View Full Version : Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 06:48 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/01/28/noindex/nhs127.xml

Don't treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors


By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 27/01/2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/yourview/form.gif Have your say (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/01/28/noindex/nhs127.xml#form) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/stylesheets/portal/images/yourview/comments.gif Read comments (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/01/28/noindex/nhs127.xml#comments)
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>Have your say: Should lifestyle play a role in deciding who gets NHS treatment? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AHJ30WT0GLB4XQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml#form)
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" hspace="0" width="308"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2" width="8">
</td><td width="300"><center>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/01/27/nhs127.jpg</center></td></tr><tr><td class="caption"><center>£1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer and emph****a

</center></td></tr></tbody></table>Fertility treatment and "social" abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
The findings of a survey conducted by Doctor magazine sparked a fierce row last night, with the British Medical Association and campaign groups describing the recommendations from family and hospital doctors as "out*rageous" and "disgraceful".
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.
Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

The Government announced plans last week to offer fat people cash incentives to diet and exercise as part of a desperate strategy to steer Britain off a course that will otherwise see half the population dangerously overweight by 2050.
Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year. Overweight people are more likely to contract diabetes, cancer and heart disease, and to require replacement joints or stomach-stapling operations.
Meanwhile, £1.7 billion is spent treating diseases caused by smoking, such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emph****a, with a similar sum spent by the NHS on alcohol problems. Cases of cirrhosis have tripled over the past decade.
Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.
One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.
Tony Calland, chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, said it would be "outrageous" to limit care on age grounds. Age Concern called the doctors' views "disgraceful".
Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people's "responsibilities" as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restric*tions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.
The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.
Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for "social abortions" and fertility treatment.
Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. "The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?" he said.
"If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy." He said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.
However, Roger Williams, who carried out the 2002 transplant on the former footballer, said doctors could never be sure if an alcoholic would return to drinking, although most would expect a detailed psychological assessment of patients, who would be required to abstain for six months before surgery.
Prof Williams said: "Less than five per cent of alcoholics who have a transplant return to serious drinking. George was one of them. It is actually a pretty successful rate. I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients' Association, said it would be wrong to deny treatment because of a "lifestyle" factor. "The decision taken by the doctor has to be the best clinical one, and it has to be taken individually. It is morally wrong to deny care on any other grounds," she said.
Responding to the survey's findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: "If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it's not our job to play God."
</td></tr></tbody></table>

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 06:50 PM
Whatev. Every system has its detractors. So some doctors have an opinion. Doesn't change the fact that NHS is still a hundred times better than the clusterfuck of human suffering and corporate corruption that we have here in the States.

Mayfuck
01-28-2008, 06:52 PM
Don't American health insurance companies already do this

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 06:53 PM
Whatev. Every system has its detractors. So some doctors have an opinion. Doesn't change the fact that NHS is still a hundred times better than the clusterfuck of human suffering and corporate corruption that we have here in the States.

No it isn't. You're living in a fantasy world.

And what do you mean every system has detractors? We're talking about forcing people to pay via taxes for a system that only protects the very healthy.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 06:53 PM
Don't American health insurance companies already do this

They can charge higher premiums. That isn't the same as having doctors deny coverage.

Mayfuck
01-28-2008, 06:58 PM
it still amounts to not being treated.

Mo
01-28-2008, 07:02 PM
We have universal healthcare, and it "works". Of course the system has its flaws, the health insurance funds are short of money most of the time and people sometimes have to wait a bit before they can undergo surgeries which aren't immediately necessary, but hey - that's still better than a system where so many people don't even wanna go to the doctor because they simply can't afford it.
In short: The US way of big insurance companies virtually deciding over life and death is inhuman.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 07:02 PM
No it isn't. You're living in a fantasy world.

And what do you mean every system has detractors? We're talking about forcing people to pay via taxes for a system that only protects the very healthy.

Well first of all, most of the shit you bolded are just opinions of some doctors. But secondly, and most importantly, they said that 1 in 10 hospitals deny SOME treatments to obese and smoking patients. Seems like a much better way to ration treatment that someone's ability to pay. I mean, my health insurance is great and paid in full by my employer, and that's great for me, but a lot of people I know who take care of themselves way better than I do aren't that lucky.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 07:04 PM
it still amounts to not being treated.

How? Because some plans charge a higher premium on the insurance? All insurance companies do this. Homeowners, auto, you name it.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 07:06 PM
Well first of all, most of the shit you bolded are just opinions of some doctors. But secondly, and most importantly, they said that 1 in 10 hospitals deny SOME treatments to obese and smoking patients. Seems like a much better way to ration treatment that someone's ability to pay. I mean, my health insurance is great and paid in full by my employer, and that's great for me, but a lot of people I know who take care of themselves way better than I do aren't that lucky.

That's their fault. People want health coverage but aren't willing to pay for it. Everyone who whines about lack of coverage could easily make it a priority in their lives and give up some vice or expense that waste their money on and get their own personal health coverage. I know a number of people who have done so, and really it doesn't have to be more complex than giving up cigarettes or sodas or going to movies.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 07:18 PM
That's their fault. People want health coverage but aren't willing to pay for it. Everyone who whines about lack of coverage could easily make it a priority in their lives and give up some vice or expense that waste their money on and get their own personal health coverage. I know a number of people who have done so, and really it doesn't have to be more complex than giving up cigarettes or sodas or going to movies.

Well let me say that I have been through times where I have had to forgo my vices and the finer things in life just to make rent, and buying my own health insurance was still out of the question because it was cost prohibitive.

I'd say the "fantasy world" is the one where we're expecting mega-corporations to be benevolent enough to not try to, for example, fuck me out of coverage if I need major surgery and need to exercise my insurance policy.

Corganist
01-28-2008, 07:31 PM
I'd say the "fantasy world" is the one where we're expecting mega-corporations to be benevolent enough to not try to, for example, fuck me out of coverage if I need major surgery and need to exercise my insurance policy.

Because as we all know, no one in America ever has surgery. :rolleyes:

Mo
01-28-2008, 07:51 PM
Wow.

mercurial
01-28-2008, 08:05 PM
Wow.

isn't it just?

i am continually amazed and alarmed at the idea that there is no public health care system in the united states

i just take it for granted that part of the taxes i contribute are used to maintain a public health system here. if something unexpected and horrible were to happen, i have peace of mind that i won't be battling insurance companies and banks to get treatment.

Mo
01-28-2008, 08:14 PM
The only argument I am able to understand is that they don't want higher taxes [duh], but everything else is beyond me.

mercurial
01-28-2008, 08:31 PM
The only argument I am able to understand is that they don't want higher taxes [duh], but everything else is beyond me.

absolutely with you on this one

i think the best way forward is to have a mix of public/private options - so keep your public system in place and allow universal access, especially for chronic-acute emergency. then allow for private insurances and services to establish themselves and take the burden off the public system by focusing on para-medical services (dental, optical, physical therapy) and elective procedures

the government can reward those who take out private insurance by offering a rebate based on premium/level of plan and age. thereby the government contribution is seen as delivering a saving to the group of people who are paying for their own insurances blah blah blah as well as reducing the burden on the public system

Corganist
01-28-2008, 08:37 PM
i just take it for granted that part of the taxes i contribute are used to maintain a public health system here. if something unexpected and horrible were to happen, i have peace of mind that i won't be battling insurance companies and banks to get treatment.

I'd rather battle an insurance company than the government. At least when your insurance company fucks you over, you can always switch to another one.

Mo
01-28-2008, 08:49 PM
Yeah, but why would you have to battle the government when it's paying for everything, anyway? :think:

mercurial
01-28-2008, 08:57 PM
and for those that cannot afford to play the company game? what becomes of them?

biggest group we are talking about here is the elderly

mercurial
01-28-2008, 08:58 PM
Yeah, but why would you have to battle the government when it's paying for everything, anyway? :think:

he does not understand this concept

if you're fucked up - under a public health system you will get treatment

the time taken to receive the treatment is the biggest point of failure in a public system

Corganist
01-28-2008, 09:04 PM
Yeah, but why would you have to battle the government when it's paying for everything, anyway? :think:

Who says they're paying for everything? Trying to get the US government to pay for the health care related things they're already obligated to pay for (Medicare and things of that nature) is like pulling teeth as it is, what with all the ridiculous amount of red tape and all. I don't see how the government is going to somehow get less tight fisted and easier to deal with when they're in charge of everything. I think it's really naive to think that the government is going to be any more willing to write a big check for a medically questionable procedure than an insurance company would be.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 09:08 PM
Yeah, but why would you have to battle the government when it's paying for everything, anyway? :think:

Did you read the article? They're trying to NOT pay for everyone in England.

Also it's not just the taxes, it's that anything we let the government run is shit. Everything. You want hospitals that work like the DMV, by all means, let the government run them.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 09:10 PM
Who says they're paying for everything? Trying to get the US government to pay for the health care related things they're already obligated to pay for (Medicare and things of that nature) is like pulling teeth as it is, what with all the ridiculous amount of red tape and all. I don't see how the government is going to somehow get less tight fisted and easier to deal with when they're in charge of everything. I think it's really naive to think that the government is going to be any more willing to write a big check for a medically questionable procedure than an insurance company would be.

Obviously, any health-care reform in the United States in favor of a socialized system would come with a significant amount of reworking in how the government handles these kinds of things. I don't think how the US Government handles these sorts of things now is any indicator of how things would work in a completely Universal system, because it's such a massive sea change in how we do things in this country and would require a completely different ground-work and way of thinking and operating.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 09:14 PM
Did you read the article? They're trying to NOT pay for everyone in England.

This is sort of misleading, since the majority of the article is basically saying "hey these doctors are saying people who lead vastly unhealthy lifestyles are a waste of public resources". There's no hard and fast evidence that anyone is being denied care because of some sort of failing in the funding of the public health care system - just pretty baseless speculation that one in ten hospitals in the UK sometimes deny treatment based on the patients commitment to their own well-being and health.

Also it's not just the taxes, it's that anything we let the government run is shit. Everything. You want hospitals that work like the DMV, by all means, let the government run them.

Can't really argue with that.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 09:15 PM
This is sort of misleading, since the majority of the article is basically saying "hey these doctors are saying people who lead vastly unhealthy lifestyles are a waste of public resources"

It is now an unhealthy lifestyle to be old.

Future Boy
01-28-2008, 09:15 PM
i agree with everything said in this thread by everyone except nim and corg. ill come back and read it later.

mercurial
01-28-2008, 09:17 PM
Obviously, any health-care reform in the United States in favor of a socialized system would come with a significant amount of reworking in how the government handles these kinds of things. I don't think how the US Government handles these sorts of things now is any indicator of how things would work in a completely Universal system, because it's such a massive sea change in how we do things in this country and would require a completely different ground-work and way of thinking and operating.

this is a good point to make

Corganist you could look at examples from outside the United States to understand how a public health system works, and how it fails.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 09:20 PM
It is now an unhealthy lifestyle to be old.

