quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, as if anyone cared how I got to what I believed before. And, shall we add, this [insurance companies being a huge driver of costs] is what I've been trying to get someone to actually state. I think it was Tweakabelle that made the comment that health care should never have become "for profit." Interestingly enough, I've been calling for a return to the "not for profit" methods in use prior to health care becoming "for profit." Instead, all I hear is that Government is the only answer possible. Obviously, it isn't the answer. That is exactly the point I've been trying to lead people to without stating it myself. I knew no one would believe me if I said it. But, now, others have said what I've believed the whole time.

So just to summarize, rather than making your point in the first place, you have been hinting and trying to get someone else to make your point for you?
Do you not see how this would create a lot of confusion, misunderstandings, and un-needed stress and fighting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Then Government-provided security forces are another kind of insurance company, I suppose.
It's fun going down this track, isn't it? Where does supporting the public funding of one kind of service against another stop being an upright, patriotic and true American thing to do, and start being a commie, freedom-hating thing to do? Weird.

See, now, the "Common Defence ... of the United States" is actually in the Constitution. That is what differentiates the two services you are comparing.

Common defense... but not common offense.
So a war outside US soil is not in the constitution, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The -that wont work because its not what the FF wanted/in the original Constitution- is old, tired and worn out. If we take out all that was not what they insist was the "original", this country would dissolve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You do too. I've no idea what you're talking about.

Justice is a basic need to my view.
As long as we have to pay 200 dollars an hour for a good lawyer, there doesnt exist any justice in my view.
I cant pay that absurd amount to go to court.
And I do have a lot of courtcases comin up, all against big motherfuckin companies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The -that wont work because its not what the FF wanted/in the original Constitution- is old, tired and worn out. If we take out all that was not what they insist was the "original", this country would dissolve.

Not dissolve per se, but...
I don't think there is any part of the constitution that says the US can go to war with states that don't want to be part of the US anymore for the purpose of forcing them to stay. By that argument, a strict constitutionalist would not accept any votes by southern states' senators and representatives, or their taking of any tax dollars from the federal government. Obviously the votes of states in the confederacy should not count towards the election of the president either...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

How would establishing universal health care cut our costs in half?

Universal health schemes typically cost about half the US cost (measured as % of GDP).
I'd look first at the Canadian and Australian healthcare systems as these are probably the closest to US conditions. European models such as the UK Germany and Scandinavian models are well worth checking out.
I'd be greatly surprised if there weren't detailed proposals already prepared and costed by US health think tanks and academics. Google is your friend.

It doesn't matter what the typical "schemes" outside the US cost. That doesn't necessarily translate into the same level of savings here.

Detailed proposals are also not necessarily worth reading since it's obvious our Government officials generally have no idea how much anything is actually going to cost. Remember that the income tax was only to be levied on a particular segment of the population and would never be more than 2%? Or, the "if we pass this, unemployment won't go above 8%?" Or, any of Bush's quick, cheap wars? Or Clinton's Medicare Overhaul that has yet to show the savings it was supposed to show (Medicare Reimbursements were supposed to effect that change, but we keep passing the Doc Fix Bill.

It is plainly evident our politicians don't really know how much something is going to cost.

What I do find interesting is that you proffer the 50% cost of other plans compared to ours and, at the very least, imply that we'd see those same savings, but don't understand how the savings would come about. As far as google being "my friend," how is it that I'm supposed to look up supporting evidence for your statements?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Then Government-provided security forces are another kind of insurance company, I suppose.
It's fun going down this track, isn't it? Where does supporting the public funding of one kind of service against another stop being an upright, patriotic and true American thing to do, and start being a commie, freedom-hating thing to do? Weird.

See, now, the "Common Defence ... of the United States" is actually in the Constitution. That is what differentiates the two services you are comparing.

Common defense... but not common offense.
So a war outside US soil is not in the constitution, right?

Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked. <-- Yeh just like the lusitania, and gulf of tonkin, and the brits needed that damn oil line so bad they could taste it. LOL Now, I'll be one of the ones who will say that we've strayed from our reason to be there, and we either need to get back on that path, or get our men and women home.

I'm actually split over Iraq. Hussein needed to go. yeh the US put him there in the first place. the asshole I dare him threaten to get the ME to sell their oil in euros!!! We cant print euros! WMD's I'm not sure on the Constitutionality of our actions there. Oh you can stretch ANYTHING into US interests! LOL I have a very well regarded friend who explained that we did not need to have any reason other than they weren't following the treaty signed as a result of the first Gulf War. They did the same thing to hitler

I am completely against the actions we took in Libya. I will be against actions if we take them against Syria.

