RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of

RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 9:38:24 AM)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/ "Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37. The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States. An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States. That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale."

Marc2b -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:00:52 AM)
quote: Well, no. If the "options" you offered are neither practical nor applicable, then you haven't haven't offered any options at all. It's pretty clear from this remark... Welcome to reality. It doesn’t give a shit if you don’t like what it offers and it will not kiss your ass no matter how much you whine about it. quote: ...that your entire argument is framed in an appallingly flawed and prejudiced misunderstanding of the issue you're debating and the people with whom you're debating it, so it's not surprising that you don't seem to have anything relevant to offer in the discussion beyond regurgitating the typical uninformed talking points that conservatives always drag out from under the porch whenever this subject comes up. You guys really need a new playbook. I am not a conservative and your presumption that I am is proof of your bias and narrow minded thinking (on no! He’s against government run health care! He must be one of those stupid evil people! He must hate people and want to see them die! What a crock of fucking shit!) You can blather out your bigotry all you want. It doesn’t change a thing. You claim that my remark is proof that I don’t understand but it is your response which proves my contention. I have taken action to help those in need whether it is health care or other problems. The organization that I work for (of which I am a part owner) organizes fund raising drives not just for people with medical needs but for local soup kitchens, the Make A Wish Foundation, local clothing drives, and college scholarships . Have you? Or have you only whined about the inequities of life it while castigating others who refuse to regurgitate your talking points and recognize what a wonderful person you are because you say you’re for healthcare (or “decent housing, or whatever) for everyone. Go ahead and whine that the world refuses to fit itself into your idea of what it should be. By all means continue to make meaningless pronouncements of how unfair life is while you congratulate yourself on what a good person you are. I’ve got other things to do. I have to prepare the advertising and the publicity (free of our normal charges) for an upcoming student thesis show.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:16:57 AM)
Jesus christ, I've seen you make some irrational points before but this is the first time I've ever seen you throw an outright tantrum. The whole point of your diatribe seems to be that I made what you feel is an inaccurate assumption about you by saying that your argument is typical of the talking points that conservatives always fall back on, and your response to that is to.... make an incredible series of flawed assumptions about me, and then attack me on the basis of those flawed assumptions. Go ahead and have the rest of the debate without me. You don't need me; you can just keep on making up my side of the argument and attack whatever positions you make up for me.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:24:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b They should be forced to take care of strangers in the name of social equality! Yes that would truly be horrible. Imagine the chaos if we ever had a society that took care of each other. There is a huge difference between a society where people take care of each other and one where people are FORCED to take care of each other. In times much tougher than these, and in times when health care was far harder to obtain than it is now, there weren't masses of people dying for lack of food and care.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b They should be forced to take care of strangers in the name of social equality! Yes that would truly be horrible. Imagine the chaos if we ever had a society that took care of each other. There is a huge difference between a society where people take care of each other and one where people are FORCED to take care of each other. In times much tougher than these, and in times when health care was far harder to obtain than it is now, there weren't masses of people dying for lack of food and care. What times are you thinking of here?

CruelNUnsual -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:30:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b They should be forced to take care of strangers in the name of social equality! Yes that would truly be horrible. Imagine the chaos if we ever had a society that took care of each other. There is a huge difference between a society where people take care of each other and one where people are FORCED to take care of each other. In times much tougher than these, and in times when health care was far harder to obtain than it is now, there weren't masses of people dying for lack of food and care. What times are you thinking of here? take your choice..Depression/settling the US, whatever. There has never been a time in the US where large numbers of people died for those reasons.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:38:45 AM)
Do you have a definition in mind for the number "large?"

