RE: Universal Healthcare

RE: Universal Healthcare (Full Version)

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

Message

sharainks -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 8:59:08 PM)
One of the big things the politicians don't mind us paying for is the big raises they vote in for themselves every year. Mistress Lorelei is right. For what is spent on things that aren't really necessary and that I do mind paying for more than I would mind paying for someone's healthcare.

mnottertail -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 9:01:27 PM)
You can say all that altruistic shit, but that ain't what it is about....government is not what you read in the history classes in high school.........they have to peel some for themselves and oversight it so they are sure your money is not being wasted, which is a huge waste of money, then they have to talk with Jim, the lobbyist who is wont to remind them that his client spent 50,000 dollars on their campaign and that while they have no expectation of recompense and will bide by and if necessary support their current positon that they may not be able to do so in the future (around the reelection time) more, but that is a capitalist society, someone is going to take home chips at the end of the day. Ron

MistressLorelei -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 9:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You can say all that altruistic shit, but that ain't what it is about....government is not what you read in the history classes in high school.........they have to peel some for themselves and oversight it so they are sure your money is not being wasted, which is a huge waste of money, then they have to talk with Jim, the lobbyist who is wont to remind them that his client spent 50,000 dollars on their campaign and that while they have no expectation of recompense and will bide by and if necessary support their current positon that they may not be able to do so in the future (around the reelection time) more, but that is a capitalist society, someone is going to take home chips at the end of the day. Ron Had we voted for a different President, universal healthcare might have been on the road to surfacing. If we keep electing people who want to keep all the chips for themselves and the companies they run... then we will keep getting nothing. Excuse me, while I fight for something....

mnottertail -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 9:43:19 PM)
LOL, you talk like a madman, woman................... The war in Iraq was necessary because they had remote cropdusting planes and we cannot afford healthcare which is what we need when what is really happening is that Saddam sat there for 12 fuckin years as no immenent threat to anybody and then 9/11 came along and certainly you can see his hand in that (the fact that every shred of intelligence and evidence says he had nothing to do with it was certainly a cover for Osama bin Lauden.......) and so we got the right guy and the world is a safer place, because of us.....Oil companies making unheard of profits and that is easily the shit that your left-handers come up with....but I will point out to you that the bush family (George in Particular and relative (it makes no difference) Cheney have their oil stocks in a blind trust so that they cannot effect personal gain) and this is indeed all about making the world safe, it is so much safer now. And I want to point out that George Bush championed a plan for pills that was confusing, irrelevant and a boon to drug companies and insurance companies in one fell swoop, and John Kerry would have never been that committed to his lord. LOLOLOL, What the fuck is the logic here? I thought acid and alice in wonderland was about as far out of a frame of reference as I was ever going to get. But ML, you understated it elegantly. My hat is off, and will be in my hand soon.

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 9:48:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Archer LOL follow the money LOL the Phamaccology industry gets a sub standard profit margin in most cases 10- 15 % is pretty standard Funny how the really big industries tend to be the ones making 5-7% and getting hammerd for such outragious profits. If you spend 2000 and make 200 you're making 10% If you spend 200,000 and makee 20,000 you make 10% If you spend 200 billion and make 20 billion it's still a 10% return on investment. When is it that people will begin to get that? i disagree. how do you explain a 10,000% mark up on meds ? i see these slicksters IN teh drs office selling my drs the flavor of the day pill. often. seems every 2 of 3 office visit. a sale person pusher is there... why? not for any 10% it doesnt add up, Sir,. maybe im wrong. but i do know the system needs some tweaking and fast. R&D Costs is the exlination 200 failed tests have to be paid for by one successfull drug to the market.

Chaingang -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 9:48:55 PM)
Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs states "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Adamantly opposing some speakers in this thread, I would like to assert that a desire for universal healthcare does not arise from a sense of entitlement - just the opposite really. But I do find it interesting that people that are born into this world with nothing but the skin on their backs grow up thinking that they have to "own" everything to exclusion of the simple well-being of others. Born into an affluent culture like that of the U.S. it takes leaden testicles to think that the success of any individual is the product of his sweat alone. Even the basic utilities we rely upon are the products of government and the members of society working cooperatively. You Libertarians think you are each an island to yourself. You are not. You are each of you members of a pack animal species known as primates. Yeah, I guess it might be nice to think of yourselves as "rugged individualists" but to do it you have to stand on the shoulders of everyone else. What if we decide to punch you in the ass until your stool runs with blood instead? "Me!" "This belongs to me." "I own that thing." "I invented this widget." Blah, blah, blah... Maybe some of you should look up the word "entitlement."

