the relative improvement of performance is due not to high taxes (lower now than previously), but to free-market reforms.

Indeed, what is seen is that under an attempted socialized system (which you claim is the “best”), Sweden (we also saw this in other Scandinavian countries) underperformed and stagnated in growth. What we further saw is that the return to a more capitalist business sector led to a growth that allowed Sweden to increase dividends, as it were, and become the country we see it is today. Ergo, the fallacy that I would like to address is the idea that Sweden, in particular, is a bastion of successful socialist policies, as we see that it was the capitalist model that allows it to be what it is today, however, as this article will also touch upon, the “welfare state” model still proves to be a major issue for this nation-state.

And even with these reforms, Sweden has not, in fact, performed better than the rest of Europe. While headline GDP growth has been slightly higher, this advantage disappears when taking into account that Sweden's terms of trade have deteriorated significantly.

And if we exclude heavy-weight laggards Germany and Italy, Sweden has in fact continued to fall behind the Continent, event with Europe's dismal performance compared to most other parts of the world.

If we look beneath the aggregate production figures, we can see deep structural problems. The number of people employed is now 6% lower than in 1990, a weaker development than in any other western economy. By contrast, even with the weak job growth in recent years (by American standards), employment in the United States is 20% higher than in 1990.

If we ignore this ruse, unemployment is 8%. And if you also include the enormous number of early retirees and people who live off sickness benefits, the real unemployment rate is more like 25%. The number of early retirees is 540,000, more than double the number of officially unemployed. Among non-Western immigrants, the real unemployment rate is higher than 50%.

All of this is exactly what we should expect from transfer payment benefits to people who don't work, from massive payroll taxes, income taxes, and value-added taxes. This has greatly inhibited the growth of a labor-intensive private-service sector that could have provided jobs for many of the unemployed immigrants.

Low prices are good for consumers, of course, but according to the inflation-targeting dogma, too low a rate of price inflation is itself a problem — a problem that must be counteracted with increased monetary inflation. Thus the Riksbank has been forced to push down interest rates dramatically in order to boost money supply enough to help achieve a 2% consumer price inflation rate.

Money supply rose 11.5% in Sweden in the year to May, even higher than the 8.9% seen in the Euro-zone. It is the dramatic acceleration of monetary inflation in 2005 which has temporarily boosted Swedish growth. The timing of this boom is, it should be noted, very convenient for the ruling Social Democrats and their parliamentary allies, the Green Party and the communist Left Party, given the fact that they face an election this year in September.

Ultimately, this artificial boom will have to come to an end, and although the ensuing crisis will likely not be as deep as in the early 1990s, the seemingly impressive Swedish boom will certainly be revealed as a fraud — just as the whole story of the success of the Swedish economic model is a fraud.

If you would like to read the article in its entirety, void of my constant copying and pasting: http://mises.org/story/2259

A further issue we see in the Northern market is that though these “welfare states” afford many services to their people, the taxes do not encourage growth and investment in several sectors, which has proven to be a problem, and will prove to be an even larger problem with the aging of a population (which will need increasing dividends to sustain even the current services).

Scandinavian countries have low corporate tax rates and transparent procedures to establish a business. Moreover, these countries have implemented numerous reforms over the past couple years. For instance, cutting income taxes has become one of Iceland ’s crowning economic achievements. Denmark has been ranked by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) as having the best business environment thanks to, among other things, its flexible labor market.

Despite the good news about reform, other details remain grim. Sweden has extremely high taxes, which encourage workers to cut hours to avoid them. The Norwegian government continues to drag its feet on privatization, thus thwarting investment into the country. Additionally, the Scandinavian welfare state hinders productivity by enabling otherwise healthy workers to stay at home.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scandinavian-irony-socialism-meets-liberalization/

Despite the “welfare state,” these figures from the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, show the relative nature of other Northern European economic sectors, which due to reforms, are quite free market based, which (as previously stated) has contributed to the relative successes of Scandinavian markets. In many respects, in these sectors, the Northern European countries outdo the United States in free-market reform.