Now you're just being petty. I didn't say that. And I reiterate, some doctors have an opinion that certain people are a lost cause and a waste of resources. This happens in the US Free-market Fuck-you Corporate health care system too. I don't understand how this is any sort of argument against socialized medicine.

From the article:

"One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long."

This is an opinion of not even the majority of doctors in the system, and even still, they have to treat whatever the gov't says they have to treat, so fuck their personal opinion. This is no failing in the public health care system.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 09:21 PM
Obviously, any health-care reform in the United States in favor of a socialized system would come with a significant amount of reworking in how the government handles these kinds of things. I don't think how the US Government handles these sorts of things now is any indicator of how things would work in a completely Universal system, because it's such a massive sea change in how we do things in this country and would require a completely different ground-work and way of thinking and operating.

This is a very lollipop view of a system bound to be fraught with defecits, shortages, lack of coverage, lack of doctors due to incentive removals, special interest contracts, bureaucracy, oversight, overhead, and fraud.

Nimrod's Son
01-28-2008, 09:23 PM
Now you're just being petty. I didn't say that. And I reiterate, some doctors have an opinion that certain people are a lost cause and a waste of resources. This happens in the US Free-market Fuck-you Corporate health care system too. I don't understand how this is any sort of argument against socialized medicine.

From the article:

"One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long."

This is an opinion of not even the majority of doctors in the system, and even still, they have to treat whatever the gov't says they have to treat, so fuck their personal opinion. This is no failing in the public health care system.

among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone
.. and it is called "Universal" health care, and everyone has to pay for it.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 09:26 PM
This is a very lollipop view of a system bound to be fraught with defecits, shortages, lack of coverage, lack of doctors due to incentive removals, special interest contracts, bureaucracy, oversight, overhead, and fraud.

The system we have now has all of those same problems. To stand as the last industrialized nation without universal health care, especially when we are comparatively better off financially than many other nations that do have it, is shameful. You can plug your ears and go "LA LA LA IT WON'T WORK" all you want, but at the end of the day, numerous other countries with governments just as shitty as ours have made it work, and work well.

Corganist
01-28-2008, 09:28 PM
This is an opinion of not even the majority of doctors in the system, and even still, they have to treat whatever the gov't says they have to treat, so fuck their personal opinion. This is no failing in the public health care system.

So the people on the front lines who actually see firsthand where the system's resources are going and feel the brunt of any shortfall in those resources should have no say in the matter? If they say the system isn't going to keep working unless certain classes of patients are excluded, that's no big deal? :think:

mercurial
01-28-2008, 09:39 PM
So the people on the front lines who actually see firsthand where the system's resources are going and feel the brunt of any shortfall in those resources should have no say in the matter? If they say the system isn't going to keep working unless certain classes of patients are excluded, that's no big deal? :think:

as an aside from the intended point of your question -

whilst i think input from front line health care professionals should be a key consideration when considering policy - i'm not sure that a health system should be administered by opinion poll, and i'm not sure that front line health care professionals are equipped with all the information they need to form a complete understanding of all the factors taken into account when creating policy.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 09:42 PM
So the people on the front lines who actually see firsthand where the system's resources are going and feel the brunt of any shortfall in those resources should have no say in the matter? If they say the system isn't going to keep working unless certain classes of patients are excluded, that's no big deal? :think:

Hey, I like your straw man. You're confusing the issue. Any government-funded health care system no doubt has quite an extensive panel of medical professionals that decide what will and will not be covered as part of any universal health care system. Of course feedback from doctors on the front line have to be taken into consideration, but if 1 out of 3 doctors decide "hey, fat people suck. i hate when i have to treat t**** it's not like overnight the NHS starts denying care to every overweight person that walks into a state-funded hospital. The article Nimrod posted spends most of its content sensationalizing the fact that some doctors have an asshole opinion into the idea that there is some greater failing in England's public health care system, which is simply not the case.

Then they back it up with bullshit useless figures like "60% of doctors say their hospital can't provide full care to everybody", which could mean one of 100 different things. It does nothing to describe specifically what the shortcoming is, and really does nothing to indict public health care systems in particular.

Corganist
01-28-2008, 09:44 PM
as an aside from the intended point of your question -

whilst i think input from front line health care professionals should be a key consideration when considering policy - i'm not sure that a health system should be administered by opinion poll, and i'm not sure that front line health care professionals are equipped with all the information they need to form a complete understanding of all the factors taken into account when creating policy.

The problem is that you can probably more easily say the same thing about the politicians and bureaucrats who will put the policy into place (and that's probably being generous).

Corganist
01-28-2008, 09:54 PM
Hey, I like your straw man. You're confusing the issue. Any government-funded health care system no doubt has quite an extensive panel of medical professionals that decide what will and will not be covered as part of any universal health care system. Of course feedback from doctors on the front line have to be taken into consideration, but if 1 out of 3 doctors decide "hey, fat people suck. i hate when i have to treat t**** it's not like overnight the NHS starts denying care to every overweight person that walks into a state-funded hospital. The article Nimrod posted spends most of its content sensationalizing the fact that some doctors have an asshole opinion into the idea that there is some greater failing in England's public health care system, which is simply not the case.

So wait a minute, you're saying that if "only" 33 percent of doctors think that resources are scarce enough to start thinking about making the system less "universal" then that says nothing about the system whatsoever? I agree that the negative opinion of a minority of practitioners isn't an overwhelming indictment of the system or a sign of impending crisis (at least not yet), but it's not the trifle you're making it out to be either.

suncrashesdown
01-28-2008, 09:56 PM
The problem is that you can probably more easily say the same thing about the politicians and bureaucrats who will put the policy into place (and that's probably being generous).

So then, the appropriate solution is to just give up on state-funded health care because "politicians are dumb" and continue to allow corporations with the profit motive as their driving force continue to attempt to decide who can and can't afford life-saving surgeries, medications, and procedures. Also, let all the people who can't afford health care rot in disrepair? Good call.

mercurial
01-28-2008, 10:02 PM
The problem is that you can probably more easily say the same thing about the politicians and bureaucrats who will put the policy into place (and that's probably being generous).

well let's take New Zealand as an example of how expertise is utilised and policy is formed in a public health system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_health_board

The District Health Boards are given a set of objectives by the Ministry of Health, but have a degree of autonomy in how they choose to achieve these. In contrast to their predecessors, the Regional Health Authorities, the DHBs are non-profit providers. The performance of individual DHBs is monitored by the DHB Funding and Performance Directorate. [2]

The DHBs are governed by boards, which consist of up to 11 members: seven elected by the public every three years, and up to four appointed by the Government's Minister of Health. These appointments are largely to balance the board's expertise as deemed necessary. [3] Voting for public-elected DHB board members occurs through the Single Transferable Vote system.

it's by no means perfect (there has been plenty of controversy over DHB spending decisions over the years) but it's a good example of how you incorporate policy making, financial, and vocational expertise into the decision making process with the view to obtaining the best outcome for primary health care users.

The Omega Concern
01-28-2008, 10:22 PM
suncrashesdown,

i think part of the problem is that our education system indoctrinates as opposed to educates about many things, in particular the issue of health care.

If health care is a right, then why not a House or a Dodge Viper?


Point is this with health care, there is no natural market flow to any of it. My step-mother is the Head Nurse at Stanford Hospital and occasionally we talk shop and I ask questions.

Just today I found out that if you're uninsured and you get a service that cost, say $5000, the hospital expects that money from you like yesterday. Meanwhile, that same procedure with the same cost to someone who has insurance, will be negotiated by the insurance company and the hospital and will be reduced to about $500 in which the individual would pay about 20% of that...and at that, the insurance company will be late in payments to the hospital, which perpetuates the policy of an inflated retail cost of procedures to the uninsured.

They're needs to be more natural retail cost to procedures, but that doesn't exist in the current system and won't exist in a Universal one either.

Even with insurance, if your provider doesn't have deals set-up with a certain lab that will run a test, you bare the brunt of the inflated cost because your provider doesn't have negotiating rights with that lab.

Corganist
01-28-2008, 10:24 PM
So then, the appropriate solution is to just give up on state-funded health care because "politicians are dumb" and continue to allow corporations with the profit motive as their driving force continue to attempt to decide who can and can't afford life-saving surgeries, medications, and procedures. Also, let all the people who can't afford health care rot in disrepair? Good call.

Now who's setting up the straw man? No one's talking about letting anyone rot in disrepair.

Like I alluded to earlier in the thread, a lot of people somehow manage to have surgery or other life-saving treatments in America everyday...and almost all of them also manage to get their insurance companies to pay for it too. It seems you would have people believe that such a thing was some kind of rarity. Do people get screwed by their insurance companies sometimes? Sure. But using that as an excuse to throw out the whole system makes no more sense than other countries throwing out their systems because some people die waiting for surgeries.

And sure, nobody is saying it's a good thing that millions of people here have no health insurance, but there's got to be ways of remedying that short of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting the entire system over from the ground up. For all it's warts, the US health care system does have its advantages too (eg., advanced techniques and tech, for instance). I don't see how wanting to preserve those by not going off half-cocked and radically changing things should leave one open to accusations of wanting to let people die and rot in the street.

mercurial
01-28-2008, 10:45 PM
And sure, nobody is saying it's a good thing that millions of people here have no health insurance, but there's got to be ways of remedying that

i just want to touch on this - note: i have not watched the latest michael moore film

why do these millions not have access to primary health care? can you boil it down to one or two major factors?

The Omega Concern
01-28-2008, 10:57 PM
why do these millions not have access to primary health care? can you boil it down to one or two major factors?

Mercurial,

mainly because alot of employers are not required to provide health care coverage anymore and those without a job can't afford insurance.

mercurial
01-28-2008, 11:09 PM
ok so we have a group of people that cannot afford health insurance, either because they are not paid enough or they are not paid at all.

would this include:

- the elderly (retired)
- students
- part-time/casual workers

??

and if they are included, what do they do when they need primary health care?

Starla
07-21-2009, 01:31 AM
Liberals have told us how wonderful the Cuban hospitals are, but only show us pictures from the hospitals that the government folks use. The ones the average guy has to go to are infested with cockroaches, have live wires exposed throughout, and are in a condition that no American would consider "healthy".

They tell us Canada's hospitals are wonderful, but there are more MRI machines in the state of New York than there are in the whole of Canada, and when Canadian doctors need treatment (along with some of the wealthier Canadians), they come to the US. No long wait periods, even with the inappropriate government intrusion we already have.

Frankly, as "broken" as our healthcare system happens to be, it's still better than the models Barack and his minions are looking to emulate. In England, if you're too old (by their standard), you don't get help, and even if you are young enough, you still wind up waiting for months when you need a specialist, even if your condition is critical.

On the American side, there were a few issues brought on by the government-created HMO I was insured with, but when my ankle needed attention, I went from initial doctor's visit to the specialist to the surgeon to the operating table and finished recovery in
less time than the aforementioned Brit takes to get to the first visit with the specialist. This could have been quicker had the aforementioned HMO not contributed to higher prices for these services and added unneccessary procedures into the mix.

