RE: Universal Healthcare

RE: Universal Healthcare (Full Version)

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

Message

Archer -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 11:22:24 AM)
Incorrect assumption that I'll go completely afield with the global warming issue, I concure that there is some human contribution to the problem and that reguardless of the other factors and the disagreement with many of the science aspects they ignore, the human contribution needs to be addresed. The question remains open as to how to do that without killing entire industries and setting the US up to be at a competative disadvantage. Big Q's on the science being: 1. Measurements have confirmed that the Sun is actually burning hotter, how much of the rise is attributable to that? 2. Urbanization has ment that recording stations have become subjected to night time higher temps what is being done to limit the variation caused by that. 3. The variable of natural geologic/ atmosphereic change cycles has not been addressed and nees to be Im not saying these things will eliminate the need to adjust consumption levels to lessen our impact, I'm saying that the ammount of the problem caused by us needs to not be over stated so that progress can be measured realisticly, and so that when the reductions fail to bring about the entire reversal in temeratures we don't end up feeling hoodwinked.

Chaingang -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 11:24:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin I don't know what the answer is here but I do know that the health care system in this country is broken in ways that ought to be criminal. The bottom line is that it is a for profit industry...BIG business. There is not much avenue for negotiation for the consumer. This is how capitalism falls apart... The simple fact of it is, that in a world of of 6 billion people (or is it more now?) all packed in very tightly on spaceship earth: YOU ARE YOUR BROTHERS KEEPER. A civilized society bands together for the common good and sets down principles of governance so that the greatest majority can benefit while still protecting dissenting minority viewpoints. We likewise organize certain local utilities to run as near not for profit monopolies. The alternative is to accept the law of the jungle - which is coming sooner than you might think. Those ghettos are expanding outward. The poor are bringing their culture to your neighborhoods. And no, fenced communities will not protect you when the fun really begins - but you needed those communities now because you thought they would help! Ah, the illusion of safety...breath deep the lie and hypocrisy of the beneficence of the upper classes. Think about it: fenced communities! In the land of the free you have made yourself your own prisoner to luxury rather than make sure that enough was being done for the lesser members of societies! Back in the day, that's why it was decided public schools were a good idea - because it helps society as a whole. I support the idea of public school because as a childless person I don't want a bunch of uneducated morons inheriting our society. I admit the quality of that education is very much at issue of late, but at least we are not yet a society of actual illiterates. So here we are: private, for profit healthcare run amok! Erin is entirely correct - there are no options. You pay what they say or you are screwed. They are a de facto monopoly except no one is controlling the profits and the government is apparently satisfied to look the other way. And this while normal folks like you and I are actually hurting. Bankruptcies surge. The few are enriched and the rest suffer. The simple fact is that capitalism and a desire for profits do not answer certain societal needs - and healthcare is one of them. We need something more streamlined. And it's not about not wanting to properly compensate the doctors, nurses, or other necessary personal and care providers - look at Erin's example, such costs are the least of her worries. Sadly what has happened is that under a more "libertarian" system of recovery everyone is suing everyone and there are enormous ancillary costs now attached to any healthcare procedure - insane costs! Ancillary costs so high that they are multiples higher in cost than the original activity performed by the doctor! No one is trying to screw the one doctor out of what he has coming to him after his 10-12+ years to become a doctor, what is questioned is that there is this whole structure of administrators, paper-pushers, insurers, attorneys, etc that really don't produce anything in the way of meaningful healthcare service. Why are they all getting a cut? Oh right, because capitalism is the only moral means of exchange... There's something quite rotten there. The fix doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to get us moving in the right direction. What we have right now with the U.S. healthcare industry is society headed down a rail at 100 mph and straight into a brick abutment. Obviously we need to change course.

Chaingang -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 11:34:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level No problem. Anything else I can help with? My issue is that the other thread is about someone else, now they might read your comment and be hurt by it. In a sense, I am unsettled by your comment because it wasn't actually directed at me even though you think it was. In real life, this would not have stopped at mere words. No one insults my friends in my presence with impunity. When you try to insult someone, make sure you hit your target.

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 11:37:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Level No problem. Anything else I can help with? My issue is that the other thread is about someone else, now they might read your comment and be hurt by it. In a sense, I am unsettled by your comment because it wasn't actually directed at me even though you think it was. In real life, this would not have stopped at mere words. No one insults my friends in my presence with impunity. When you try to insult someone, make sure you hit your target. One reason I made the comment is your habit of being insulting to goddam near everyone you post too. Trust me, if you act this way in person, you wouldn't fucking be around me, chaingang, and if it hadn't "stopped with words", that works for me LOL.