philosophy -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:43:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b I’ve already answered this question to kittensol in post 57. You have fallen into the same trap she has. You state that it is about not letting people die needlessly. Fine. I’m not questioning your morality or compassion. I’m questioning your methods. I’m questioning whether or not they will actually work. I’ve never been to Britain so I only have what other people have written for evidence one way or another. .......and i'm telling you that in the UK the NHS works. Period. You continue to suggest that nationalised health care might not work despite abundant evidence that all around the world there are examples that show it can work. quote: I do have evidence where I live. Not only do I continue to see Canadian license plates in our doctor’s parking lot but I know Canadians who have come here to the States to get health care they were denied from their vaunted health care system at home. And no, I’m not talking about people who desire elective surgery, I’m talking about people who need cancer treatments but were put on a waiting list because they were deemed to old for immediate care. If that doesn’t constitute tyranny, then what the Hell does? ...the health care system in Canada is organised province by province. Right now we have a weak conservative minority Federal government which actually wants to switch to a health care system based on the US model. So they are not invested in making the provinces live up to their obligations vis a vis health care. What you're seeing is not evidence that nationalised health care doesn't work. What you're seeing is evidence that a system based on the US model doesn't work. quote: You may presume that your mother would die if she lived in the United States but that is just bigotry on your part. .....what? bigotry? We have had some cordial conversations in the past and agreed to disagree....but that crack of yours was a flat insult. Are you seriously suggesting that no-one in the US dies for lack of access to health care and medication? Or that the vast majority of those unfortunates die because their economic status doesn't let them pay for those health services, which are freely available for those with the cash? quote: Contrary to the popular opinion of the world, we are not the greedy evil people you think. Even if your mother were destitute (is her whole family destitute? Are all her friends destitute?), help is available, there are charities that will help. There are doctors who will perform procedures at a reduced rate or even free of cost. I know. I’ve worked with some on fund raisers at the art center where I work. ...charities that may help.......doctors who might perform procedures......it's a question of luck....and we're talking about the headline stuff. Cancer etc. Now, what about preventative medicince? Rehabilitation? All available in the US if you can pay for it, or if you're lucky enopugh to get a charity to. All freely available in a nationalised health care system regardless of financial status. i asked you a question a while back which you refused to answer, instead deflecting it into a question of government corruption. So once again......is it best to treat everyone regardless of wealth but at a somewhat reduced efficiency? Or best to treat only those who can afford to pay at a slightly higher efficiency? How about you actually answer that question? Or are you so bigotted against anything run by central government that you refuse to entertain anything that might compromise that position.

Aynne88 -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:47:10 AM)
Brief interjection here. My sister and her husband are USAF and they were stationed at Lakenheath in England when she had two of their children. She raves to this day about the quality of care and the cost *ridiculously next to nothing) that she recieved there. What topped it off to me is some kind of service where they send a woman to your home after that baby comes to help you with domestic duties?! I was stunned. They lived there for 11 years and is a huge advocate for that system. Oh, and she is a republican. I have tried to get her to see her erroneous ways to no avial. [;)]. Regardless, she claims the Brits have it down pat regarding their National Healthcare system.

philosophy -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Regardless, she claims the Brits have it down pat regarding their National Healthcare system. ...and it's a sound investment. Resulting in fewer sick days, a fitter work force, and much healthier children.

Aynne88 -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 10:54:06 AM)
Exactly philosophy. They seem to always ignore these facts. When we have a nation of millions of people uninsured and underinsured what does that say about us a a society as a whole? I know what I think it says and I find it embarrassing as hell. Shameful really.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 11:01:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Do you have a definition in mind for the number "large?" no. Obviously there were some, but, picking the Depression since that is so much in the news today, there was no statisically significant spike in death rates.

FirmhandKY -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 1:10:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Yayyyy!!!! I am in absolute and complete agreement with Firm. Holy hell, the sky is falling and the world shall soon end [;)]. Seriously Firm, for years I was fine with my private pay, it hovered in the 350 to 400 range for 2, etc. The last 7 or o years Anthem had pretty much had a monopoly in Maine, and it sucks. My monthly premium almost double overnight, you can not get anything paid, they deem everything as "elective". Sure, surgery for deep vein thrombosis with two seperate opinions is just me trying to get cosmetic work for vericose veins.[8\|]. Assholes. I hate them, and I hate that they have a monopoly is more rural states like Firm said. It takes call after call to get anything paid and the constant battle is exhausting. I can't see how the government handling it could be any worse. And beleive it or not Firm, I am not a huge fan of how the government handles things like that, have you ever googled the state of Maine's own health plan "Dirigo"? An absolute freaking failure, and an expensive one at that. I have to give Romney credit, so far it seems he had it down. Oh, we've been in agreement several times Aynne, but maybe all the disagreements have pushed 'em out of your mind. [:)] I barely touched the surface of the problems in Kentucky, and with Anthem. For example, I never mentioned that every lawyer I contacted agreed that we had a great case to sue, and that Anthen had no leg to stand on ... except that they had deep pockets, well-heeled lawyers and lobbyists, and a rabid tendency to pay millions in legal fees before they'd pay $1,000 in a judgment. Every single lawyer (I personally talked with at least 15) refused to take the case, because of they said it would consume years, and millions of dollars, and even if we won, it would stay in appeals for decades. I never mentioned the time that a local hospital put a lien on my house for $6k, because of unpaid, but valid medical expenses that Anthem slow-walked for months, and kept assuring me "the check was in the mail"? The ongoing situation took much of my time away from the business, much to its detriment. "Hate" is probably only a slight coloring of what I still feel for that company. I warned my family (and not always completely jokingly) that if they woke up one day and I wasn't around, but the news had a story about a gunman rampaging through their state headquarters .... start making my funeral arrangements. But, as I originally said, I don't think "socialized medicine" or "state rationed health care" is the answer either. I think too many of the plans that involve direct control or managment of private systems by government (based on the two personal examples of Tennessee's and Kentucky's attempts to "do something" about health care and the utter disasters that they became) are inherently flawed, and based on false, but politically expedient logic. Again ... I don't claim to have the answers, but I think the answer needs to include a large dose of freedom of choice, and recognization of free market principles. Which are two core principles in which any government oriented health care delivery system that I've heard espoused within the US have lacked. Also, despite espousing free market principles for such a system, I think that there is a moral dimension that should not be ignored either. A cold cost benefit analysis of whether or person should be given certain treatments, or allowed to die based on some formula of economic utility is fraught with bad possibilities. Again ... I don't know the answer, or solution, or the "best solution" or even a "good solution". One thing I do know is that private health care issues hit a nerve, and many small business owners, and independent businesspeople such as you and I who would normally be stauch advocates of nothing but the free enterprise system are being co-opted, or at least losing any patience or sympathy for the current system. Which is not a good place for the big insurance companies, nor many HMOs, nor the current private system. Firm