3. Higher cost

There is absolutely no way injecting even more layers of bureaucracy into the health system can be done without driving up the cost. Whether a medical bill is paid by the patient or the insurer, the bill still must be paid, and the bureaucrats' fee is no small matter, either.

There are only three ways the government could try to get the money to do anything in this area:

a. Cut taxes - A Republican would cut taxes, which would increase receipts, but with all the debt this country already has from this same sort of intrusion into poverty, old age welfare, and the like, it's highly unlikely enough money could be raised even it it were a good idea.

b. Raise taxes - A Democrat would raise taxes, which would cause receipts to fall, and the debt to increase even further - and not a new dime available to pay for this venture. Transferring the cost from the doctor's office to the IRS doesn't to a thing to save anyone money. It only changes whom it gets paid to, and how many people need their cut.

c. Charging fees - This would simply be another form of tax increase.


4. Yet another liberal failure in the making

Liberals told us that we could, with a small income tax, provide supplemental income to the elderly and care for the poor. Today, that very taxation is out of control, and even with a skyrocketing national debt and proof that cutting taxes would bring in more money, more tax increases are on the table.

In addition, the programs that were set up to take care of the poor and elderly are dismal failures, along with programs for education, school lunches, disaster relief, farmers, foreign aid, housing, and more. There is no evidence that this new federal government program will be any more successful. I'm sure you don't mean to tell me that any of the above were huge successes, or that somehow putting a government with such a dismal track record on all of the above things that it never should have gotten into in the first place is going to somehow succeed in this venture AND pay off the financial obligations is got itself into by engaging in the above.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Einstein

Thaniel Buckner
07-21-2009, 01:47 AM
my visits to the dmv recently haven't taken very long.

Debaser
07-21-2009, 01:51 AM
the government run military does pretty well

Debaser
07-21-2009, 01:54 AM
still pretty amazing that the govt can deliver you letter across the country for under 50 cents.

Corganist
07-21-2009, 04:02 AM
the government run military does pretty well

Most of the time. But do you want to be around when the healthcare version of Abu Ghraib happens?

Nimrod's Son
07-21-2009, 04:16 AM
Yeah, they totally showed the Viet Cong

Also I thought you were a quagmire in Iraq guythe government run military does pretty well

dr.benway
07-21-2009, 08:09 AM
kind of fascist

we're all entitled

a state that'll let people die?

it's quite worrying the doctors feel that

now

how much in taxes do smokers pay buying smokes?
why is the taxation of alcoholic beverages higher than soft drinks?
how much has an old person paid in taxes during the course of his/her life?
obese people don't work and get taxed?

ffs

jczeroman
07-21-2009, 08:50 AM
the government run military does pretty well

Are you kidding me? How many civilians have died in this century - heck, in this decade we are looking at hundreds of thousands of people murdered by the government military.

sppunk
07-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Canadian healthcare is fucking terrible. My sis broke her leg and couldn't get an x-ray for 3 weeks and my family is not poor.
A U.S. model based on those Canadian princles wqould be devastating.

Debaser
07-21-2009, 11:36 AM
where's the demand from the right to privatize the military

Debaser
07-21-2009, 11:37 AM
luckily, i haven't heard any serious person suggest we need to model our healthcare reform based on the poor parts of the canadian system

Future Boy
07-21-2009, 12:41 PM
Canadian healthcare is fucking terrible. My sis broke her leg and couldn't get an x-ray for 3 weeks and my family is not poor.
A U.S. model based on those Canadian princles wqould be devastating.

Does canada not have private insurance?

What would be the problem of some hybrid public/private system? If the public system is bad/mediocre at the very least those that would get no care are covered, and those that can afford it buy their own. It's like taking the bus over driving to work. If you can drive you'll probably drive, but at least those that cant will still get there. Eventually.

Nimrod's Son
07-21-2009, 01:17 PM
Does canada not have private insurance?

What would be the problem of some hybrid public/private system? If the public system is bad/mediocre at the very least those that would get no care are covered, and those that can afford it buy their own. It's like taking the bus over driving to work. If you can drive you'll probably drive, but at least those that cant will still get there. Eventually.
Except not only do you have to buy your own car and pay for your own gas, now you have to pay for the bus whether you ride it or not. Which makes everything less affordable, and may cause you to give up the car you've already driven for years and enjoy and ride the bus with the scum simply because you're already forced to pay for it and you really don't want to have to pay twice for the same service.

Debaser
07-21-2009, 02:10 PM
Except not only do you have to buy your own car and pay for your own gas, now you have to pay for the bus whether you ride it or not. Which makes everything less affordable, and may cause you to give up the car you've already driven for years and enjoy and ride the bus with the scum simply because you're already forced to pay for it and you really don't want to have to pay twice for the same service.

This is the reality right now both metaphorically and literally. you do, right now, pay for the bus whether you ride it or not and you do, right now, pay for other people's heathcare.

Debaser
07-21-2009, 02:11 PM
you're also forgetting the fact that one of the main goals of healthcare reform is to make it cheaper in the long term.

sppunk
07-21-2009, 02:38 PM
Nimrod, as Debaser said your point is a bit invalid.

I haven't heard of any related setup to Canada, but my fear is this goes the way of theirs. But we are all arguing for nothing - there is no chance in hell any systenwide change gets passed.

Nimrod's Son
07-21-2009, 02:56 PM
This is the reality right now both metaphorically and literally. you do, right now, pay for the bus whether you ride it or not and you do, right now, pay for other people's heathcare.
Like I said the system is flawed, however the system being proposed is that you have to buy a ticket overtly.

killtrocity
07-21-2009, 03:33 PM
here's an idea, let's withdraw our troops and military bases from the 150+ countries around the world and maybe we can use some of that money to treat people...!

dr.benway
07-21-2009, 03:36 PM
here's an idea, let's withdraw our troops and military bases from the 150+ countries around the world and maybe we can use some of that money to treat people...!

yeah

Future Boy
07-21-2009, 03:36 PM
del

Corganist
07-21-2009, 04:26 PM
Except not only do you have to buy your own car and pay for your own gas, now you have to pay for the bus whether you ride it or not. Which makes everything less affordable, and may cause you to give up the car you've already driven for years and enjoy and ride the bus with the scum simply because you're already forced to pay for it and you really don't want to have to pay twice for the same service.

Not to mention the people who are provided company cars that they like and want to keep using. What happens to them when their employer takes the car away to cut costs in a down economy using the rationale of "Hey, you can take the bus now!"

Debaser
07-21-2009, 04:33 PM
most people seem to overestimate the quality of their own private insurance and underestimate the quality of the public options

Future Boy
07-21-2009, 06:03 PM
Not to mention the people who are provided company cars that they like and want to keep using. What happens to them when their employer takes the car away to cut costs in a down economy using the rationale of "Hey, you can take the bus now!"

what happens to them now? why would that change? Its in their best interest to offer the car, to hire the best people, right? So if in a down economy it gets taken away, they'd be covered by the bus they help pay for, when the economy rebounds, the company would offer benefits again, right? Wouldn't having that option actually be beneficial to companies struggling in a down economy?

Corganist
07-21-2009, 07:08 PM
what happens to them now? why would that change? Its in their best interest to offer the car, to hire the best people, right? So if in a down economy it gets taken away, they'd be covered by the bus they help pay for, when the economy rebounds, the company would offer benefits again, right? Wouldn't having that option actually be beneficial to companies struggling in a down economy?

It might be beneficial to companies, sure, but it obliterates Obama's oft-repeated mantra that everyone who likes their coverage will get to keep it. Maybe shifting the burden of health care costs from employers to the government might be good for businesses...but how does that help people who want (or already have) good health care?

And where is the motivation for companies to pick up the bill on insurance again once the economy rebounds? Right now, the choice is either you pay for your health care, or your employer does. That makes employer-based health care a big perk, one that makes a job with that employer that much more attractive, and thus worth the expense to the employer. But when the choice changes to either your employer pays, or the government does, suddenly it becomes much less of a perk. Why would the employer go to the kind of expense necessary to provide its employees mere expanded coverage if there's a government safety net in place?

Future Boy
07-21-2009, 07:33 PM
It might be beneficial to companies, sure, but it obliterates Obama's oft-repeated mantra that everyone who likes their coverage will get to keep it. Maybe shifting the burden of health care costs from employers to the government might be good for businesses...but how does that help people who want (or already have) good health care?


Im not really talking about this proposed plan, I was just asking about a hybrid system where basic shitty coverage exists for those that would have none, and those with the means get whatever they want. Your example of a company struggling with such a system in place, would benefit from having the option to temporarily shift that burden, wouldnt it? This is far from a strong point of mine, I'm not so much stating something as I am asking a question.


And where is the motivation for companies to pick up the bill on insurance again once the economy rebounds? Right now, the choice is either you pay for your health care, or your employer does. That makes employer-based health care a big perk, one that makes a job with that employer that much more attractive, and thus worth the expense to the employer. But when the choice changes to either your employer pays, or the government does, suddenly it becomes much less of a perk. Why would the employer go to the kind of expense necessary to provide its employees mere expanded coverage if there's a government safety net in place?


The same motivation they have now for offering something to begin with. Recruiting the best. I doubt they take on the expense out of the kindness of their heart. If they could they wouldnt, but the market dictates they offer it, doesnt it? Especially if you believe government care will be mediocre. I just dont see, if the market dictates this behavior, how adding a safety net for those with nothing now, impacts it. Its a perk now, it will be a perk then.

But this is just hypothetical, what will be passed wont be anything like this anyway. So basically,

But we are all arguing for nothing - there is no chance in hell any system wide change gets passed.

Nimrod's Son
07-22-2009, 02:49 AM
How about we don't buy bus tickets for felons? Because Obama's plan offers free health coverage for 12,000,000 illegal aliens.

jczeroman
07-22-2009, 03:36 AM
where's the demand from the right to privatize the military

I would love to see the state military abolished. I advocate this all the time.

dr.benway
07-22-2009, 08:00 AM
How about we don't buy bus tickets for felons? Because Obama's plan offers free health coverage for 12,000,000 illegal aliens.

most countries that have free health care make no distinction based on someone's status in the territory. suggesting that seems inhuman but sadly not surprising.

duovamp
07-22-2009, 10:43 AM
I would love to see the state military abolished. I advocate this all the time.

Absolutely completely entirely absurd, shortsighted, and proven to be foolish since Spinoza.

This would turn the incentive of an army from peace to war, thus negating entirely the purpose of having a military. A citizen army forces a nation to make decisions based on the knowledge that they are sending their own people into harm's way, and thus their military votes and so do family/friends. A private army would never seek to end conflict, for if they did then they would destroy their business.

WOW I can't believe ANYBODY supports the idea of a privatized army. Seriously hundreds and hundreds of years ago people realized this is just a completely horrible idea, and have since proven it wrong with very simple words. Please, I beg you, don't even entertain this possibility anymore. It's plainly and obviously not optimal to privatize a state military.

here's an idea, let's withdraw our troops and military bases from the 150+ countries around the world and maybe we can use some of that money to treat people...!