Sweden's economy is 70.4 percent free, according to our 2008 assessment, which makes it the world's 27th freest economy. Its overall score is 1.4 percentage points higher than last year, reflecting improvements in trade freedom and financial freedom. Sweden is ranked 14th out of 41 countries in the European region, and its overall score is higher than the regional average.
Sweden enjoys exceptionally high levels of investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, business freedom, and freedom from corruption. Virtually all commercial operations are simple and transparent. Foreign investment is permitted without government approval, though capital is subject to restrictions in some areas. The financial sector is highly developed, and the Stockholm stock market is open to foreign investment. The judiciary, independent of politics and free of corruption, has an exemplary ability to protect property rights.

In contrast, Sweden has some of the lowest scores worldwide in fiscal freedom and government size. The top income tax rate of 60 percent is one of the highest in the world, and total government spending equals more than half of GDP. The labor market was highly regulated, but reforms have led to a score equal to the world average in labor freedom.

Denmark's economy is 79.2 percent free, according to our 2008 assessment, which makes it the world's 11th freest economy. Its overall score is 2.2 percentage points higher than last year, one of the largest increases in the world, reflecting improved scores in four freedoms. Denmark is now ranked 4th freest among the 41 countries in the European region, and its overall score is well above the regional average.

Denmark scores highly in eight of the 10 freedoms and is among the world's freest economies in six categories. Its perfect score in labor freedom is a 25-point increase from its 2007 score. Financial markets are transparent, highly developed, and open to foreign capital. As a modern Western democracy, Denmark has an efficient, independent judiciary that protects property rights effectively, and the level of corruption is extraordinarily low.

Denmark has two significant weaknesses that are typical of large European welfare states. The top personal income tax rate is very high, and tax revenue collected is correspondingly high. Although there are few state-owned industries, government spending equals over 50 percent of GDP. As a result, scores in these two freedoms are over 40 percentage points below average.

Norway's economy is 69 percent free, according to our 2007 assessment, which makes it the world's 34th freest economy. Its overall score is 0.6 percentage point higher than last year, reflecting improvement in the investment climate and labor market flexibility. Norway is ranked 19th out of 41 countries in the European region, and its overall score is higher than the regional average.

Norway enjoys high levels of business freedom, trade freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. The average tariff rate is low, although some non-tariff barriers complicate trade. Starting a business takes only a few days, and the overall protection of business operations is high. Norway has an efficient, independent judiciary that protects property rights effectively, and corruption is negligible.

Norway has very low scores in terms of government size, fiscal freedom, and labor freedom. Government spending is high as a percentage of GDP. As in most other modern European welfare economies, the labor market is fairly rigid, but the government has been trying to introduce more flexibility into employment practices.

Finland's economy is 74.8 percent free, according to our 2008 assessment, which makes it the world's 16th freest economy. Its overall score is 0.6 percentage point higher than last year. Finland is ranked 9th out of 41 countries in the European region, and its overall score is well above the regional average.

Finland is a world leader in four of 10 economic freedoms: financial freedom, monetary freedom, freedom from corruption, and business freedom. A business-friendly environment with minimal regulation is enabling the rapid growth of private enterprise. Property is protected by a transparent rule of law, and foreign investors enjoy excellent market access. There is virtually no corruption, and business operations are not hampered by government bureaucracy. As a member of the euro zone, Finland has a standardized monetary policy that yields low inflation despite some government distortion in the agricultural sector.

Finland could improve its labor freedom and reduce its government size. As in many other European social democracies, high government spending supports an extensive welfare state: Government spending equals half of Finland's GDP. The labor market operates under fairly restrictive regulations, such as a limited number of working hours allowed per week and very high unemployment benefits.

Further, this is an article from the Cato Institute (these are excerpts from another article that the Cato Institute article uses, but I was unable to find the original article) about the wealth tax being repelled in Sweden back in 2007.

Maybe the next Bjorn Borg won’t feel compelled to move to Monaco now that Sweden plans to scrap a decades-old “wealth” tax that imposes levies on assets — not just on income. …The move, expected to be approved by parliament later this year, underscores the country’s efforts to keep successful Swedes and their capital at home by changing its fabled but costly welfare state.

