quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Look, keep in mind that the increase in life expectancy in the US since the 60's, is due exclusively to Medicare. The longer life expectancy than in the US thus in the national systems outside the US, is due to their national pay systems.

Technology is both a benefit and a curse. Hence depending upon who you read, example: Japan MRI $100, US MRI $1,500.

I am telling you once again, the US lives in a for-profit society with a for-profit culture. So health care whether under so-called Obamacare or not, it's not about health care and as with everything else too...its about the fucking money.

Complete and utter rubbish.

The increases in life expectancy are due to decreases in smoking, better ambulance service, decreases in response time due to things like helicopters. Medicare has damn near nothing to do with it.
And the differences in life expectancies has nothing to do with standards of care, it has to do with gang violence and drug addiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
But no matter how you look at it, the US are way down the healthcare table for costs and for the level of healthcare Americans receive.

In the WHO table of healthcare systems, the UK ranks 18, Canada ranks 30, and the US ranks 37 behind the likes of Costa Rica, Chile, Morocco and Colombia - neither Canada nor the US made it to the top 25 countries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Look, keep in mind that the increase in life expectancy in the US since the 60's, is due exclusively to Medicare. The longer life expectancy than in the US thus in the national systems outside the US, is due to their national pay systems.

Technology is both a benefit and a curse. Hence depending upon who you read, example: Japan MRI $100, US MRI $1,500.

I am telling you once again, the US lives in a for-profit society with a for-profit culture. So health care whether under so-called Obamacare or not, it's not about health care and as with everything else too...its about the fucking money.

Complete and utter rubbish.

The increases in life expectancy are due to decreases in smoking, better ambulance service, decreases in response time due to things like helicopters. Medicare has damn near nothing to do with it.
And the differences in life expectancies has nothing to do with standards of care, it has to do with gang violence and drug addiction.

In fact we still have all of those problems and are still holding down life expectancy. Before medicare, almost none of the older people could pay for medical advancements and not just better health behavior.

90% of US healthcare is spent in the last few tears of life which eliminates almost all of what you refer to. Go read up on it and greater life expectancies are all about standard of care after 70 years and paid for my medicare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Look, keep in mind that the increase in life expectancy in the US since the 60's, is due exclusively to Medicare. The longer life expectancy than in the US thus in the national systems outside the US, is due to their national pay systems.

Technology is both a benefit and a curse. Hence depending upon who you read, example: Japan MRI $100, US MRI $1,500.

I am telling you once again, the US lives in a for-profit society with a for-profit culture. So health care whether under so-called Obamacare or not, it's not about health care and as with everything else too...its about the fucking money.

Complete and utter rubbish.

The increases in life expectancy are due to decreases in smoking, better ambulance service, decreases in response time due to things like helicopters. Medicare has damn near nothing to do with it.
And the differences in life expectancies has nothing to do with standards of care, it has to do with gang violence and drug addiction.

In fact we still have all of those problems and are still holding down life expectancy. Before medicare, almost none of the older people could pay for medical advancements and not just better health behavior.

90% of US healthcare is spent in the last few tears of life which eliminates almost all of what you refer to. Go read up on it and greater life expectancies are all about standard of care after 70 years and paid for my medicare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Because of the mentality of the cold wariors it is pretty easy to lable it socialism/communism.
Amerika is currently gearing up to build 2500 f35 aircraft at $340,000,000 per copy...(this does not include spare parts and cost of operation). This is a giant handout socialism/communism to the war toy manufacturers. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge of aircraft knows that the f35 is no less than two generations ahead of anything in the sky or on the drawing board. This begs the question...why???
Why are we building aircraft that are not needed instead of funding health care??? More than 800 trillion taxpayers dollars

quote:

Obamacare is in intensive care. Instead of universal coverage, we have a universal nightmare that’s still there when we wake up. What went wrong?...

Pretty much everything went wrong.

That Obamacare isn’t working as advertised should surprise no one. Giant, complicated government-constructed machines always bring unexpected results. This one is more giant and complicated than most.


The program’s failure to rein in high costs – especially drug costs – forced insurers to hike their 2016 rates, sometimes dramatically. Because the Obamacare tax credits track income rather than the cost of coverage, lower-income people saw their net costs jump the most.

My own insurance agent gave me an awful report from the trenches last week. This is someone who’s been in the business a long time but says he never saw anything like this.

Even lifelong Democrats are seething with anger and frustration, he said. He knows exactly why, too.

“I have clients who get decent subsidies who can't afford the insurance. Families in the $20k to $40k range had great subsidies in the first two years, getting full PPO plans for $150 to $250 per month. Then the rates jumped, the subsidies stayed the same, and the coverage got worse. What looked like a great deal to those on the lower end is now an empty suit.”

An empty suit, indeed. The low-income consumers whom Obamacare was supposed to help just saw their rates skyrocket and their benefits sliced.

Do the math. If a family making $40,000 have to pay $400 a month, after subsidies, for partial coverage and another $100 on co-pays and deductibles, that’s 15% of their income.

The real scary part is we’ve only touched the surface. Next year the penalty for not having coverage rises to $695 or 2.5% of your income, whichever is higher.