I'd rather maintain an empire and pay the costs of it than be some other country's bitch.

duovamp
07-22-2009, 10:46 AM
Please jczeroman return to this thread in the future and try to argue your point that you "advocate ... all the time." It's honestly the political equivalent of somebody arguing about the principles of alchemy in the face of chemistry.

Debaser
07-22-2009, 11:34 AM
at least he's philosophically consistant

Debaser
07-22-2009, 11:37 AM
How about we don't buy bus tickets for felons? Because Obama's plan offers free health coverage for 12,000,000 illegal aliens.

post your source for this. which wingnut site is it? newsmax? or newsbusters?

i've read in many places that illegal immigrants will not be covered.
Obama: No Health Care For Illegal Immigrants - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5178652.shtml)

dr.benway
07-22-2009, 01:19 PM
I don't know what to say anymore. But I am not american.

Even tho I pay for private health care (my own choice) just so I can choose which doctors and hospitals to go once in a while I find myself having to resort to public health care because they are more modern and they don't deny any sort of treatment or test based on the fact they "don't consider it necessary".

Of course in general you wouldn't be there in your own beautiful room watching 72 channels on cable, but we take pride on the fact nobody has to die or lose their homes or savings because of illness.

we consider that to be a fundamental service - like education or the police.

If anything, we want to know that out taxes are going to health care, and that we wouldn't refuse anyone treatment - illegal or not.

but I guess it's a fundamental difference in ideals.

I'm happy to spend my money on private health care so I won't have to wait a month to get an appointment with a doctor, and I'm also happy to know that my tax money will guarantee that no one, no one will be refused treatment or medication.

Corganist
07-22-2009, 01:27 PM
post your source for this. which wingnut site is it? newsmax? or newsbusters?

i've read in many places that illegal immigrants will not be covered.
Obama: No Health Care For Illegal Immigrants - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5178652.shtml)

For whatever it's worth, the number of uninsured people that keeps getting tossed around as being the indicator that reform is needed has always included illegals in it. It seems odd that they would in</>clude them only to beef up the numbers and make them scarier.

dr.benway
07-22-2009, 01:32 PM
I get really disturbed when people refer to other people as "illegal"

I don't know, I associate that word with acts not people

Debaser
07-22-2009, 01:59 PM
For whatever it's worth, the number of uninsured people that keeps getting tossed around as being the indicator that reform is needed has always included illegals in it. It seems odd that they would in</>clude them only to beef up the numbers and make them scarier.

true, but not odd, it's politics.

Nimrod's Son
07-22-2009, 02:51 PM
post your source for this. which wingnut site is it? newsmax? or newsbusters?

i've read in many places that illegal immigrants will not be covered.
Obama: No Health Care For Illegal Immigrants - Political Hotsheet - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5178652.shtml)
That's total spin - look at the facts.

The Democrats voted down the Heller Amendment which would have specifically disallowed illegals to participate in the health care plans.

All that will be required to get coverage is a driver's license.

You do not need to prove citizenship to get a driver's license.

Obama then essentially said that by the time the plan is active he'd like all of those people to be citizens, thus granting amnesty - that part is in your own article.

Spin however you like and pretend this is some right-wing agenda out to get your boy, or look at the facts. Choice is yours.

dr.benway
07-22-2009, 03:25 PM
I don't know what I'm talking about really but I saw on TV a while ago that in a lot of states non-citizens wouldn't get driver licenses anymore.:erm:

Mayfuck
07-22-2009, 04:17 PM
It's just a mean spirited gesture and a (not so)subtle act of racism to deny services to undocumented aliens. There's no practical reasoning behind it other than that. It doesn't make sense to keep a significant portion of our population sick and uneducated. Personally I would prefer not to have crime/disease infested slums in America. Plus its more expensive in the long run if these people are denied preventative care and we end up footing the bill for more expensive treatments later on to more serious illnesses that they'll eventually use the ER for.

If you don't want undocumented immigrants to leech off the system, get government to provide better border enforcement. But don't try to enforce the borders through our health care system or law enforcement. Doctors and policemen are not our border patrol.

jukeboxphuckup
07-22-2009, 05:00 PM
Ok so you guys have stated why universal health care will be so terrible, but you do realize there are flaws in our current system, right? You know about the 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance (and if you want to subtract the 12 million illegal aliens, that's fine, but 35 million is still a tenth of our population). You should know that even if you have private health insurance you still have to deal with the bureaucracy of your insurance company. You still have to get pre-authorization. You still get denied coverage. Doctors fight with insurance companies all the time to get their patients approved for ESSENTIAL procedures. You still have restrictions on which doctors you can see, because not all insurance plans are accepted by all doctors (and why is that? well doctors don't accept certain plans because those companies have a piss poor reputation when it comes to paying for services in full and on time). You still have increasingly high costs for patients in the form of co-payments. If you have a $50 co-pay and you're on 7 medications (and believe me, most elderly people are), you're paying $350 a month out of pocket!
So the question for you guys now is how do you fix the current system?

Debaser said it very well several posts ago. People tend to overestimate their private health plan and underestimate the public health plans. I'll take it a step further and say that people who value their private health insurance so highly haven't been severely sick enough.

dr.benway
07-22-2009, 05:00 PM
It's just a mean spirited gesture and a (not so)subtle act of racism to deny services to undocumented aliens. There's no practical reasoning behind it other than that. It doesn't make sense to keep a significant portion of our population sick and uneducated. Personally I would prefer not to have crime/disease infested slums in America. Plus its more expensive in the long run if these people are denied preventative care and we end up footing the bill for more expensive treatments later on to more serious illnesses that they'll eventually use the ER for.

If you don't want undocumented immigrants to leech off the system, get government to provide better border enforcement. But don't try to enforce the borders through our health care system or law enforcement. Doctors and policemen are not our border patrol.

oh i agree with this

jukeboxphuckup
07-22-2009, 05:01 PM
If you don't want undocumented immigrants to leech off the system, get government to provide better border enforcement. But don't try to enforce the borders through our health care system or law enforcement. Doctors and policemen are not our border patrol.

Yup.

JokeyLoki
07-22-2009, 05:27 PM
If you don't want undocumented immigrants to leech off the system, get government to provide better border enforcement.

Or get the government to tank the economy.

Mexican immigration to U.S. off 40 percent, study finds - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/22/mexico.immigrants/index.html)

Nimrod's Son
07-22-2009, 05:42 PM
I don't know what I'm talking about really but I saw on TV a while ago that in a lot of states non-citizens wouldn't get driver licenses anymore.:erm:
Oh no!

Nimrod's Son
07-22-2009, 05:44 PM
It's just a mean spirited gesture and a (not so)subtle act of racism to deny services to undocumented aliens. There's no practical reasoning behind it other than that. It doesn't make sense to keep a significant portion of our population sick and uneducated. Personally I would prefer not to have crime/disease infested slums in America. Plus its more expensive in the long run if these people are denied preventative care and we end up footing the bill for more expensive treatments later on to more serious illnesses that they'll eventually use the ER for.

If you don't want undocumented immigrants to leech off the system, get government to provide better border enforcement. But don't try to enforce the borders through our health care system or law enforcement. Doctors and policemen are not our border patrol.
You're not enforcing immigration, you're killing incentive. Your statement would be the same as saying "don't blame the employers who hire illegals, just enforce the borders."

Yes, the borders should be enforced, but that doesn't help that you have millions of people who have bankrupted California and are now working on the rest of the country already here.

Also can we please not play the race card? Illegals from any country, including Canada and Europe are included. There are a good number of illegals from eastern Europe who would be considered "white" you know.

jczeroman
07-22-2009, 05:49 PM
This is for the benefit of others, since I've generally concluded that you are a complete moron when it comes to political philosophy.

This would turn the incentive of an army from peace to war, thus negating entirely the purpose of having a military. A citizen army forces a nation to make decisions based on the knowledge that they are sending their own people into harm's way, and thus their military votes and so do family/friends. A private army would never seek to end conflict, for if they did then they would destroy their business.

This is not logical. Citizen armies in democratic societies are the most victimised, because just like other people' money, other people's lives (especially foreigners) can be voted away at apparently little to no cost. The army is now a public good, owned by no one, and the the natural human incentives of consumption, exploitation and monopoly occur. Citizens are drafted under the banner of nationalism and marched off to fight invaders under threat of everything from unpatriotic stigma to outright death for "treason." This also provides an incentive for perpetual war because the means of the state for obtaining goods, since it does not produce them or trade them voluntarily, is through the expropriation and exploitation of either its citizens (in a socialist state) or foreigners (in an imperialist or fascist state). The military is the branch of the state, and those elites which wield the power of the state (and these elites are inevitable even in completely collectivist states), to carry out exploitation. Thus the public military is an inevitable step towards perpetual war.

A private army is incentivised to minimise conflict because engaging in conflict destroys resources and capital (both "conquered" resources and capital of the army itself). Any private military that seeks perpetual conflict will quickly be out competed by wiser, more judicious and diplomatic military service providers. Moreover, militaries that do engage in conflict will need to abide by the ethics of those people who hire them and those who will potentially hire them if they expect to do business. This incentivises specificity in targets, minimisation of collateral damage and (preferably) an end to conflict before it beings. Moreover, private militaries can be held accountable because they would not work in collusion with the state monopoly on courts and justice (which, for the same reasons, should also be abolished).


WOW I can't believe ANYBODY supports the idea of a privatized army. Seriously hundreds and hundreds of years ago people realized this is just a completely horrible idea, and have since proven it wrong with very simple words. Please, I beg you, don't even entertain this possibility anymore. It's plainly and obviously not optimal to privatize a state military.

Wars "hundreds of years ago" that were truly private killed tens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of people and were waged almost exclusively on soldiers and military infrastructure, contractually or voluntarily obligated to the war-wagers. As opposed to this, public wars of just the last decades have killed literally hundreds of millions of people, many of them non-combatants - while their governments all proclaimed they were doing so on the side of freedom, human rights and liberty. You really are deluded. The correlation between "democracy" and state monopoly on military and total war, death and perpetual exploitative war is unparalleled in human history.

Trotskilicious
07-22-2009, 05:57 PM
Yes, the borders should be enforced, but that doesn't help that you have millions of people who have bankrupted California and are now working on the rest of the country already here.

haha what you sound like this guy

<img src="http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l285/tuckerx2000/billthebitcher.jpg">

Also can we please not play the race card? Illegals from any country, including Canada and Europe are included. There are a good number of illegals from eastern Europe who would be considered "white" you know.

nimrod if you want people to stop playing the race card against stop saying racist comments as "jokes"

there's a reason people think you are a racist and it's sad how you try and pretend like you aren't.

Trotskilicious
07-22-2009, 06:02 PM
the illegal traffic from canada has to stop!!!!

Mayfuck
07-22-2009, 06:09 PM
there's a reason people think you are a racist and it's sad how you try and pretend like you aren't.