“It’s not sustainable to keep taxes that radically diverge from other countries,” Finance Minister Anders Borg, who is not related to the tennis great, told The Associated Press on Thursday. “Not if you want the money to stay in the country.”
[T]he wealthiest Swedes have fled the country, including IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad, No. 4 on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s richest people. He lives in Switzerland. Five-time Wimbledon winner Bjorn Borg moved to tax-haven Monaco in the late 1970s. The principality is also home to many Swedish sports stars such as Alpine skier Anja Paerson, high-jumper Kajsa Bergqvist and triple jumper Christian Olsson.

The government says more than 500 billion kronor, the equivalent of almost C$83 billion of Swedish capital, is outside of the country’s borders. “This is money that, if it was brought home, could be invested to create jobs and welfare in Sweden,” the country’s coalition leaders said in a joint statement this week.
Stefan Persson, the main owner of fashion retailer H&M, threatened to leave the country in the 1990s because of the wealth tax. The Social Democratic government at the time changed the law, giving him an exemption.

…Borg, the finance minister…added it was necessary for Sweden to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized economy. “It’s a step on the way back toward making Sweden an entrepreneurial society,” he said.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/31/sweden-repeals-wealth-tax/

The question thus remains: are socialized countries the best in the world?

Given the relative moves of countries such as Sweden and Norway to continue to socialize their countries and the subsequent failures of their systems resulting in stagnation and further, given the moves made in these countries to free their markets and reduce taxes due to the relative economic problems caused by increased government, which has created growth and prosperity in many sectors, my response is that the moves of these governments would indicate the answer is no. All of my data (I have a lot more that I honestly did not feel like posting and analyzing) would indicate that it is the capitalist policies of these governments in opening markets, reducing regulation and eliminating government control in many sectors that have created growth in these countries (given previous decades) and not the increased government spending and welfare policies. We see that even today, the free-market moves of these governments and the movement away from socialist policies in many respects has created a system where the countries can even support such welfare policies. We also see, however, that such freedom in markets cannot overcome the burden of heavy taxes, and thus we are faced with the facts that these countries’ welfare policies are not actually increasing the wealth of their citizens (which are already behind, after taxes, their American counterparts).

Without the growth in wealth and income and with the burden of heavy taxes, the business models and investment ability of the citizens within these countries is put into jeopardy, even given the current reforms.

Hyper

September 12th, 2009, 05:56 PM

I'm honestly not going to bother and say; you win in the ''logic & economic'' argument

But for me the only question that remains is philosophical; the only reason these countries are reverting to capitalism and liberal policies is because they are unable to ''compete'' in the world.. If the entire world followed the same principle this wouldn't really be an issue..

Also we are kind of hijacking the thread, so if you wish to continue this PM me..

Liam21

September 14th, 2009, 05:38 PM

I don't want to sound like a member of an angry political mob but, you should really check into what you are 'dissing'. I am a socialist and I never had any problem with the goverment's capitalistic ways before, and I feel no different now.

ThatCanadianGuy

September 14th, 2009, 07:13 PM

SwZl2Hyw-sk

So... you don't like socialism eh?

theOperaGhost

September 15th, 2009, 12:17 PM

SwZl2Hyw-sk

So... you don't like socialism eh?

No, I don't. There is a difference between government regulation and government control.

Modus Operandi

September 23rd, 2009, 11:58 AM

Sage

September 23rd, 2009, 08:08 PM

quartermaster

September 24th, 2009, 03:11 PM

Obama's not a socialist, he's doing what needs to be done. America's health care system is fucked, and yet Republicans constantly drag "Communist" into the conversation. Get a life, Joe Wilson and others.

The bailout maybe wasn't the best idea, but that's what's called "the safe side". If Obama hadn't passed this and Wall Street collapsed he'd be hated even more.