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 9:58:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But your pre existing condition does not entitle you to reach into my pocket to pay for it, which is exactly what a government run system does. If I say NO i don't want to pay for her they come with guns and badges and take away my stuff. I'm not saying throw those who cannot get insurance to the wolves I'm OK with taxing a little to subsidize those whoo are all but uninsurable, mostly I just want it to be done in as private a system as possible. Yes it does. I live here... I pay taxes.. to cover YOUR ass if you need it.. you get to cover mine. I didnt'ask for MS.. but it happened. Once diagnosed I became a non-person. Can't get my own health insurance..no one will hire me.. can't even get a life insurance policy. Can't even get euthanized because our Christian government feels suffing is more noble than ending a usless, non-productive life. Go figure.. So you are gonna be stuck with me.. Life delt you a shitty hand with that but still that does not entitle you to reach into my pocket, if I want to give then I give if I do not then what specificly gives you the right to take it from me? I'm sure it sound cold hearted and to an extent when it comes to government I am cold hearted, But I'll give and give to charities volentaritly. I just don't see it as Government's job to do it. It's my personal obligation to help those in need not a civic one. It's a matter of which is the correct way to fund such problem situations. Myself I beleive in funding it volentarily as opposed to through government.

Chaingang -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:06:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I'm sure it sound cold hearted and to an extent when it comes to government I am cold hearted, But I'll give and give to charities volentaritly. You're so predictable it's sad really. That's the classic Libertarian dodge. Being a human being involves engaging the social contract, Archer - do you understand what that means? If you want to be Libertarian, fine - go do it somewhere you do not have to rely upon the entire society, culture and infrastructure automatically provided you by a significantly socialist culture like the U.S. It's already here, your fears are realized: socialism. You want something else - go do it somewhere else. You express yourself as if you existed in a vacuum.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:17:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Life delt you a shitty hand with that but still that does not entitle you to reach into my pocket, if I want to give then I give if I do not then what specificly gives you the right to take it from me? I'm sure it sound cold hearted and to an extent when it comes to government I am cold hearted, But I'll give and give to charities volentaritly. I just don't see it as Government's job to do it. It's my personal obligation to help those in need not a civic one. It's a matter of which is the correct way to fund such problem situations. Myself I beleive in funding it volentarily as opposed to through government. Why is providing healthcare for everyone charity? We are all paying for it. It isn't charity when our tax money pays for salaries of government leaders, when it pays for a space shuttle, when it pays for education, roads, etc. None of it is charity; it's our tax money, and it can be budgeted a number of ways. Our current government had a plan that isn't working; the next administration may balance the budget differently. It's a a shame that many conservatives call it charity simply because they hate the idea that collective tax dollars could possibly be helping someone needy, even though, chances are.... that needy person is paying taxes too.

nefertari -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:18:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: Archer But your pre existing condition does not entitle you to reach into my pocket to pay for it, which is exactly what a government run system does. If I say NO i don't want to pay for her they come with guns and badges and take away my stuff. I'm not saying throw those who cannot get insurance to the wolves I'm OK with taxing a little to subsidize those whoo are all but uninsurable, mostly I just want it to be done in as private a system as possible. Yes it does. I live here... I pay taxes.. to cover YOUR ass if you need it.. you get to cover mine. I didnt'ask for MS.. but it happened. Once diagnosed I became a non-person. Can't get my own health insurance..no one will hire me.. can't even get a life insurance policy. Can't even get euthanized because our Christian government feels suffing is more noble than ending a usless, non-productive life. Go figure.. So you are gonna be stuck with me.. Life delt you a shitty hand with that but still that does not entitle you to reach into my pocket, if I want to give then I give if I do not then what specificly gives you the right to take it from me? I'm sure it sound cold hearted and to an extent when it comes to government I am cold hearted, But I'll give and give to charities volentaritly. I just don't see it as Government's job to do it. It's my personal obligation to help those in need not a civic one. It's a matter of which is the correct way to fund such problem situations. Myself I beleive in funding it volentarily as opposed to through government. Our current government does think it entitles her to dip into your pocket. Any person who has worked and paid enough into social security (doesn't take a lot, btw) with a qualifying illness or disability is entitled to SSDI and medicare. Those that haven't paid enough into social security qualify for SSI (I'm not sure if in that case they receive medicare or medicaid). I personally think it is incumbent upon any civilized society to take care of it's own. We have obviously already agreed that it betters our society to educate it's young. Wouldn't it also better our society to maintain a healthy population?