It's not just nimrod. I was really referring to the grassroots arm of the anti-immigration folk, groups like the minutemen and Save our State who do not hide the racial element of their movements. Meanwhile republicans knowingly pass on denouncing these groups because its important to have them on board to galvanize their base, to let them do the mudslinging against immigrants.

Trotskilicious
07-22-2009, 06:13 PM
yup

same old crap since 1835

Nimrod's Son
07-22-2009, 06:49 PM
haha what you sound like this guy

<img src="http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l285/tuckerx2000/billthebitcher.jpg">



nimrod if you want people to stop playing the race card against stop saying racist comments as "jokes"

there's a reason people think you are a racist and it's sad how you try and pretend like you aren't.I don't blame the people you moron, I blame the system that is set up to reward such behavior.

Trotskilicious
07-22-2009, 06:59 PM
ok so how did they bankrupt california

Trotskilicious
07-22-2009, 07:00 PM
the crystal ball says nimrod will reply "I don't have time to explain things to you, idiot."

Crippler
07-23-2009, 01:06 AM
ok so how did they bankrupt california

<font color="aquamarine">You're a homeless guy and you go to a supermarket. You see that the supermarket is handing out free samples of food that the store is selling. You grab a bunch of the samples, and then leave without paying the store a cent.

The point of those samples are to entice people into actually buying the product in question, i.e.: paying money for the actual product the store is providing a sample of. But this homeless man isn't doing this. He's mooching off the store and not giving the store one thin dime in return. And he's going to keep getting away with this, because the store isn't going to stop handing out these samples, because there are many people out there who are actually going to use them the way they were meant to be used...as a taste of the real thing, not the lifeblood of moochers.

This is similar to what our increasingly lax attitude toward illegal immigration is doing to states with high concentrations of illegals, like California. Illegals don't pay taxes; they don't contribute anything toward these government-provided services, yet libs have no problem with heaping all these perks on them like they don't cost taxpayers and the state anything. Like Nimrod said, providing these benefits to illegals is just negative reinforcement. It's one thing to give people enough to get on their feet, and it's one thing to give would-be immigrants guest-worker programs to allow people to enter the country legally. It's another thing to continue to allow the countless amounts of illegals to leech off a system they put nothing back into.

This isn't racism, it's a fact. This may not be the entire problem with the budget in California, but there's no fucking way it's not at least part of it.

Just because they crossed the borders illegally shouldn't necessarily make them my responsibility by default.

As an aside, a new bill (H.R. 2812) was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Texas Democrat Rep. Salvador Ortiz, which if passed would essentially make it easier for pregnant Mexican women to use American/Mexican midwives and U.S. border birthing facilities inside U.S. borders to birth their children, and immediately acquire U.S. citizenship and passports on the word of midwives. Hmm...anchor babies, anyone?</font>

maoi
07-23-2009, 01:16 AM
ahahah crippler is a conservative

Crippler
07-23-2009, 01:23 AM
ahahah crippler is a conservative

<font color="aquamarine">Oh, I'm sorry. I almost forgot that this is Netphoria, where anyone who isn't a liberal is pretty much automatically written off as being a moron.

:rolleyes:</font>

Debaser
07-23-2009, 01:44 AM
<font color="aquamarine">
As an aside, a new bill (H.R. 2812) was recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Texas Democrat Rep. Salvador Ortiz,/QUOTE]
Where do you get your information from? </font>


There is no Representative from Texas named Salvador Ortiz. There is a Solomon Ortiz.

<font color="aquamarine">which if passed would essentially make it easier for pregnant Mexican women to use American/Mexican midwives and U.S. border birthing facilities inside U.S. borders to birth their children, and immediately acquire U.S. citizenship and passports on the word of midwives. Hmm...anchor babies, anyone?</font>

Reading your own words, the bill would essentially make it easier for people born in the united states to acquire a passport.

outrageous

Debaser
07-23-2009, 02:00 AM
<font color="aquamarine">
This is similar to what our increasingly lax attitude toward illegal immigration is doing to states with high concentrations of illegals, like California. Illegals don't pay taxes; they don't contribute anything toward these government-provided services, yet libs have no problem with heaping all these perks on them like they don't cost taxpayers and the state anything. Like Nimrod said, providing these benefits to illegals is just negative reinforcement. It's one thing to give people enough to get on their feet, and it's one thing to give would-be immigrants guest-worker programs to allow people to enter the country legally. It's another thing to continue to allow the countless amounts of illegals to leech off a system they put nothing back into.</font>

So how do illegal immigrants avoid paying sales tax? gas tax? property tax on a home? Social Security witholding?

illegal immigration is bad. just not as bad as you think it is. there are so many worse things to worry about in this economy. illegal immigration is just an easy scapecoat for people who don't want to think too hard.

maoi
07-23-2009, 02:17 AM
They also provide cheap labor and keep the cost of goods down.

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 02:40 AM
<font color="aquamarine">Oh, I'm sorry. I almost forgot that this is Netphoria, where anyone who isn't a liberal is pretty much automatically written off as being a moron.

:rolleyes:</font>

Well if you could point me to one conservative on this board that wasn't a head up his ass moron for many reasons besides their politics, I might be able to dispute this point but we got Corganist and Nimrod so...

and don't say jczeroman because he's a far radical liberal.

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 02:41 AM
illegal immigration is just an easy scapecoat for people who don't want to think too hard.

<img src="http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l285/tuckerx2000/billthebitcher.jpg">

Like this fella.

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 02:42 AM
and goddamn it why can't you guys be a brutal poet like bill is

<i>Is your mouth all glued up with cunny juice I asked you a question</I>.

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 02:44 AM
also why don't we just naturalize all of them as they came in like they did in bill's time mm?

oh dear what <i>craziness</I>

Crippler
07-23-2009, 02:47 AM
There is no Representative from Texas named Salvador Ortiz. There is a Solomon Ortiz.



<font color="aquamarine">Technicalities, technicalities.

</font>So how do illegal immigrants avoid paying sales tax? gas tax? property tax on a home? Social Security witholding?


<font color="aquamarine">What illegals likely put into the government via paying sales taxes and gas taxes is a microcosm compared to what illegals likely actually take out in terms of having services heaped upon them (welfare, public aid, etc). And how many illegals actually own a house and are paying property taxes? As for Social Security withholding, that's assuming most illegals are actually being paid legitimately, as opposed to under the table, which is far more likely.

</font>

ryan patrick
07-23-2009, 03:05 AM
<font color="aquamarine">What illegals likely put into the government via paying sales taxes and gas taxes is a microcosm compared to what illegals likely actually take out in terms of having services heaped upon them (welfare, public aid, etc).

</font>

i don't think that's how you use the word microcosm

Corganist
07-23-2009, 03:05 AM
Well if you could point me to one conservative on this board that wasn't a head up his ass moron for many reasons besides their politics, I might be able to dispute this point but we got Corganist and Nimrod so...

You just proved his point.

What reason would you have to call me a head up my ass moron other than my politics?

Crippler
07-23-2009, 03:07 AM
i don't think that's how you use the word microcosm

<font color="aquamarine">Fine. Drop in the bucket. Geez.</font>

Corganist
07-23-2009, 03:24 AM
Ok so you guys have stated why universal health care will be so terrible, but you do realize there are flaws in our current system, right? You know about the 47 million people in this country who don't have health insurance (and if you want to subtract the 12 million illegal aliens, that's fine, but 35 million is still a tenth of our population).

And of that 35 million, how many can afford insurance and just choose not to buy it, either because they're young and invincible or they just can afford to pay out of pocket? Quite a few. How many are between jobs and just don't have insurance at one point or another through the year but have it when they're employed? Quite a few more. There's a lot more going on in those numbers than anyone is letting on.

And even if you use the worst interpretation of the numbers, that amounts to what? 15 percent of the country uninsured? That's not ideal, but that's not a crisis either. It's certainly not enough of one to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start up a new system from the ground level willy-nilly. How can we gamble with the coverage of the 80ish percent of the country who is insured in such a way?

You should know that even if you have private health insurance you still have to deal with the bureaucracy of your insurance company. You still have to get pre-authorization. You still get denied coverage. Doctors fight with insurance companies all the time to get their patients approved for ESSENTIAL procedures. You still have restrictions on which doctors you can see, because not all insurance plans are accepted by all doctors (and why is that? well doctors don't accept certain plans because those companies have a piss poor reputation when it comes to paying for services in full and on time).

It's funny you should bring that up, because do you know who has the worst reputation in the health-care industry for paying for services in full and on time? The United States Government! A lot of providers just don't take medicare and medicaid patients because the government just doesn't pay what they're supposed to on it. And then, private insurance has to take up the slack. And because the government's ineptitude has heaped demand on private insurance, private insurance premiums go up. So we have a situation where government involvement has fucked the whole system...and the answer is more government involvement? How is that supposed to work? What makes anyone think the government can run a universal program if they can barely run something as decidedly smaller in scale as Medicare?

Debaser
07-23-2009, 03:26 AM
<font color="aquamarine">What illegals likely put into the government via paying sales taxes and gas taxes is a microcosm compared to what illegals likely actually take out in terms of having services heaped upon them (welfare, public aid, etc). And how many illegals actually own a house and are paying property taxes? As for Social Security withholding, that's assuming most illegals are actually being paid legitimately, as opposed to under the table, which is far more likely.</font>

How would you know? You're just forming the assumptions to make yourself feel better. You think all these illegal immigrants are homeless? Even if they're just renting, they're paying fees and taxes on utilities, and paying a landlord who pays property taxes.

It's a reasonable to assume that illegal immigration is a net drain on the economy, but you're obviously exaggerating the problems.

My original point stands: there are more important things that need fixing.

Even if you got your wish and we magically disappeared all illegal immigrants from California, guess what, the state would be still bankrupt.

Crippler
07-23-2009, 03:43 AM
You're just forming the assumptions to make yourself feel better.

<font color="aquamarine">So are you.

You're assuming that many if not most illegals actually own homes and/or are paying rent and some form of taxation legitimately. And I never said that most illegals are homeless. I'm willing to wager, though, that there are far more illegals living in government-subsidized homes (again, another thing my tax dollars are paying for) than a place that they've paid for completely out of their own pocket.

I'm not saying that only illegals use government-funded subsidies (such as welfare checks, subsidized housing and food stamps), or anything ridiculous like that. What I'm saying is that it's far easier than people realize for illegals to get what are essentially free rides in this country, which is, as I've stated above, a form of negative reinforcement. And it sure as hell isn't helping the economy, no matter what way you spin it.

Again, I'm not trying to be a racist. But I've yet to understand why liberals insist that this is a non-issue.</font>

Crippler
07-23-2009, 03:53 AM
What makes anyone think the government can run a universal program if they can barely run something as decidedly smaller in scale as Medicare?

<font color="aquamarine">Because big government is more trustworthy than big business what it comes to our best interests. Like, DUH!</font>

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 04:53 AM
crippler have you been lurking this whole time

font colors are so 2002

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 04:53 AM
You just proved his point.

What reason would you have to call me a head up my ass moron other than my politics?

.