In the end, waging war as a method to defend the country certainly is Constitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

How would establishing universal health care cut our costs in half?

Universal health schemes typically cost about half the US cost (measured as % of GDP).
I'd look first at the Canadian and Australian healthcare systems as these are probably the closest to US conditions. European models such as the UK Germany and Scandinavian models are well worth checking out.
I'd be greatly surprised if there weren't detailed proposals already prepared and costed by US health think tanks and academics. Google is your friend.

It doesn't matter what the typical "schemes" outside the US cost. That doesn't necessarily translate into the same level of savings here.

Detailed proposals are also not necessarily worth reading since it's obvious our Government officials generally have no idea how much anything is actually going to cost. Remember that the income tax was only to be levied on a particular segment of the population and would never be more than 2%? Or, the "if we pass this, unemployment won't go above 8%?" Or, any of Bush's quick, cheap wars? Or Clinton's Medicare Overhaul that has yet to show the savings it was supposed to show (Medicare Reimbursements were supposed to effect that change, but we keep passing the Doc Fix Bill.

It is plainly evident our politicians don't really know how much something is going to cost.

What I do find interesting is that you proffer the 50% cost of other plans compared to ours and, at the very least, imply that we'd see those same savings, but don't understand how the savings would come about. As far as google being "my friend," how is it that I'm supposed to look up supporting evidence for your statements?

Let's recap what has been happening here:

I made a claim that universal health schemes could reduce US healrhcare cost by uup to half. You queried that and asked for details. When you were given details, your response was: "I'm going to ignore that".
.
Clearly you have no interest in informing yourself of anything that might run counter to your ideological disposition. I have no interest in listening to any more of the ignorant ideologically-inspired drivel you are attempting (quite falsely) to present here as serious analysis and argument.

When you have decided to take this issue seriously, as opposed to your current disposition of using it as an opportunity to parrot some infantile, utterly discredited ideologically-driven waffle, please feel free to get back to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

How would establishing universal health care cut our costs in half?

Universal health schemes typically cost about half the US cost (measured as % of GDP). ... I'd be greatly surprised if there weren't detailed proposals already prepared and costed by US health think tanks and academics. Google is your friend.

It doesn't matter what the typical "schemes" outside the US cost. That doesn't necessarily translate into the same level of savings here.
Detailed proposals are also not necessarily worth reading since it's obvious our Government officials generally have no idea how much anything is actually going to cost. Remember that the income tax was only to be levied on a particular segment of the population and would never be more than 2%? Or, the "if we pass this, unemployment won't go above 8%?" Or, any of Bush's quick, cheap wars? Or Clinton's Medicare Overhaul that has yet to show the savings it was supposed to show (Medicare Reimbursements were supposed to effect that change, but we keep passing the Doc Fix Bill.
It is plainly evident our politicians don't really know how much something is going to cost.
What I do find interesting is that you proffer the 50% cost of other plans compared to ours and, at the very least, imply that we'd see those same savings, but don't understand how the savings would come about. As far as google being "my friend," how is it that I'm supposed to look up supporting evidence for your statements?

Let's recap what has been happening here:
I made a claim that universal health schemes could reduce US healthcare cost by up to half. You queried that and asked for details. When you were given details, your response was: "I'm going to ignore that".
When I then declined to continue the conversation, you accepted that your response was "dunderheaded" and asked me to re-consider. The rest is above.
Clearly you have no interest in informing yourself of anything that might run counter to your ideological disposition. I have no interest in listening to any more of the ignorant ideologically-inspired drivel you are attempting (quite falsely) to present here as serious analysis and argument.
When you have decided to take this issue seriously, instead of your current approach of using it as an opportunity to parrot some infantile, utterly discredited ideologically-driven waffle, please feel free to get back to me.

quote:


ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The last argument left to opponents of universal health schemes is one of pure selfishness and greed: "I don't want to pay for other peoples' healthcare" or a variation on this theme. Such statements have been made in this and similar threads many times.
Of course it is factually wrong. Typically universal healthcare schemes cost about half that of the insane US system. So they are in fact an awful lot cheaper. It appears that the short-sighted greed and selfishness of these people blinds them to these obvious savings. So here's the question they must address:
If it is possible to reduce US healthcare costs by c50% and at the same time save the tens of thousands of American lives lost annually as a direct consequence of lack of healthcare coverage, what possible reasons would anyone have to oppose it?
Surely any reasonable person would be prepared to spend an extra $10 or $20 or $30 per week to save tens of thousands of your fellow citizens lives annually. So why not do it when you can save 50 cents in every $ the US as a nation spends on healthcare?
It takes a particularly callous and myopic selfishness and greed to let tens of thousands of your fellow Americans die annually when their deaths are entirely preventable, especially when everyone is financially better off by preventing those deaths. To complain about the high costs of healthcare in the US, while opposing such a rational and enlightened method of reducing them by half is simply lunacy.
The single most effective measure to reduce US medical costs, by up to 50%, is the immediate introduction of a universal healthcare scheme.