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:18:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs states "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Adamantly opposing some speakers in this thread, I would like to assert that a desire for universal healthcare does not arise from a sense of entitlement - just the opposite really. But I do find it interesting that people that are born into this world with nothing but the skin on their backs grow up thinking that they have to "own" everything to exclusion of the simple well-being of others. Born into an affluent culture like that of the U.S. it takes leaden testicles to think that the success of any individual is the product of his sweat alone. Even the basic utilities we rely upon are the products of government and the members of society working cooperatively. You Libertarians think you are each an island to yourself. You are not. You are each of you members of a pack animal species known as primates. Yeah, I guess it might be nice to think of yourselves as "rugged individualists" but to do it you have to stand on the shoulders of everyone else. What if we decide to punch you in the ass until your stool runs with blood instead? "Me!" "This belongs to me." "I own that thing." "I invented this widget." Blah, blah, blah... Maybe some of you should look up the word "entitlement." I've yet to see anyone here expound on the pure form of Libertarianist thought, in fact all of us have been willing to cite specificly that there are flaws to it as there are to any ism out there that is tried in a pure form. But true to form that gets glossed over whenever someone wants to hammer away on the cold heart of libertarianist thought. Again as I have multiple times already, I know that government has it's purpose I'm not an anarchist, I know that government is a nessisary evil, that it reigns in the short sightedness man tends to suffer with. That does not change the fact that a certain level of individual rights to private property has served to advance mankind. pretty much a proven fact that it serves as the biggest motivating factor for efficiency, which allows some lucky few to support themselves as artists and performers instead of having to channel their efforts into making hard goods. Not trying at all to step on people just to make my living and have my property and pass it in to my offspring. My collective is family, first not the government. When times got tough I turned to family, when they had tough times they turned to me. I'm not trying to be so much individualistic but clanish. Sure we're not islands but I can tell you with my family it wouldn't be too hard at all to make it as a unit. Not so lucky as I was to be born into a good family then create your own, I know many who have done exactly that and made the moves to advance that family as a whole. So that at some point the family can take care of all their own. Being only 2 generations out of the TN mountains where rugged individualism and family support is kinda something that we still prize. And Government is still something we don't trust and want to have as little interferance as possible from. We know it's needed for some things but the number of things it is needed to do is much smaller in our minds than it is in many.

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:28:14 PM)
[/quote] Why is providing healthcare for everyone charity? We are all paying for it. It isn't charity when our tax money pays for salaries of government leaders, when it pays for a space shuttle, when it pays for education, roads, etc. None of it is charity; it's our tax money, and it can be budgeted a number of ways. Our current government had a plan that isn't working; the next administration may balance the budget differently. It's a a shame that many conservatives call it charity simply because they hate the idea that collective tax dollars could possibly be helping someone needy, even though, chances are.... that needy person is paying taxes too. [/quote] But again the point is that I don't see it as a legitimate function of government. But how many times in this thread is the fact that I hav cited time after time that I"M NOT ADVERSE TO HELPING SHORT TERM, OR THOSE WHO CANNOT DO FOR THEMSELVES I just want to use a private system as opposed to a government system to administer it. 5 or 6 times through this thread, I've said it. Charity is a wonderfull thing nothing wrong with giving it or recieveing it if it's needed. The trouble is determining when the need is there and what level of need you are willing to support. I am simply proposing that we reduce the need for it to the lowest possible level through private means and then once everything that can be handled with private methods has been done the remaining people can be funded through goverment.