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 04:56 AM
i mean if it helps you sleep at night that i think you're a fuckhead simply because of your politics then go right ahead

how about the way you talk about arkansas football like you're just a coach away from a national title

i don't need to make a list. your politics are just the icing on the douchebag cake.

dr.benway
07-23-2009, 08:49 AM
You're not enforcing immigration, you're killing incentive. Your statement would be the same as saying "don't blame the employers who hire illegals, just enforce the borders."

Yes, the borders should be enforced, but that doesn't help that you have millions of people who have bankrupted California and are now working on the rest of the country already here.

Also can we please not play the race card? Illegals from any country, including Canada and Europe are included. There are a good number of illegals from eastern Europe who would be considered "white" you know.

fact is "illegals" bring great profit. people only want them gone when there's a crisis.

what is more convenient then the possibility of underpaying someone, abusing them, without them having the legal right to demand anything?

Debaser
07-23-2009, 11:35 AM
<font color="aquamarine">But I've yet to understand why liberals insist that this is a non-issue.</font>


Even if you got your wish and we magically disappeared all illegal immigrants from California, guess what, the state would be still bankrupt.
<adfas>

Debaser
07-23-2009, 12:21 PM
It's funny you should bring that up, because do you know who has the worst reputation in the health-care industry for paying for services in full and on time? The United States Government! A lot of providers just don't take medicare and medicaid patients because the government just doesn't pay what they're supposed to on it. And then, private insurance has to take up the slack. And because the government's ineptitude has heaped demand on private insurance, private insurance premiums go up. So we have a situation where government involvement has fucked the whole system...and the answer is more government involvement? How is that supposed to work? What makes anyone think the government can run a universal program if they can barely run something as decidedly smaller in scale as Medicare?

This notion that "the govt just doesn't pay what they're supposed to" is not a bug but a feature. I guess if you're a private insurance company or drug company and you see how medicaid and medicare, with their massive benefits of scale, reap huge savings and cost reductions (e.g., medicaid negotiating deep discounts on drugs), you would be apt to accuse them of "not paying what they're suppose to."

Medicare has kept its cost growth below that of the private insurers. Both Medicare and Medicaid have wildly low administration costs compared to that of the private insurance (6% vs 30%).

And if anybody jumps up to accuse the govt of forcing medicare/medicaid on anybody, it's simply not true. Medical facilities are free to decide whether they will accept or refuse medicare/medicaid patients. Obviously, hospitals do not make as much profit from medicare/medicaid patients compared to privately insured patients. But if it becomes actually unprofitable, then hospitals all over the country would drop their medicare/medicaid patients and it would spurn the govt to raise their reimbursement rates.

Despite this popular meme that private companies always run things more efficiently than govt, it's simply not true in the case of healthcare. And why is that?

The key is probably the fact that the govt is not looking to make a profit in this business. There is just something distasteful with having a profit motive here, where it benefits a private insurance to deny somebody coverage or underinsure them.

Now some may say that being nonprofit gives the govt system an unfair advantage over the private market, but again, I would say that's a feature, not a bug. The private market should do better. They're always suppose to do better than govt, right?

Nimrod's Son
07-23-2009, 02:06 PM
fact is "illegals" bring great profit. people only want them gone when there's a crisis.

what is more convenient then the possibility of underpaying someone, abusing them, without them having the legal right to demand anything?

Yes, a slave class that helps some unscrupulous business people. Is that what we want?

Corganist
07-23-2009, 02:46 PM
i mean if it helps you sleep at night that i think you're a fuckhead simply because of your politics then go right ahead

how about the way you talk about arkansas football like you're just a coach away from a national title

i don't need to make a list. your politics are just the icing on the douchebag cake.

We'll take this up again when Arkansas wins the SEC here within the next couple years.

Nimrod's Son
07-23-2009, 03:14 PM
We'll take this up again when Arkansas wins the SEC here within the next couple years.

ah, so you're not an idiot douchebag because of your political beliefs, you're an idiot douchebag because of the sports team for which you root

makes sense to me

JokeyLoki
07-23-2009, 03:18 PM
http://forums.netphoria.org/wwwboard/icons/icon10.gif

Corganist
07-23-2009, 03:38 PM
This notion that "the govt just doesn't pay what they're supposed to" is not a bug but a feature. I guess if you're a private insurance company or drug company and you see how medicaid and medicare, with their massive benefits of scale, reap huge savings and cost reductions (e.g., medicaid negotiating deep discounts on drugs), you would be apt to accuse them of "not paying what they're suppose to."

I'm not saying that the government doesn't pay providers what they think their services are worth. I'm saying that they don't even pay providers what the government says those services are worth. It's not just that the government lowballs providers on payment for services, but it also drags its feet on getting the money out, period. It'd be a different thing entirely if the government paid providers regularly, albeit at a lower rate than private insurers. But they don't do that. And none of that even includes the time and money lost on all the onerous paperwork and regulations forced on providers when they care for Medicare patients.

Medicare has kept its cost growth below that of the private insurers. Both Medicare and Medicaid have wildly low administration costs compared to that of the private insurance (6% vs 30%).

And it shows. You get what you pay for.

And if anybody jumps up to accuse the govt of forcing medicare/medicaid on anybody, it's simply not true. Medical facilities are free to decide whether they will accept or refuse medicare/medicaid patients. Obviously, hospitals do not make as much profit from medicare/medicaid patients compared to privately insured patients. But if it becomes actually unprofitable, then hospitals all over the country would drop their medicare/medicaid patients and it would spurn the govt to raise their reimbursement rates.

If that is so, then why hasn't it happened yet? More and more providers are dropping or limiting care of Medicare/Medicaid patients, and yet disbursements keep going down.

I don't think the government is going to force providers to accept government health care. I think they'll let that all take care of itself. Government health care gets enacted. Lots of people drop off the private insurance rolls as companies shed employer based health care to cut costs, leaving fewer people to share the burden amongst the privately insured, thus driving premiums higher. The government dicks around providers like it always has, causing providers to lean on the privately insured even more in order to eke out some sort of compensation, driving premiums yet higher and eventually forcing more people off of private insurance. That leads to insurance companies going under, forcing more people to the government teat. And then providers eventually have to come crawling back to the government and submit to whatever paltry compensation they can get from them since the private option has been priced out of existence.

Despite this popular meme that private companies always run things more efficiently than govt, it's simply not true in the case of healthcare. And why is that?

The key is probably the fact that the govt is not looking to make a profit in this business. There is just something distasteful with having a profit motive here, where it benefits a private insurance to deny somebody coverage or underinsure them.

I don't see how a profit motivation is that much different than the government's motivation (one would hope) to keep the program out of the red. If anything, I think the latter might be less conducive to making good coverage decisions than the former.

Debaser
07-23-2009, 05:03 PM
I'm not saying that the government doesn't pay providers what they think their services are worth. I'm saying that they don't even pay providers what the government says those services are worth. It's not just that the government lowballs providers on payment for services, but it also drags its feet on getting the money out, period. It'd be a different thing entirely if the government paid providers regularly, albeit at a lower rate than private insurers. But they don't do that. And none of that even includes the time and money lost on all the onerous paperwork and regulations forced on providers when they care for Medicare patients.
To be honest, I'm not aware of this. Do you have a source?


And it shows. You get what you pay for.
Same thing. I'm not aware of any data that definitively shows that people on private insurance are any better off than those on medicare. I've read implications of the opposite actually.


If that is so, then why hasn't it happened yet? More and more providers are dropping or limiting care of Medicare/Medicaid patients, and yet disbursements keep going down.

I don't think the government is going to force providers to accept government health care. I think they'll let that all take care of itself. Government health care gets enacted. Lots of people drop off the private insurance rolls as companies shed employer based health care to cut costs, leaving fewer people to share the burden amongst the privately insured, thus driving premiums higher. The government dicks around providers like it always has, causing providers to lean on the privately insured even more in order to eke out some sort of compensation, driving premiums yet higher and eventually forcing more people off of private insurance. That leads to insurance companies going under, forcing more people to the government teat. And then providers eventually have to come crawling back to the government and submit to whatever paltry compensation they can get from them since the private option has been priced out of existence.


This is a very well known fear among the lawmakers right now. It also happens to be the biggest fear among the private insurers. And that industry has a lot of money. And a lot of lobbyists.

So, naturally, congress, even the democrats in congress, is well to the right of public opinion on single-payer. There are many safeguards being built-in to prevent a trojan horse scenario (e.g., companies cannot shed their current private provider without proving severe financial hardship, reimbursement rates must stay in the same ballpark as average rates by private insurers, etc.). Actually, many lefties are worried that there are too many safeguards, to the point that the public plan will be too weak and whither away. That is probably more likely right now than a public plan that will destroy the private insurers.

Then again, I don't necessarily see something wrong with a public plan forcing private insurance companies out of business if they simply can't keep up. The goal here is to provide universal quality care and a decent cost. If the public plan can do that better than a private plan, so be it. Let's put them both out there and let them compete.


I don't see how a profit motivation is that much different than the government's motivation (one would hope) to keep the program out of the red.
true enough here.

If anything, I think the latter might be less conducive to making good coverage decisions than the former.
But I think the exact opposite here.

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 05:19 PM
ah, so you're not an idiot douchebag because of your political beliefs, you're an idiot douchebag because of the sports team for which you root

makes sense to me

unrealistic expectations and standards reveals serious character flaws

Corganist
07-23-2009, 06:28 PM
To be honest, I'm not aware of this. Do you have a source?

It's mostly anecdotal. It's what I'm told by family members and other people I know who work on the provider side of the medical profession. I'll try to find something more concrete to back that up.

Same thing. I'm not aware of any data that definitively shows that people on private insurance are any better off than those on medicare. I've read implications of the opposite actually.

I was just referring to the administrative costs. Sure, there's a lot of difference between 6 percent and 30 percent, but that difference shows up in how smoothly the operations run. Medicare may be able to cut costs by keeping administrative costs so low (a lot of which is done by shifting the administrative burden to the providers), but like I said, they get what they pay for.

Then again, I don't necessarily see something wrong with a public plan forcing private insurance companies out of business if they simply can't keep up. The goal here is to provide universal quality care and a decent cost. If the public plan can do that better than a private plan, so be it. Let's put them both out there and let them compete.

I think that's fine, but the playing field has to be even for that to happen. And personally, I think that if the solution were as simple as adding another competitor to the market someone in the private sector would have done so by now. Why not just lift some of the regulations on private insurers and let them do some of the things that a public plan would be able to do and then let them compete with each other?

But I think the exact opposite here.

I think that on a moral level, a company withholding treatment for profit is worse than one doing so to stay solvent. But on a practical level, at least a company operating with a profit oriented goal will never be unable to pay a claim, even if they are unwilling to do so (i.e., you can always try to change their mind). In my mind that beats an option where treatment must be withheld because the funds simply aren't there to give, which I'm afraid would be the shortcoming if the government was in charge.