quote:


ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Very simple. Establish a universal health scheme asap. They cost about half the cost of the system that operates in the USA currently.
This has already been pointed out to you many times. Yet it doesn't seem to have been understood. ... Please re-read the thread and try to take on board the various arguments, facts and perspectives posted. There are multiple steps to take to reduce US health costs, not one of them more effective than the simple solution offered above which, I repeat, if properly designed will halve US healthcare costs, as well as saving tens of thousands of American lives annually.

quote:


Universal health schemes typically cost about half the US cost (measured as % of GDP). ... I'd be greatly surprised if there weren't detailed proposals already prepared and costed by US health think tanks and academics. Google is your friend.

quote:


Clearly you have no interest in informing yourself of anything that might run counter to your ideological disposition.
When you have decided to take this issue seriously ... please feel free to get back to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri/Real0ne
Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked. <-- Yeh just like the lusitania, and gulf of tonkin, and the brits needed that damn oil line so bad they could taste it. LOL Now, I'll be one of the ones who will say that we've strayed from our reason to be there, and we either need to get back on that path, or get our men and women home.
I'm actually split over Iraq. Hussein needed to go. yeh the US put him there in the first place. the asshole I dare him threaten to get the ME to sell their oil in euros!!! We cant print euros! WMD's I'm not sure on the Constitutionality of our actions there. Oh you can stretch ANYTHING into US interests! LOL I have a very well regarded friend who explained that we did not need to have any reason other than they weren't following the treaty signed as a result of the first Gulf War. They did the same thing to hitler
I am completely against the actions we took in Libya. I will be against actions if we take them against Syria.
In the end, waging war as a method to defend the country certainly is Constitutional.

quote:

Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri/Real0ne
Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked. <-- Yeh just like the lusitania, and gulf of tonkin, and the brits needed that damn oil line so bad they could taste it. LOL Now, I'll be one of the ones who will say that we've strayed from our reason to be there, and we either need to get back on that path, or get our men and women home.
I'm actually split over Iraq. Hussein needed to go. yeh the US put him there in the first place. the asshole I dare him threaten to get the ME to sell their oil in euros!!! We cant print euros! WMD's I'm not sure on the Constitutionality of our actions there. Oh you can stretch ANYTHING into US interests! LOL I have a very well regarded friend who explained that we did not need to have any reason other than they weren't following the treaty signed as a result of the first Gulf War. They did the same thing to hitler
I am completely against the actions we took in Libya. I will be against actions if we take them against Syria.
In the end, waging war as a method to defend the country certainly is Constitutional.

I won't be speaking for all wars, which is why I specified which wars.

"They did the same to Hitler." Um, no. We didn't enter the war until we were attacked (Pearl Harbor, 7 Dec 1941?).

Regarding our involvement in getting Hussein into power? Well, yes, we did that. It was all on us. That is also a huge reason why I am against our current actions in Afghanistan and Libya. No matter what happens, if the people don't want what was instituted, it will fail, or it will be worse.

You also forgot to mention that the US was instrumental in getting rid of the Ayatollah in Iran and installing the current form of government.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that would end such ignorant efforts.

quote:

Europe's Failing Health
Sweeping reforms are needed across the European Union if its member states are serious about providing sustainable health care to aging populations
Article
Comments (33)
MORE IN BUSINESS »
Email
Print
Save
↓ More

smaller
Larger
By JAVIER ESPINOZA

Traditional sources of funding health care in Europe have been branded obsolete and unaffordable. The need for innovation has never been stronger and while some countries, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, are embracing change, others are resisting any significant overhaul. Indeed, the notion of free, state-backed health care is ingrained in the psyche of most Europeans.

Journal Report

Read the complete Innovations in Health Care report.