Chaingang -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 11:52:44 AM)
What can I say? People standing on my shoulders and demanding praise and compensation for it annoys me.

topnswitch -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 12:14:58 PM)
> Dan, thanks for your post [:D], very informative. But I do hope you're wrong about a "second Clinton" lol. Compared with a 3rd BUSH ?? - Seriously, I didn't say anything about it being Hilary - the speed things change around here, it will probably have to be Chelsea, before anything much gets fixed. Cheers, Dan

Lordandmaster -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 12:32:03 PM)
Oh, come on. We're talking about polar ice cores, Archer. Those aren't affected by urban nighttime temperatures or the temperature of the sun. As usual, whenever I bring up global warming, some "skeptic" on here cites all kinds of red herrings that have been amply studied in the scientific literature. Anyway, since you DO seem to concede that human activity has made at least some contribution to global warming, I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to the real issue. How do libertarians deal with that problem? Answer: They don't, because they can't. You'd have to measure the "economic" cost of global warming, assign each polluter a certain share--and then, of course, install a supranational judiciary, with enforcement powers, to make sure that polluters really pay. Needless to say, the world doesn't work that way. And global warming is not just a bad thing, like polluted soil, with a finite and calculable economic cost. Global warming threatens life on earth, and has to be reversed. quote: ORIGINAL: Archer 1. Measurements have confirmed that the Sun is actually burning hotter, how much of the rise is attributable to that? 2. Urbanization has ment that recording stations have become subjected to night time higher temps what is being done to limit the variation caused by that. 3. The variable of natural geologic/ atmosphereic change cycles has not been addressed and nees to be Im not saying these things will eliminate the need to adjust consumption levels to lessen our impact, I'm saying that the ammount of the problem caused by us needs to not be over stated so that progress can be measured realisticly, and so that when the reductions fail to bring about the entire reversal in temeratures we don't end up feeling hoodwinked.

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 1:07:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topnswitch > Dan, thanks for your post [:D], very informative. But I do hope you're wrong about a "second Clinton" lol. Compared with a 3rd BUSH ?? - Seriously, I didn't say anything about it being Hilary - the speed things change around here, it will probably have to be Chelsea, before anything much gets fixed. Cheers, Dan LOL at "Chelsea" [:D]...... and no, I don't want a third Bush either (not Jeb, anyways, maybe Laura).

NorthernGent -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 1:42:14 PM)
Level, It is a popular misconception that taxation levels vary wildly in the Western world according to Government style. This is not the case - some Governments have higher leverls of direct tax and others indirect on goods etc but by and large these balance themselves out across nations. Where nations really differ is on the areas which Governments spend taxpayers money. The Exchequer has the money to provide the necessary levels of social welfare - we are already paying for this - they simply choose to spend this tax elsewhere. They are able to do this because of society's misunderstanding of what we need and the responsibility of Government to meet our needs. The solution is to pressurise our Governments to spend our money in the areas we want them to spend it. The mechanics are in place, we have lost sight of what should be happening and the responsibilities of Government. I'm completely mystified by how people expect private charities to provide the answers to health, education and unemployment(although I don't dispute that they mean well). We have the benefit of several hundred years of developing a Parliamentary democracy designed to manage our interests and the associated network of organisation and expertise - however much private charities mean well they just don't have the know-how to make significant inroads into social problems. Regards

badkat -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 1:50:03 PM)
Recently I was in the ER with a hot appendix. Since it was late at night they had to have a radiologist in INDIA read my cat scan. Whats up with that? Dont say that if we are go to universal health care (which we desperately need) that we wont have as many doctors because obviously they are already outsourcing some physicians jobs already

NorthernGent -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 1:52:14 PM)
Popeye, The issue is intent. If the intention of the US Government was to overthrow Saddam Hussein because they were genuinely concerned for human rights then I would certainly have supported it. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that everyone should be left to their own devices (although I do see some merit in this argument). The problem is though that the US Government did not go into Iraq out of benevolence. In terms of Bush being a Conservative or not, there is a definite difference between what I, as a Briton, would regard as being Conservative politics and how Americans view conservative values. From my background Bush is the Conservative of the century but I appreciate you may not see it this way. Out of interest, where do you feel Bush is out of sync with American conservative values? Regards

NorthernGent -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 2:01:26 PM)
mistoferin, Just read your post and I'm gobsmacked. Hopefully, things will work out for you and they can't get blood out of a stone so tell them to shove their bills where the sun doesn't shine. I will say that anyone who thinks that is the way to run a society is devoid of any life and should seek therapy. What an embarrassing indictment of US society. Regards