Corganist
07-23-2009, 06:39 PM
unrealistic expectations and standards reveals serious character flaws

So does twisting the arguments of others. I've never said Arkansas was a coach away from a national championship. I just said that we could do better than 4-7, 5-6 type seasons in down years and 8-5 in "good" years where we're loaded with 3 (3!) future NFL starting tailbacks in the backfield.

I predicted (an optimistic) 7-5 for Arkansas last year. They went 5-7. I'm holding out for 8-4 this year if the ball bounces right. I may be a homer, but I don't think I'm so far gone yet that it's indicative of character flaws.

duovamp
07-23-2009, 09:55 PM
This is for the benefit of others, since I've generally concluded that you are a complete moron when it comes to political philosophy.


Fuck you, you goddamn fool. You're so far beyond the edge of reason that no sound political or philosophical mind is in your corner. You have the same political understanding of a high school freshman with an Anarchy patch on his bookbag. You have absolutely no understanding of history, politics, or philosophy, otherwise there is no way you could possibly think the way you do. You live in a hilarious fantasy world. You think that competition is the optimal means to every single conceivable end, and that no monopoly would ever form if given the chance, and that the slaves would never become tyrants if given the chance. Again, your view of the world is a sick, stupid, wrong fantasy and you need to be slapped by sound reason and fact. I will do this for you.



This is not logical. Citizen armies in democratic societies are the most victimised, because just like other people' money, other people's lives (especially foreigners) can be voted away at apparently little to no cost.



People CHOOSE their leaders who VOTE. Votes of elected officials are those of the people who voted them into office. Democratic republics are built on this concept, and then, to prevent people from being abused (because security is a primary cause for the creation of society) and to prevent governments' laws from swinging back and forth too quickly (as would not be optimally productive) there is a safety net for the minority. You vote for someone you want to make important decisions, if that person gets a majority of the vote, he/she tries to satisfy those people, for the greater utility of that population. If the person for whom you voted loses, you still have some protection, but face it, unless you're a ridiculous moral absolutist, the fact of the matter is that society's current beliefs don't agree with yours and they should not be ruled by your tyrant as a minority.

So, now that I've given you this lesson on how democratic republics work, let's then apply this simple reasoning to the situation above, okay? Can we do that? Do I need to hold your hand? Alright, let's go. You said people's lives get voted away. A citizen army has its own lives at stake. It will try not to needlessly put itself into harm's way. That means it has the incentive to not get thrown into combat, for it has its own personal agenda on the line. A citizen army will always consist entirely of citizens, that is every single member of it is also a member of that government's voting public. When you say other people's lives, clearly you don't realize that a private army's would not consist only of that nation's people. It would be a mercenary group. And from where? Why would not, say, the US hire Russian mercenaries to kill Pakistanis? And yet you tell me that a citizen army would control more largely the lives of foreigners all willy-nilly? The private system would almost always mean ONLY using foreigners to kill other foreigners, because that way they have no effect on votes, that is they can't vote themselves out of harm's way. Moreover, say the English government pays a French mercenary group to defend England against Germany. What stake does the French mercenary group have in seeing the job get done? What incentive do they have to get the job done? And what incentive do they have to not run off with England's money? And if they do run off with England's money, who is going to do something about it? Another mercenary group who could just as easily do the exact same thing? Where is the enforcement? There is none. This is all very, very simple scenario stuff, not even getting into complex contractual negotiations here. Mercenary groups, private armies, would become supra-national companies, and what would stop them from then taking over nations and becoming nations themselves? This is the best part of your logic, in my opinion. You don't see that this is how governments were started in the very first place! And yet you tell me that there would be victimization in my system, without remembering that you would be victimizing even more easily the lives of foreigners, and devaluing the ability of a population to defend itself, and it all hinges on what? Moral absolutism. You basically run into circles and circles around a tree until the leash gets tight enough to slam you right into it. But you call me a moron and tell me that I would victimize people, as the person whose army would have absolutely no incentive to exist in peacetime.


The army is now a public good, owned by no one, and the the natural human incentives of consumption, exploitation and monopoly occur.
The army is not owned by no one, it is owned by EVERYONE. That is its beauty. It is valued by all, for it is all they have for their protection and it is comprised of their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. It matters very much to everyone, that is why it is such a better alternative.



Citizens are drafted under the banner of nationalism and marched off to fight invaders under threat of everything from unpatriotic stigma to outright death for "treason."

They have incentives that are not lies, moreover your childish view of men and women in the military is laughable. Not everybody joins the armed forces of a nation because they wish only and entirely to uphold its values There is money, the only thing you care about, which is obvious, yet this is the ONLY reason a person would have to join a private army. There is no other reason to be in a private army, yet in a nationalized army you fight for what you believe, what you want to protect, and your commander-in-chief is elected by the majority of your nation's people. You battle for not just your wallet, but for your protection, and to uphold the values of the people you voted into office.


This also provides an incentive for perpetual war because the means of the state for obtaining goods, since it does not produce them or trade them voluntarily, is through the expropriation and exploitation of either its citizens (in a socialist state) or foreigners (in an imperialist or fascist state).

There is a lot here, so we will again approach slowly for you, okay? You say that citizens must be exploited and/or expropriated in order to obtain goods, as though all citizens in a democratic republic were ruled by a conquering tyrant and treated as food, not rather that the government is one of and by the people. So already you're off on some ridiculous premise that, again, sounds like the ramblings of a young child who thinks the government does not depend on voters to exist in the first place. If nobody elected them, they would not be elected, you see? Moving on toward the whole of this bit, you say this exploitation and expropriation (although you can't really exploit and expropriate yourself) is THE means for obtaining goods. THE means? There are no other means? The only way to obtain goods is war? The optimal way to obtain goods is war? What? Do you think Spain can only acquire gold through war?




The military is the branch of the state, and those elites which wield the power of the state (and these elites are inevitable even in completely collectivist states), to carry out exploitation.

The "elites" you dream of, I like to call CEOs, because their workers don't vote on what they do. If they disagree they are fired and replacements are found. And I'm sure you wouldn't want unions to be involved with this process, so the exploitation is all on the side of the business running the private army- a CEO does not care about one man's job that can be filled by another, for the incentive for him to remain in power is that his workers actually get paid the least and work the hardest, that is they cost the least amount of money and are as productive as possible, all because a CEO's incentive to maintain his/her job is profit. A governor must seek reelection if he or she wishes to maintain his/her position. This means a governor must not upset his/her population too greatly.


Thus the public military is an inevitable step towards perpetual war.

I have proven the complete opposite to be true. I could walk you through everything we've come to understand, but instead will only highlight what you did not understand in my first response to your catastrophically ignorant notion that a private army would be optimal.

Here it is in the most plain terms. If private armies solved all conflicts, their market would disappear, and their business model would bring itself to an end. Private armies would make themselves obsolete if they solved the problem of war on earth. However, the more wars there are, the greater the demand for private armies. Well now they have the incentive to actually create war to maximize profit.

Any private military that seeks perpetual conflict will quickly be out competed by wiser, more judicious and diplomatic military service providers.

So not only do you concede that some private army would probably seek to create perpetual conflict, but you think that we would simply have to wait for the market to eventually work out those kinks, which could take theoretically an eternity, thereby never solving thee issue why armies exist- to STOP conflict. And more, what if these armies never come about? What if the market never sees an incentive to stop war? Win a battle, sure, but stop war completely and kill their means of generating revenue? Never. You've basically given me the argument at this point, despite being entirely and utterly wrong about every single thing you've said so far.


Moreover, militaries that do engage in conflict will need to abide by the ethics of those people who hire them and those who will potentially hire them if they expect to do business.

There is no incentive for Canadian citizens to care what Chinese mercenaries do to North Korean infantrymen. If I were hiring an army, I'd say "By any means necessary" or, on terms of a company "By the cheapest means feasible" which would basically mean the most brutal, quick, efficient, and potent means. Why would you pay a group of guys about whom you don't care to go kill your enemies kindly? But when those guys are your citizens, they don't want to be subjected to committing these atrocities.



This incentivises specificity in targets, minimisation of collateral damage and (preferably) an end to conflict before it beings. Moreover, private militaries can be held accountable because they would not work in collusion with the state monopoly on courts and justice (which, for the same reasons, should also be abolished).

The only thing private armies would have the incentive to do is gain the most profit. That means doing the cheapest job possible while charging the greatest amount of money.


The correlation between "democracy" and state monopoly on military and total war, death and perpetual exploitative war is unparalleled in human history.
As mentioned above, if you had a private army and no state-run army, the private army would have power over the nation. So it would be more powerful than the nation itself. You assume that a nation's private army would come from within, however more often than not it would clearly come from the cheapest source, which would presumably be some third world dump that doesn't have a care in the world about your nation or your people.

You need to understand that governments are just businesses with armies. Once you give a business an army, it can, and will, become its own government, seize its own land, and begin to evolve so that, in time, its people will demand certain things, like voting, and the process would just simply begin again where you now have a nation, with an army that is controlled by that nation and its people. You wish for a return to feudalism, which would eventually just move straight toward socializing as time progresses. The free market leads to its own end with any society. It is a self-destructive philosophy.

I really should not have taken you seriously, and rather laughed that you actually responded and moved on with my life. However people like you who can't sit down and think for one second that you might be wrong come up with wild dream-like worlds because you're unwilling to question your own beliefs. If you questioned yourself you would soon realize how completely illegitimate they are and you would be able to move toward a more true vision of the universe. You can't reach the totally insane understanding of the world you have unless you never second guess yourself. Because I see absolutely no hint in your rant of placing your beliefs under any scrutiny. You just started with "free market only" and ran with it, never once assessing yourself along the way. This is how you come upon such illogical ideas, and this is why I do not respect you.

Debaser
07-23-2009, 10:45 PM
thread derailed

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 11:26 PM
christalmighty

Trotskilicious
07-23-2009, 11:26 PM
So does twisting the arguments of others. I've never said Arkansas was a coach away from a national championship. I just said that we could do better than 4-7, 5-6 type seasons in down years and 8-5 in "good" years where we're loaded with 3 (3!) future NFL starting tailbacks in the backfield.

I predicted (an optimistic) 7-5 for Arkansas last year. They went 5-7. I'm holding out for 8-4 this year if the ball bounces right. I may be a homer, but I don't think I'm so far gone yet that it's indicative of character flaws.

blah blah blah

duovamp
07-23-2009, 11:33 PM
thread derailed

Fair enough.

duovamp
07-23-2009, 11:34 PM
I'm turning into sleeper, except instead of the gen board and religion it's the politics board and the free market.

Nimrod's Son
07-24-2009, 03:55 AM
unrealistic expectations and standards reveals serious character flaws

You're a complete fucking joke. The only reason more people don't call you out on it is because all you do is slam without cause the people who have different opinions than most of the board

They think you're a joke mind you. they just don't call you out on it

Nimrod's Son
07-24-2009, 03:56 AM
So you think the free market is evil.

Defend

Debaser
07-24-2009, 11:22 AM
straw man.

the free market is amoral, not malevolent. subtle distinction.

duovamp
07-24-2009, 12:09 PM
So you think the free market is evil.