The only "safe side" Obama (and previously Bush) took, was to temporarily prop up the economy, not actually fix the problem. The bailouts are actually nothing more than deficit spending and market manipulation through artificial means. If Obama did, indeed, bailout Wall Street in order to ensure he was not "hated” by the American public, I would argue that that is worse than bailing out Wall Street out of economic ignorance or pressure from acorporate lobby; an artificially propped up market, or one of which cannot survive on its own merits, is very dangerous. To be sure, having Wall Street fail would have been catastrophic, however, such a failure should have been allowed to occur, because the bailouts did nothing more than push the crises further down the line.

theOperaGhost

September 24th, 2009, 03:20 PM

Not to mention how much worse off we'd be with McCain having a stroke two weeks into office and leaving America in the hands of Caribou Barbie.

Is McCain still alive? Has Obama been in office for more than two weeks? Umm yeah...I don't see why everyone thinks McCain is going to die in the next ten minutes or something. The way I see it, Obama has just as much of a chance of dying in office as McCain would have. I'm slightly surprised Obama is still alive, actually...the Ku Klux Klan must not be as organized as they used to be.

I'd say that people basing their votes off of the possibility of McCain dying are just as bad as the people basing their votes off of the fact that Obama is black. It's just stupid and shouldn't affect your votes. McCain wouldn't have died in office...it's fucking ignorant to think that.

Sage

September 24th, 2009, 05:22 PM

Is McCain still alive? Has Obama been in office for more than two weeks? Umm yeah...I don't see why everyone thinks McCain is going to die in the next ten minutes or something. The way I see it, Obama has just as much of a chance of dying in office as McCain would have. I'm slightly surprised Obama is still alive, actually...the Ku Klux Klan must not be as organized as they used to be.

I'd say that people basing their votes off of the possibility of McCain dying are just as bad as the people basing their votes off of the fact that Obama is black. It's just stupid and shouldn't affect your votes. McCain wouldn't have died in office...it's fucking ignorant to think that.

John McCain is old. If you compare pictures of him before and near the end of the election campaign, he does look as though he's visibly aged from all the work involved in it. To be fair, of course, when you look at pictures of Obama before and near the end of his campaign, he appears to have been just as fatigued and worked, but he is much younger and has better health.

And I may as well add, regardless of whether they may become president or not in case of death, the vice president should be just as qualified for the position they're elected into as the president, and Sarah Palin is not qualified to be in such a position of power.

Jean Poutine

September 24th, 2009, 06:37 PM

You don't live in Canada apparently...

I've never heard anything except complaints about Canada NHC...

My friend broke her leg in an accident. It was over two weeks later before they could give her surgery. Some waits in Canada can be over a year. Now, you have an injury that takes you out of work and you can't get surgery for over a year....umm....kind of takes away your income doesn't it? What do you do...file for disability? I suppose, however, you will still have to live in pain that a surgery would end.

When I broke an arm, I was operated on the very same day.

Americans have a distorted view of Canadian health care. They hear only the horror stories.

theOperaGhost

September 24th, 2009, 09:07 PM

John McCain is old. If you compare pictures of him before and near the end of the election campaign, he does look as though he's visibly aged from all the work involved in it. To be fair, of course, when you look at pictures of Obama before and near the end of his campaign, he appears to have been just as fatigued and worked, but he is much younger and has better health.

And I may as well add, regardless of whether they may become president or not in case of death, the vice president should be just as qualified for the position they're elected into as the president, and Sarah Palin is not qualified to be in such a position of power.

John McCain is only six years older than Joe Biden. Are you worried that he will die when he becomes president after Obama is assassinated? See there is another assumption...I assume Obama will be assassinated...you assume McCain will die. Both could be/could have been very possible.

Sage

September 24th, 2009, 10:31 PM

John McCain is only six years older than Joe Biden. Are you worried that he will die when he becomes president after Obama is assassinated? See there is another assumption...I assume Obama will be assassinated...you assume McCain will die. Both could be/could have been very possible.

Obama is no more likely to be assassinated than any other president. Sure, he's black, but even the most racist groups like the KKK have no real power in this country. John McCain, on the other hand, has an extensive set of health records over the years.

boy.on.laptop

September 25th, 2009, 01:22 AM

You are the first person I've ever heard to say Canada's health care system is better than America's. I know a ton of Canadians. Approximately half of my campus population is Canadian. I have a bunch of family in Canada. I have lived my whole life 6 miles from the border. Explain to me why millions of Canadians come to America for health care.