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 2:40:36 PM)
Gent, I realize you asked Popeye this question (and I'm sure he'll answer for himself), but I know that for myself, Bush is not conservative fiscally (ballooning deficits, out of control spending), nor does he have a spotless record with the environment, and the fact that he believes in a first strike doctrine goes against much historical conservative thought. At the end of this post, I'll give 4 links to a magazine called Mother Jones, a leftist rag from here, and a series of articles called "Conversation With A Conservative". As for tax rates, I'm not sure of any exact figures, but I'm pretty certain European taxes come to a substantially higher percentage than American, but this was not always true. from Wikipedia: "The first federal income tax was imposed by Congress in 1862, to finance the Union's waging of the Civil War. It levied a 3% tax on incomes above $600, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. The Civil War income tax was repealed in 1872, but a new income tax was enacted as part of the 1894 Tariff Act (see Tariff Act, Ch. 349, 28 Stat. 509 (Aug. 15, 1894)). However, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax in 1895. It ruled that the portion of the income tax that applied to income on property was a direct tax that, under the US Constitution, could not be levied without apportioning the tax by population. In 1913, however, the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which made possible modern income taxes. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6% surtax on incomes of more than $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. In 1922 the top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% and then to 25% in 1925 and eventually to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased to 94% marginal tax rates on all income over $200,000 in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments." Of course there are a myriad of ways that we are taxed. Here are the links mentioned: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_200.html http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_207.html http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_208.html http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_205.html

nefertari -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 2:46:30 PM)
Erin, I'm so sorry to hear that his has happened to you. Have you contacted a lawyer specializing in Social Security? They generally work on the "we don't get paid unless you get paid" platform. From what I've heard about Social Security (from someone who used to work for them), they routinely turn people down at first and you have to appeal. I wish you the best of luck. quote: What an embarrassing indictment of US society. Amen, NorthernGent.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 3:15:42 PM)
Can I just say that...I really didn't think the whole toilet paper thing would create such a groundswell and....I'd like to say right now...I will *NOT* mention anything about (or in regards to...anyone)...the whole toothpaste thing , (you know who you are) nor will I mention anything whatsoever as to the "you left your socks on the MOTHERFUCKING* bannister again...and I would TRULY appreciate it if you'd park your car on something* that MORE FUCKING approximates the driveway than my MOTHERFUCKING roses again. OKAY??????" (Said of course, in the most submissive of ways). So...there ya go...universal healthcare.... (Take it away).

NorthernGent -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 3:43:49 PM)
Level, Quite an eye-opener some of those links - I appreciated our two Conservative parties hold different values but not to the extent made clear in the views expressed in the links - the two parties are like chalk and cheese. Our Conservative party has never even pretended it cares about the environment - in fact, of our three main parties the one which actually campaigns on a significant environmental programme is our Liberal Party. Also, the quote "typically, traditional conservatives have a sense of the need to support the welfare of the society. Widening gaps between rich and poor are things that concern traditional conservatives" is a world away from our Conservative party as they actively encourage a survival of the fittest culture. The views expressed in those links are far more in tune with Socialism than British Conservatism - it just goes to show that applying labels adds nothing. In terms of how this works in practice, what was the record of Republican/Conservative politics prior to Bush? For example, what was the wealth divide like in Reagan's term and how much environmental concern existed? In practice, what genuine US Conservative policies existed prior to Bush that backed up the views of those displayed in the links? Regards Regards

LTRsubNW -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 3:57:31 PM)
(Hmmmm....you seemed to have missed a few pertinent points)

Level -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 4:06:39 PM)
Gent, honestly, there's a fairly large number of conservatives (or those that use the title, as you say, those are not always helpful lol) that are similar to your conservatives. Reagan did not have a sparkling environmental record, but Nixon, as reviled as he is, did make an effort in that area. As for a concern for the poor, many conservatives care deeply about such things, but also believe in remedying it in different ways, IE growing the economy, targeting poverty-stricken areas with tax-free zones, etc.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 4:32:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I personally am not in favor of universal health care. Whre I lived, you couldn't count on seeing the same doctor every time and the doctor was assigned by the state, not by your selection. If you selected one you had to pay the total fees outright. The universal healthcare system proposed by Hillary included fines and jail time for not going with the state doctor, state got to pick your doc, etc. I have realatives that do not have healthcare because their employer does not provide it. I feel for them and think that the government might offer through some HMO or something a form of affordable healthcare. But to go totally universal no. In the words of President Kennedy "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Sorry, you never understood Hillary Clinton's plan.

WhipTheHip -> RE: Universal Healthcare (8/27/2006 4:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Gent, honestly, there's a fairly large number of conservatives (or those that use the title, as you say, those are not always helpful lol) that are similar to your conservatives. Reagan did not have a sparkling environmental record, but Nixon, as reviled as he is, did make an effort in that area. As for a concern for the poor, many conservatives care deeply about such things, but also believe in remedying it in different ways, IE growing the economy, targeting poverty-stricken areas with tax-free zones, etc. This is so much bullshit. Conservatives target the poor for destruction. Many poor are functionally illiterate. Most poor work, but can't afford a decent life. The United States is an obscene country where many rich have multi-million dollar yachts with year round crews, and disabled poor in many states having to get their teeth pulled by an oral surgeon because Medicaide in their state does not pay for dental care.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 [8] 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125