MistressLorelei -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:30:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I've yet to see anyone here expound on the pure form of Libertarianist thought, in fact all of us have been willing to cite specificly that there are flaws to it as there are to any ism out there that is tried in a pure form. But true to form that gets glossed over whenever someone wants to hammer away on the cold heart of libertarianist thought. Again as I have multiple times already, I know that government has it's purpose I'm not an anarchist, I know that government is a nessisary evil, that it reigns in the short sightedness man tends to suffer with. That does not change the fact that a certain level of individual rights to private property has served to advance mankind. pretty much a proven fact that it serves as the biggest motivating factor for efficiency, which allows some lucky few to support themselves as artists and performers instead of having to channel their efforts into making hard goods. Not trying at all to step on people just to make my living and have my property and pass it in to my offspring. My collective is family, first not the government. When times got tough I turned to family, when they had tough times they turned to me. I'm not trying to be so much individualistic but clanish. Sure we're not islands but I can tell you with my family it wouldn't be too hard at all to make it as a unit. Not so lucky as I was to be born into a good family then create your own, I know many who have done exactly that and made the moves to advance that family as a whole. So that at some point the family can take care of all their own. Being only 2 generations out of the TN mountains where rugged individualism and family support is kinda something that we still prize. And Government is still something we don't trust and want to have as little interferance as possible from. We know it's needed for some things but the number of things it is needed to do is much smaller in our minds than it is in many. How about if you consider the country you live in as one big family... we all have to interact, not harm one another, and for the most part get along in harmony to the best of our abilities. With the family money (aka taxes) the entire family gets healthcare before we spend the rest on government stuff like space shuttles and wars.... That sounds like family before government to me...

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:35:31 PM)
To simplify it so it's not missed : 1. Use tax policy to encourage individual insurance 2. If worried people will be short sighted mandate the program but keep the insurance in private hands 3. once the effect of real competition forces cost reductions and more responsive services from private insurance the need for government funded insurance will be reduced. 4. whoever is left after that can be funded by government since the private system obviously can't work for them.

mnottertail -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:38:26 PM)
Oh, the hell it ain't civic, you are in the world as much as I. Redolant cases will end up in the fuckin' welfare system........it would be a kinder, gentler and less expensive nation if we did not wait until your asshole started leaving your rectum before we as a nation took a look at that.........said you know what, the drain overall on the entire economy.....you can have your cornhole checked, any time you want. The number one cancer in men is now prostate cancer. Fucking DUH!!!!!!!!! you can train a monkey to wipe an ass and feel lumps. Why go to a team of doctors every year to abut the dissention of the insurance companies for health screenings? So, there is the HSA (to reduce costs) to the insurance company, as they charge bigger premiums, the deal being, go to the doctor anytime you want, and so long as he has no diagnosis, we pay....... C'mon , walk into any town in real america, the biggest cleanest and prettiest buildings belong to insurance banking and healthcare (slide gas stations in there too, i see they all been upgrading from the hole in the wall shith we seen in past years) oh, everybody is so taken advantage of here................. The others are only oppressed and they are always with us. LOLOLO, Ron

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei How about if you consider the country you live in as one big family... we all have to interact, not harm one another, and for the most part get along in harmony to the best of our abilities. With the family money (aka taxes) the entire family gets healthcare before we spend the rest on government stuff like space shuttles and wars.... That sounds like family before government to me... KUMBAYA MY LORD KUMBYAAA LOL Lets just make it the whole world while we're at it. Numbers too large to work with, family means connections and those connections get tenuous past a certain level. Problems have to be solved on a smaller level or buereucracy sets in and that never works well. I know your side of the argument and it has points that sound great but nobody has shown me where the workable soultions beyond eat the rich come from on that side. I'm all about reducing the problem to manageable size and tackling the bite sized chunks and I just don't see that happening in a world collective.

mnottertail -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:45:54 PM)
Why does it have to be solvable in its entirety before you get on board the love train? Why bother fucking with aids, faggots are going to die anyway at some point. See what I mean? Ron

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:46:24 PM)
That's why my first solution is to get the Insurance business out of bed with the employers, if the employer pays then the Insurance company only cares if the HR dept is happy with them. because unless they are upset they don't lose any clients. Have the company pay the employee the money first and then the employee buy the insurance and the system begins to get efficient fast as well as getting responsive to the patients since they can walk next door whenever they get upset with the lack of service. It's a bite sized chunk that would go a long way.

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 10:49:21 PM)
See you're not reading the post clearly just responding before you actually get the idea, I've sauid multiple times I'm not looking to solve the whole thing at once I'm looking to reduce the problem to bite sized chunks, try reading and understanding before you start typing up your reply.

mnottertail -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/26/2006 11:07:08 PM)
Well, I don't buy your assumption, so I do not buy the deal, the insurance 'adjuster' is in front of HR constantly, and those poor little college educated 23 year old cunts get run over, but with a baccalaureate are well equipped for it..........and I read the answer to my next post about solving, but since we so fundamentally disagree (on this issue, there are many you have posted I am in concert with) I believe I will stop here. Sincerely, Ron

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625