America has medicare and medicaid, so people are not going uncovered. I would be all for everyone having health care, but not when it turns the fucking country into a socialized communist country.

Ok I respect your views but you are wrong on so many levels. Show me your research! Millions of Canadans do not come to the States' quite the reverse of course there are always exceptions though (manily due to the fact that private healthcare is cheaper in the US). I can’t believe that he is the first person you have heard of to say that the Canadian system is better than the States watch Sicko!, or just look at previous election results. The liberal party of Canada in coalition with the New Democratic Party introduced legislation decades ago introducing health care reform and have been voted back in by the Canadian people many times since then and remains one of the most successful democratic parties in the world. Further more if the healthcare system was unpopular why wouldn’t Canadians vote it out? There are a few parties such as the libertarians who want to get the government out of healthcare but are even more unpopular in Canada than in the US. Even conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper possibly the most right-wing neo-liberal Canada has ever had does not wish to commit political suicide by abandoning the current health care system.

Socialism and Communism are not the same things. Socialism is promoting equality, communism is forcing equality. People in democratic socialized countries have the highest press freedom, highest standard of living and highest life expectancy eg. Sweeden, Norway and Ireland.

Obama's healthcare plan is not socialist. I am a social democrat leaning democratic socialist, slightly to the right of socialism. I consider Barack Obama's plan far too conservative. To spite being polar opposites on the political spectrum, I agree with quatermaster that the current government intervention leads to corporatism not capitalism and government intervention is heeding not helping the healthcare industry. However, I disagree that you can run healthcare like any other industry I am a humanitarian and strongly believe that you cannot put a $ amount on anyone’s life. Some things are far more important than any amount of money. The government needs to be all in(universal health care) or all out. I know you will claim that with tax cuts people will be able to afford healthcare and that we should leave it up to individuals to care for the few that can't afford healthcare. However in reality that is not how it works. Look at the third world, even semi stable countries with booming economies such as India means that thousands go hungry and do not recieve proper medical care. The first world wealthy don't care and very little is given to help individuals in need. Of course there are many exemptions from individuals but on the whole people will not donate money. I know your quote “If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.” However this is not exactly true government intervention in a democratic society particularly in healthcare is aimed primarily at protecting the people not profits. Business is (and should rightly be) purely to make a profit often by whatever means possible.

After that, there's about 17 million illegal aliens who SHOULDN'T BE OFFERED ANY TYPE OF HEALTH CARE EXCEPT A GUN AND ONE BULLET.

As for that I seriously hope you do not claim to be a Christian. That is the most xenophobic pathetic comment I have read in a long time.

“First of all, it is not a "right" for health care.”

That is entirely your own opinion not a fact. In any democratic society I believe everyone from any creed or race should have a right to medical care.

“however, do not cut spending in one area to reallocate it in another , unnecessary place.” Healthcare is far more important than military spending.

“The US economy is one of the greatest in the world thanks in part to the principles of capitalism upon which it was founded.” Oh really? That is why America has gone through the great success of the great depression? The current economic crisis?(which is slowly pushing the US behind China as the world’s biggest economy? Thats why America was hit harder than most nations in this current economic crisis? That is why America has one of the highest homeless rates of the developed nations, one of the highest poverty and one of the highest income inequality?

Obama is no more likely to be assassinated than any other president. Sure, he's black, but even the most racist groups like the KKK have no real power in this country.
Exactly that is why he is more likely to be assassinated, because groups like the KKK fear loosing power. Although I admit it is unlikely as a statistian with a love of politics it is not entirely accurated to say "no more likely than any other president" there are still many white supremist extremists out there(martinlutherking.org) far more than black extremists who would be out to kill a white president. There has already been a plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Barack_Obama_assassination_scare_in_Tennessee

ANyway back to the topic however, Biden is a centralist, Palin is far from one. Although I am left-leaning, I think most people would prefer Biden to Palin even many of the Centre-Right.