Aynne88 -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 2:01:39 PM)
I don't have a thing to add to that Firm, that was really well said. I am actually not a huge proponent of a gov't run system, I just think that the one we have now is so horrible that I can't see how it could be worse, but then I look at how miserably Dirigo failed here in Maine, so I don't have any brilliant answers either. I can not imagine the immense amounts of time you had to spend with that lien fiasco. I can however imagine you must have been livid. It does not shock me though, knowing how they operate as I do. That company is a trainwreck, and a ridiculously overpriced one at that. Oh, and yes, I will admit, we do agree on things, I am just too stubborn to admit it, it makes me look bad to my posse. [;)]. Can't be seen fraternizing with the enemy~

Marc2b -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 2:50:12 PM)
quote: Jesus christ, I've seen you make some irrational points before but this is the first time I've ever seen you throw an outright tantrum. The whole point of your diatribe seems to be that I made what you feel is an inaccurate assumption about you by saying that your argument is typical of the talking points that conservatives always fall back on, There is nothing seems about it. What can I say? Bigotry pisses me off. Doubly so when it is directed at me. quote: and your response to that is to.... make an incredible series of flawed assumptions about me, and then attack me on the basis of those flawed assumptions. I asked a series of questions. I wasn’t exactly civil about it but like I said, bigotry pisses me off. quote: Go ahead and have the rest of the debate without me. You don't need me; you can just keep on making up my side of the argument and attack whatever positions you make up for me. I tell you what, I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll try not to make up positions for you if you grant me the same courtesy. There are many reasons why I oppose a socialized health care system: Constitutionally, philosophically, practically… Not caring about people is not one of them and I have little patience for people who presume such things because they consider their position to be the only moral one.

kittinSol -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 3:00:31 PM)
Yet, you have taken the liberty to deride those of us who hold a different opinion from yours under the spurious claim that we were trying to be morally superior to you... at the same as you were arguing that you were somehow morally superior to us because of your personal opinion. Don't dish it if you don't want to take it.