For many folks, that “penalty” will be far less than it costs to buy insurance that is unusable because they can’t afford to pay the deductibles. They will take the penalty hit.

If enough people make that perfectly rational choice, Obamacare will enter the death spiral many predicted. [gee comrades, if those darn people would just act the way you want them too! but isn't that the history of the left? and then using force to achieve what you otherwise cannot get]

Obamacare’s next line of defense is the employer mandate, which expands in 2016 to include companies with as few as 50 full-time employees. I predict many will do their duty by offering coverage, but it will be such a bad deal the employees won’t take it.

What can anyone do about all this?...

I agree with the Republican goal of replacing Obamacare. I disagree with the piecemeal strategy.

Rubio in particular seems not to understand what Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: “Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.”

Opposing Obamacare by making it even worse serves only to increase suffering for average citizens. Better to let it die on its own – which it will – and have an alternative ready to take its place.

What that alternative will be is debatable. The fact that we’ll need it is not.

quote:

There are two basic ways of understanding the relationship between individuals in a group. The first way is individualism, which states that each individual is acting on his or her own, making their own choices, and to the extent they interact with the rest of the group, it's as individuals. Collectivism is the second way, and it views the group as the primary entity, with the individuals lost along the way…

Ethically speaking, there are a number of problems with collectivism. For instance, because the collective is seen as having an importance higher than the individuals that make it up, those same individuals are asked to sacrifice for it. It is created into an intrinsic value, and destroys one's ability to rationally pursue one's own self-interest.

It also interferes with justice. Justice is concerned with making moral judgments about other people and acting accordingly. But collectivism destroys proper moral judgment by attributing value choices to the whole group, instead of the person making the choice.

Individualism is the proper approach to this problem. Moral judgments are made by moral agents. The person making the decision gets credit or blame for it. Values are agent-relative, and the person makes his choices by seeing how the value impacts his life. It is the individual that ethics is concerned with, and collectivism just obscures this point.

quote:

The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts [though that’s not a word I would use here] on its side?

Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Don't hold your breath, even back during our little climate change debates he could barely understand the meaning of the word even after I crammed citation after citation down his throat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

good reading...

"Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice"

quote:

The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts [though that’s not a word I would use here] on its side?

Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.

For the rest of the story:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Because of the mentality of the cold wariors it is pretty easy to lable it socialism/communism.
Amerika is currently gearing up to build 2500 f35 aircraft at $340,000,000 per copy...(this does not include spare parts and cost of operation). This is a giant handout socialism/communism to the war toy manufacturers. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge of aircraft knows that the f35 is no less than two generations ahead of anything in the sky or on the drawing board. This begs the question...why???
Why are we building aircraft that are not needed instead of funding health care??? More than 800 trillion taxpayers dollars

And who owns and builds and controls the production of F35? why, Lockheed Martin (The Bush baby)... of course it does!

The point is, most of the tax you pay goes into what's called 'discretionary funding'. Its discretionary because its not something they really want us to know about. Its undemocratic and something most of the US public wouldn't agree to pay for. Of course the spending figures are available to all of us, some of it we just have to scour harder to find. The government relies on public ignorance when it comes to discretionary spending and that's why they've got away with it for so long.

When a government gives our tax to a 'for profit' industry it can't be socialist. If it were socialist, then all profits would have to be given back to us because we are the share holders. If the profits were shared out amongst the elite share holders....That, in its essence, is Fascism.

It's disheartening to understand that when we look at our salary slip and wonder how we are going to make it through the month without putting in those extra hours, our government is slicing off large chunks in tax to pay towards the assets many of them have financial interests in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

good reading...

"Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice"

quote:

The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? With government expanding ever more rapidly—seizing and spending more and more of our money on “entitlement” programs and corporate bailouts, and intruding on our businesses and lives in increasingly onerous ways—the need for clarity on this issue has never been greater. Let us begin by defining the terms at hand.

Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1

Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts [though that’s not a word I would use here] on its side?

Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.

For the rest of the story:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/

Interesting read

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Actually there are at least two main types of fascism. Socialist (govt. ownership of the means of production) fascism which in history, has proven to be in name only because the Nazis who used it gain power, then turned German into a fascist oligarchy for the benefit of the German industrial elites and bankers. The 'ownership' and profits of which were...very private.

Then there is the outright capitalist fascism of Mussolini who coined the term...fascism. Italy's ownership and profits were also quite private. Now the communists used the economic system of...communism that required state fascism for its functioning which proved to be the worst of all fascism(s) because there were very little profits despite govt. ownership of the means of production. The best current example of which is N. Korea, which feeds the party well and provides for [its] luxuries while the people barely survive.

N. Korea (govt.) must work very hard due to its isolation in that they need to continually find ways to export (trade) their only wealth (labor) from an economically closed society which whether either party likes it or not...competes with new 'modern' Chinese capitalist fascism. It is because China has opened up to western capitalist profiteers, that they now enjoy the wealth of their labor at all.

That's why after all, Britain had to start the Opium War. There was nothing else to produce for what was a closed Chinese market except maybe food. (rice ?) AND why the US intervention into Afghanistan was so important in reviving their opium fields. what else do they have ?