I'd say that people basing their votes off of the possibility of McCain dying are just as bad as the people basing their votes off of the fact that Obama is black. It's just stupid and shouldn't affect your votes. McCain wouldn't have died in office...it's fucking ignorant to think that.

Its ignorant to think a man would die before he is 77? 3(or 7 if re-elected) years after the average live expectancy of an average American male?
I hardly think comparing racism to the fear of Sarah Palin becoming president are equal comparisions.

*For future reference, please use the multi-quote feature to quote multiple messages. It is next to the quote button, and when you hover over it the tooltip should say "multi-quote this post" ~Kaleidoscope Eyes*

quartermaster

September 26th, 2009, 01:00 AM

Socialism and Communism are not the same things. Socialism is promoting equality, communism is forcing equality. People in democratic socialized countries have the highest press freedom, highest standard of living and highest life expectancy eg. Sweeden, Norway and Ireland.

I have already addressed the myth of the success of Northern European socialism; if we look at the history, the data indicates that these countries only see the relative prosperity that allows for revenue sufficient enough to prop up such heavily socialized sectors today, due to the opening of their markets, the introduction of capitalist reform and the deregulation of many sectors of industry. If you look at the actual data, such as that from the Heritage Foundation, you will actually see that some of these countries outscore the United States in certain sectors of economic freedom, freedom of which has allowed for such economic prosperity.

Ireland is the most poignant example, as Ireland suffered from the tight control of industry and the financial constriction of the 1980 and 1990 recessions, but has since seen much economic liberalization in the past years and in turn, saw tremendous economic growth. Ireland, at one point had become one of the richest countries in the world, due to its economic liberalization. Unfortunately, in recent years, due to the growth that occurred after Ireland's free-market reforms, the new government slowly began to regulate sectors and encroach on financial sectors and commodity allocation such as housing, and thus we have seen the relative result in recent years of a housing and financial bubble created by the Irish government (similar to that created by the United States government and FED).

However, I disagree that you can run healthcare like any other industry I am a humanitarian and strongly believe that you cannot put a $ amount on anyone’s life.

Why is that? Is food not grown in the United States at a market value that is acceptable to the consumer and grown still without a governmental control of all food-stuff production? Are food-stuffs not necessary for human survival?

The government needs to be all in(universal health care) or all out.

Agreed.

I know you will claim that with tax cuts people will be able to afford healthcare and that we should leave it up to individuals to care for the few that can't afford healthcare. However in reality that is not how it works.

A free-market open to competition without governmental intervention would supply the consumer with affordable health care. Doctors will be competing against each other in a free-market, just as a baker would compete with another baker on the other street (you don’t need to pay a grocery store monthly to buy a loaf of bread; you pay for the loaf at the cheapest price for the quality, and you pay as you need the bread). Insurance would be for extreme, unlikely events, such as fire or earthquake protection, while people would pay directly out of pocket for their basic medical needs. Part of what drives insurance premiums up is that people try to maximize their use of a checkup service, even when it is unnecessary, because they are paying a monthly fee regardless. Thus, an insurance company has to pay for these several checkups and health procedures that a person does in order to maximize use, which in turn, forces prices up. An average person would not buy auto-insurance for tires or regular tune-ups, as they are already expected costs, insurance is for that unexpected occurrence.

There is no need, beyond the justification of the corporate hegemony lobby in Washington, for insurance to cover every medical checkup (which due to direct competition, would be at an affordable price; further, yes, with the return of the income tax, people will have an even greater disposable income to spend on health care as they please). Of course, in today's corporationist, neo-mercantilist system in the United States, insurance is heavily regulated and health care is far too expensive. With the destruction of meaningless regulation, the "guild" mentality that corporations lobby the government to create (such as forcing doctors to be apart of a guild) and all the other governmental "hoops" that doctors must adhere to, health care prices will further go down. That is how a basic free-market works, because understand, in a true free-market, the consumer dictates the price, not the corporation.