Marc2b -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 3:35:53 PM)
quote: .......and i'm telling you that in the UK the NHS works. Period. You continue to suggest that nationalised health care might not work despite abundant evidence that all around the world there are examples that show it can work. For every example of nationalized health care working you can find examples of it not working. For every poor person (if socialism is so great why are there poor people in socialist countries?) who gets treatment how many are being denied treatment because, as was mentioned in this thread earlier, they are considered less valuable? quote: ...the health care system in Canada is organised province by province. Right now we have a weak conservative minority Federal government which actually wants to switch to a health care system based on the US model. So they are not invested in making the provinces live up to their obligations vis a vis health care. What you're seeing is not evidence that nationalised health care doesn't work. What you're seeing is evidence that a system based on the US model doesn't work. Have you always had a weak conservative minority federal government? I’ve been seeing those license plates for many years and in my cab driving days (twenty years ago) I picked up more than a few Canadians from hotels and drove them to hospitals/doctor’s offices. If Ontario has a provincial wide health care system and it is not living up to it obligations then it seems to me that it is neither proof for or against either model but that it does offer proof that you can’t rely on the government to fulfill your needs. quote: .....what? bigotry? We have had some cordial conversations in the past and agreed to disagree....but that crack of yours was a flat insult. The presumption that any poor person in this country in need of health care would die because it rests on the presumption that nobody here would care enough to give a shit and do anything about it. In short, you are judging an entire people on the attitudes of a portion (and a minority portion at that) of those people. That’s bigotry and I fail to see how pointing that out is an insult. quote: Are you seriously suggesting that no-one in the US dies for lack of access to health care and medication? Or that the vast majority of those unfortunates die because their economic status doesn't let them pay for those health services, which are freely available for those with the cash? No I am not. Nor am I buying the proposition that the same doesn’t happen in countries that have nationalized health care. Whether it is due to lack of financial resources or because your government has decided treating you is not cost effective – dead is dead. quote: ...charities that may help.......doctors who might perform procedures......it's a question of luck....and we're talking about the headline stuff. Cancer etc. Now, what about preventative medicince? Rehabilitation? All available in the US if you can pay for it, or if you're lucky enopugh to get a charity to. All freely available in a nationalised health care system regardless of financial status. Nothing is freely available, somebody is paying for it. And by the way, there are government run health insurance plans here: Medicare and Medicade on the national level, and here in New York we have something called Family Health plus. quote: i asked you a question a while back which you refused to answer, instead deflecting it into a question of government corruption. So once again......is it best to treat everyone regardless of wealth but at a somewhat reduced efficiency? Or best to treat only those who can afford to pay at a slightly higher efficiency? How about you actually answer that question? Or are you so bigotted against anything run by central government that you refuse to entertain anything that might compromise that position. I didn’t answer the question because I consider it unanswerable. I consider it unanswerable because I reject the premise upon which it rests, namely that the government is capable of covering everybody. But for the sake of argument… no, I do not consider better to cover everybody at reduced efficiency. The costs are too high and I am not just referring to the economic costs. I fail to see why I should submit to inferior (less efficient) treatment because some people think it is unfair that I have better treatment available than others. Nor do I care to violate the Constitution in order to achieve such universal coverage. If Americans want national health care then the Constitution must be amended first. Until then, it is a matter for the individual States. If a State government wants to have a state wide, government run health care plan then that is their right. I may not agree with it but I do recognize their right to do so.

Marc2b -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 4:06:05 PM)
quote: Yet, you have taken the liberty to deride those of us who hold a different opinion from yours under the spurious claim that we were trying to be morally superior to you... If you are referring to my statement in post 57 I did not single you out and I said most people, not everybody. What I derided is the notion that if reality is not working out the way we want it to then we should look to the government to take care of us and solve all or problems (or even the notion that government is obligated to). I’m of the opinion that people should try getting off their butts and try doing something their self. If people are having troubles (and people always have been and always will) try helping out those around you. More good will be accomplished than going to a protest to demand government action (and no, I don’t mean you specifically, I’m using you in the general sense). quote: at the same as you were arguing that you were somehow morally superior to us because of your personal opinion. If you are referring to DedicatedDom’s contention that “Gramps” should be disregarded because he is not as valuable to society as a younger person – you’re God damn right I consider myself morally superior to anyone who believes such fascist crap. Do you not consider yourself morally superior to some people? I do not have a problem with people who consider themselves morally superior to those who they are clearly morally superior to. I do not, however, consider such presumptions to be free from analysis and criticism (external or internal). After all, the morally superior person may be wrong in their arrogant presumption (something else that tends to piss me off). quote: Don't dish it if you don't want to take it. I’m still here, aren’t I?

TreasureKY -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 4:17:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Regardless, she claims the Brits have it down pat regarding their National Healthcare system. ...and it's a sound investment. Resulting in fewer sick days, a fitter work force, and much healthier children. I'm not sure I'd automatically give credit to the NHS. It is possible that Brits have fewer sick days and a fitter work force because all employees have a government required amount of paid time off from work that equals nearly 5 weeks per year. Starting next month, that amount goes up to a little over 5 1/2 weeks per year. For some workers with generous employers, that's in addition to bank and public holidays. During my working career, I might have had many fewer sick days and been much happier (and mentally healthier) if I'd had over a month's paid time off from work every year. [;)]

CruelNUnsual -> RE: McCain supports Palin for president ... sort of (3/31/2009 5:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .......and i'm telling you that in the UK the NHS works. Period. You continue to suggest that nationalised health care might not work despite abundant evidence that all around the world there are examples that show it can work. Repeating a falsehood over and over again doesnt make it true. Yes, there may be anecdotes of times when it works, but if you work with people in England, as I do almost every day, they are nearly to a man unhappy with access, quality and what they ultimately pay for it.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875