Reformers want to reduce the state's role in health-care delivery and introduce a competitive element. Those against change are adamant that a health-care system without state involvement is health care without a heart. Good for the rich, calamitous for the poor. It is an issue heavily clouded by emotion. But many feel that without innovation, crumbling state-backed systems will collapse as they struggle to cope with aging populations, soaring overheads and, more recently, mounting budget deficits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576200724221948728.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked.

By Afghanistan?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked.

By Afghanistan?

Are we fighting Afghanistan? No.

We had to motives for going in, one prime and one secondary. The prime directive was to destroy OBL and al Qaida. The secondary directive was to dethrone the Taliban since they were harboring terrorists.

The secondary directive was completely quite early in the campaign. Accordingly, we should no longer be fighting with the Taliban unless they either attack us, or are found fighting on the side of al Qaeda (against the Afghan's). We said we were going to kick their asses if they didn't let us in. They didn't. We did. That should be the end of that story.

We are still rooting out al Qaeda. I think. I don't even know wtf is going on over there any more. Our continued presence and military actions should end unless the mission we are on is to destroy al Qaeda (and even then, we may have done enough damage). However, I do think we are in there rebuilding Afghanistan and guiding them towards installing a democracy. Both of those things, IMO, are wrong. If the damage was done by us, fine, let's help clean that up. But, we are doing so much more than that. We do not have the right to install any government at all. That's also a problem I have with our actions in Libya.

Oh, and al Qaeda and the Taliban? Basically created by the US during the Soviet/Afghan war against the rebels (bin Laden and al Qaeda). Will we ever learn to stop meddling with internal politics of other countries?

quote:

COINCIDENCE OR CORRUPTION?

There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan, especially in light of Bush's substantial links with the oil industry. Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster, which triggered the "war on terror" military campaign, could have been prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.


IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE

America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:

"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines...
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project."
[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]


"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."

[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]


"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]

The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May 2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action to replace the government in Afghanistan.


THE CONQUEST OF AFGHANISTAN BEGAN BEFORE 9/11

The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11 disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center fell.

The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February 1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the attacks.

TIMELINE

3rd November 1998 - attacks stop US oil pipeline:

Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.

BBC News, "US attack closes US project", 3 November 1998.

2nd January 1999 - US strikes targets in Afghanistan:

No sooner had the Taleban won a series of victories in the north, than the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies in East Africa.

BBC News, "Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict", 2 January 1999.

15th March 2001 - allies invade Afghanistan:

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.

Janes International Security News, "India joins anti-Taliban coalition", 15 March 2001.

3rd September 2001 - allies deploy huge task-force for “fictional” conflict:

The aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious has sailed from Portsmouth to lead the biggest Royal Navy and Royal Marine deployment since the Falklands.
HMS Illustrious is the flagship of three groups of warships travelling to the Middle East to take part in exercise "Saif Sareea 2".
More than 24 surface ships from Britain, plus two nuclear submarines, will be completing the 13,000 mile round trip.
The operation, costing nearly £100m, will end with a major excercise before Christmas that will also involve the Army, Royal Air Force and Armed Forces of Oman.
The strike force has been put together to take part in a conflict between the fictional forces of the so-called state of 'Alawham' and those of Oman.

BBC News, Carrier heads for the Middle East, 3 September 2001.

11th September 2001 - the war comes home to America:

*** 9/11 ***

16th March 2001 - Bush prepares America to wage war overseas:

“I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect's [Osama Bin Laden] organisation is in a lot of countries,” Mr Bush told reporters on the White House lawn.

BBC News, "America widens 'crusade' on terror", 16 September 2001.

18th September 2001 - diplomat reveals 9/11 “response” began before 9/11:

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
...
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
BBC News, "US 'planned attack on Taleban'", 18 September 2001.

Next stop:

*** IRAQ ***

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/afghanistan.asp

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked.

By Afghanistan?

Are we fighting Afghanistan? No.

We had to motives for going in, one prime and one secondary. The prime directive was to destroy OBL and al Qaida. The secondary directive was to dethrone the Taliban since they were harboring terrorists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Actually, the military actions in Afghanistan are completely Constitutional since we went there as a direct result of being attacked.

By Afghanistan?

Are we fighting Afghanistan? No.
We had to motives for going in, one prime and one secondary. The prime directive was to destroy OBL and al Qaida. The secondary directive was to dethrone the Taliban since they were harboring terrorists.

Your argument was that invading Afghanistan was constitutional because we were attacked.
They didn't attack us.
Of course we had motives...but your case as originally presented is not the case. We laid a shaky precedent for invading a country that didn't really attack us, then "pre-emptively invaded Iraq. Nothing here is business as usual.