As for those who cannot afford it still, you seriously underestimate the power of charity and the private sector to supply for these individuals, as we see, that in times of plenty, people are most charitable, and when not fleeced by government taxes and regulation, people are more able to accommodate many individuals. As a minarchist, I believe if the government were to help the chronically needy, the primary means of assistance should be to teach them skills, but not take from other citizens to give them (the individuals who cannot afford health care, food etc.) a handout. I draw a problem with taking capital that could be used to create jobs or increase relative prosperity that would allow for individuals to pay for several goods and services (such as health care), to pay for other’s services. If it were a peaceful transaction, it would be acceptable, but you advocate the taking of resources through coercion and threats, in order to ensure someone else is taken care of. If you really want to get into morals, the taking of resources and income through coercion is what I believe is wrong.

I know your quote “If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.” However this is not exactly true government intervention in a democratic society particularly in healthcare is aimed primarily at protecting the people not profits.

Really? that's really noble of those government bureaucrats to look out for the smaller guy. As politicians and government officials would never use such things to extend their power base and support (never mind the entire American Welfare System). During the intervening time, under the pretense of looking out for the good of the people, they (government officials etc.) increase their usurpations on a people's freedom by continuing to seize the income and fruits of labor of citizens through coercion, also known as taxes; all of which to ensure they (government officials) are not responsible for their actions in that their own spending need not be checked or curtailed. But, of course, that’s foolishness right? Because in a “social democracy” that could never happen…right?

Business is (and should rightly be) purely to make a profit often by whatever means possible.

You think a business trying to make a profit negates the fact that a consumer’s ability and willingness to buy, controls the market?

Yes, business is profit-based, but in a free-market where a natural monopoly is unsustainable, and anyone could undercut a competitor's prices, it is in the best interest of the producer to please the consumer. In a free-market, even a monopoly rate that is deemed acceptable by the consumer, can be undercut by a competitor.

“First of all, it is not a "right" for health care.”

That is entirely your own opinion not a fact. In any democratic society I believe everyone from any creed or race should have a right to medical care.

It is fact in the United States, as to the rights of citizens in other countries, I cannot speak for. Individuals in the United States have the right, in principle, not practice, to pursue their separate interests without the encroachment of the government on their lives (insofar as citizens are not harming other citizens).

“however, do not cut spending in one area to reallocate it in another , unnecessary place.” Healthcare is far more important than military spending.

This is a fallacious statement, however, you really didn't address my post here, so I can look past that fact.

“The US economy is one of the greatest in the world thanks in part to the principles of capitalism upon which it was founded.” Oh really? That is why America has gone through the great success of the great depression?

This is quite possibly your weakest argument yet. The United States economy flourished under its capitalist system, however, the United States has never seen a true free-market before, and most importantly, the events of the Great Depression were not caused by the failure of capitalism and the market, but by the interventionist policies, fractional reserve banking and credit expansion of the Federal Reserve.

The current economic crisis?(which is slowly pushing the US behind China as the world’s biggest economy? Thats why America was hit harder than most nations in this current economic crisis?

Once again, this current crisis was not result of the failure of the market and capitalism, which I explained in great detail to you before, but government regulation and intervention in the market, which caused artificial growth. Not to mention, two critical reasons as to why the United States has not began recovering as quickly as other nations are because of the massive debt the government has accumulated over the several years, as well as the relative artificial nature of the United States financial institutions.

That is why America has one of the highest homeless rates of the developed nations, one of the highest poverty and one of the highest income inequality?

So you would argue that the United States economy was (I use past tense because I believe the US economy to be something of a house of cards today, as it is impressive but most unstable, most of all because of the artificial market that the government created) not one of the greatest in the world, and has not afforded its people relative prosperity, because the government does not take the profits and fruits of labor from citizens to ensure that all have some, in many cases? Economic prowess is not determined by a government’s ability to furnish all citizenry with a generous welfare system, or a bureaucrat’s ability to reallocate wealth. Further, if you look at the data, once more, you will find that much of the disparity you speak of is the result of the corporationist system that has formed in the United States, where government sanctioned oligopolies are allowed to fester and fleece.

You bash capitalism, and yet history would show that the so called “social democracies” or “socialist” nation-states that you hail for successes, have obtained their riches and economic prosperity from capitalism, and not a government agency or bureaucracy.