Defend

In cases of many utilities, it is simply not optimally productive. Efficient at times, in certain markets, sure. But efficiency isn't always productivity. For luxuries, meh, I have no serious problem with it, although what I'd support would not ever be a totally free market but more along the line of welfare capitalism.

Trotskilicious
07-24-2009, 12:51 PM
You're a complete fucking joke. The only reason more people don't call you out on it is because all you do is slam without cause the people who have different opinions than most of the board

They think you're a joke mind you. they just don't call you out on it

talking about yourself?

i didn't slam jczeroman even though i disagree with everything he says. see the thing is <i>he knows what he's talking about and isn't a completely uninformed, biased, ignorant fool.</I>

you're an utter douchebag and there's so much about corganist i don't like, primarily the way he argues about things. The Arkansas thing is silly but it's just one example of what a douchebag he is. And further, both of you don't have any respect for anyone with differing views but act all put upon because the two of you are utter douchebags and people don't respect you. Don't even start to pretend that you have any respect for people who don't agree with your half-baked "libertarianism".

And you know what, yeah maybe I really dislike you both for your political views & how you present them since I think that's a far better reason to dislike someone then anything else.

jczeroman
07-24-2009, 03:05 PM
Fuck you, you goddamn fool. You're so far beyond the edge of reason that no sound political or philosophical mind is in your corner. You have the same political understanding of a high school freshman with an Anarchy patch on his bookbag. You have absolutely no understanding of history, politics, or philosophy, otherwise there is no way you could possibly think the way you do. You live in a hilarious fantasy world. You think that competition is the optimal means to every single conceivable end, and that no monopoly would ever form if given the chance, and that the slaves would never become tyrants if given the chance. Again, your view of the world is a sick, stupid, wrong fantasy and you need to be slapped by sound reason and fact. I will do this for you.

Spoken like a moron. I'll rest my case on that bit here. Also, it's funny that I call you a moron when it comes to political philosophy and then half of your response is petty insults. Funny.

Otherwise, I am going to be as short as possible, as despite the length of your response, the content boils down to basic fallacies that have been dealt with by major political and philosophical thinkers. In other words, this portion of our discussion is where 99% of people ignore these big long, multi-quote statements. If I cared about what you thought, or believed that you could understand what I would write, then I would do you the service of responding in length (and refraining from name-calling). Goodness, even this is too long.


People CHOOSE their leaders who VOTE. Votes of elected officials are those of the people who voted them into office. Democratic republics are built on this concept, and then, to prevent people from being abused (because security is a primary cause for the creation of society) and to prevent governments' laws from swinging back and forth too quickly (as would not be optimally productive) there is a safety net for the minority. You vote for someone you want to make important decisions, if that person gets a majority of the vote, he/she tries to satisfy those people, for the greater utility of that population. If the person for whom you voted loses, you still have some protection, but face it, unless you're a ridiculous moral absolutist, the fact of the matter is that society's current beliefs don't agree with yours and they should not be ruled by your tyrant as a minority.

Please read John Stewart Mill's On liberty, specifically his thoughts on a tyranny of the majority. Barring that, no matter what government you (temporarily) have, its logical end will be an oligarchic or autocratic tyranny. It's merely matter of time. Limited constitutional government, democracy or your "welfare capitalism" is not sustainable.

So, now that I've given you this lesson on how democratic republics work, let's then apply this simple reasoning to the situation above, okay? Can we do that? Do I need to hold your hand? Alright, let's go. You said people's lives get voted away. A citizen army has its own lives at stake. It will try not to needlessly put itself into harm's way. That means it has the incentive to not get thrown into combat, for it has its own personal agenda on the line. A citizen army will always consist entirely of citizens, that is every single member of it is also a member of that government's voting public. When you say other people's lives, clearly you don't realize that a private army's would not consist only of that nation's people. It would be a mercenary group. And from where? Why would not, say, the US hire Russian mercenaries to kill Pakistanis? And yet you tell me that a citizen army would control more largely the lives of foreigners all willy-nilly? The private system would almost always mean ONLY using foreigners to kill other foreigners, because that way they have no effect on votes, that is they can't vote themselves out of harm's way. Moreover, say the English government pays a French mercenary group to defend England against Germany. What stake does the French mercenary group have in seeing the job get done? What incentive do they have to get the job done? And what incentive do they have to not run off with England's money? And if they do run off with England's money, who is going to do something about it? Another mercenary group who could just as easily do the exact same thing? Where is the enforcement? There is none. This is all very, very simple scenario stuff, not even getting into complex contractual negotiations here. Mercenary groups, private armies, would become supra-national companies, and what would stop them from then taking over nations and becoming nations themselves? This is the best part of your logic, in my opinion. You don't see that this is how governments were started in the very first place! And yet you tell me that there would be victimization in my system, without remembering that you would be victimizing even more easily the lives of foreigners, and devaluing the ability of a population to defend itself, and it all hinges on what? Moral absolutism. You basically run into circles and circles around a tree until the leash gets tight enough to slam you right into it. But you call me a moron and tell me that I would victimize people, as the person whose army would have absolutely no incentive to exist in peacetime.

See last comments. Majoritarianism and democracy does not equal individual responsibility. Read Hanns Hoppe Democracy: The God That Failed.


The army is not owned by no one, it is owned by EVERYONE. That is its beauty. It is valued by all, for it is all they have for their protection and it is comprised of their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. It matters very much to everyone, that is why it is such a better alternative.

Read other people's stuff about collective ownership and the problem of incentives.

They have incentives that are not lies, moreover your childish view of men and women in the military is laughable. Not everybody joins the armed forces of a nation because they wish only and entirely to uphold its values <font size=14>There is money, the only thing you care about, which is obvious</font>, yet this is the ONLY reason a person would have to join a private army. There is no other reason to be in a private army, yet in a nationalized army you fight for what you believe, what you want to protect, and your commander-in-chief is elected by the majority of your nation's people. <font size=14>You battle for not just your wallet, but for your protection, and to uphold the values of the people you voted into office.</font>

*vomit*

There is a lot here, so we will again approach slowly for you, okay? You say that citizens must be exploited and/or expropriated in order to obtain goods, as though all citizens in a democratic republic were ruled by a conquering tyrant and treated as food, not rather that the government is one of and by the people. So already you're off on some ridiculous premise that, again, sounds like the ramblings of a young child who thinks the government does not depend on voters to exist in the first place. If nobody elected them, they would not be elected, you see? Moving on toward the whole of this bit, you say this exploitation and expropriation (although you can't really exploit and expropriate yourself) is THE means for obtaining goods. THE means? There are no other means? The only way to obtain goods is war? The optimal way to obtain goods is war? What? Do you think Spain can only acquire gold through war?






The "elites" you dream of, I like to call CEOs, because their workers don't vote on what they do. If they disagree they are fired and replacements are found. And I'm sure you wouldn't want unions to be involved with this process, so the exploitation is all on the side of the business running the private army- a CEO does not care about one man's job that can be filled by another, for the incentive for him to remain in power is that his workers actually get paid the least and work the hardest, that is they cost the least amount of money and are as productive as possible, all because a CEO's incentive to maintain his/her job is profit. A governor must seek reelection if he or she wishes to maintain his/her position. This means a governor must not upset his/her population too greatly.

Yes VOTING to be subject to a majority does a great job to check power.


I have proven the complete opposite to be true. I could walk you through everything we've come to understand, but instead will only highlight what you did not understand in my first response to your catastrophically ignorant notion that a private army would be optimal.

Here it is in the most plain terms. If private armies solved all conflicts, their market would disappear, and their business model would bring itself to an end. Private armies would make themselves obsolete if they solved the problem of war on earth. However, the more wars there are, the greater the demand for private armies. Well now they have the incentive to actually create war to maximize profit.

This is like saying that doctors won't treat diseases and lead a society to a higher and healther standard of life. You realise that the market evolves based on the changing demands of consumer, right? This is why we don't have millions of horse-coach drivers. Once private armys end wars (especially the massive state wars of most of human history) then they will need to evolve, probably into insurance companies to prevent wars. Read Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense.

So not only do you concede that some private army would probably seek to create perpetual conflict, but you think that we would simply have to wait for the market to eventually work out those kinks, which could take theoretically an eternity, thereby never solving thee issue why armies exist- to STOP conflict. And more, what if these armies never come about? What if the market never sees an incentive to stop war? Win a battle, sure, but stop war completely and kill their means of generating revenue? Never. You've basically given me the argument at this point, despite being entirely and utterly wrong about every single thing you've said so far.




There is no incentive for Canadian citizens to care what Chinese mercenaries do to North Korean infantrymen. If I were hiring an army, I'd say "By any means necessary" or, on terms of a company "By the cheapest means feasible" which would basically mean the most brutal, quick, efficient, and potent means. Why would you pay a group of guys about whom you don't care to go kill your enemies kindly? But when those guys are your citizens, they don't want to be subjected to committing these atrocities.





The only thing private armies would have the incentive to do is gain the most profit. That means doing the cheapest job possible while charging the greatest amount of money.



As mentioned above, if you had a private army and no state-run army, the private army would have power over the nation. So it would be more powerful than the nation itself. You assume that a nation's private army would come from within, however more often than not it would clearly come from the cheapest source, which would presumably be some third world dump that doesn't have a care in the world about your nation or your people.

lol

You need to understand that governments are just businesses with armies. Once you give a business an army, it can, and will, become its own government, seize its own land, and begin to evolve so that, in time, its people will demand certain things, like voting, and the process would just simply begin again where you now have a nation, with an army that is controlled by that nation and its people. You wish for a return to feudalism, which would eventually just move straight toward socializing as time progresses. The free market leads to its own end with any society. It is a self-destructive philosophy.

I really should not have taken you seriously, and rather laughed that you actually responded and moved on with my life. However people like you who can't sit down and think for one second that you might be wrong come up with wild dream-like worlds because you're unwilling to question your own beliefs. If you questioned yourself you would soon realize how completely illegitimate they are and you would be able to move toward a more true vision of the universe. You can't reach the totally insane understanding of the world you have unless you never second guess yourself. Because I see absolutely no hint in your rant of placing your beliefs under any scrutiny. You just started with "free market only" and ran with it, never once assessing yourself along the way. This is how you come upon such illogical ideas, and this is why I do not respect you.

I have seen the light - the true vision of the universe!

duovamp
07-24-2009, 03:07 PM
It's very pleasing to see that you could not give me any serious response to any single point.

jczeroman
07-24-2009, 04:37 PM
It's very pleasing to see that you could not give me any serious response to any single point.

Would not. You mean "would not." And no, you aren't going to get a serious response.

Trotskilicious
07-24-2009, 08:40 PM
We'll take this up again when Arkansas wins the SEC here within the next couple years.

i hope you aren't serious

Trotskilicious
07-24-2009, 08:41 PM
Would not. You mean "would not." And no, you aren't going to get a serious response.

kinda weak dude

Trotskilicious
07-24-2009, 08:43 PM
i will say that it should be accepted that the welfare state is unsustainable. i don't think the solution lies in completely free market economics but I'm an historian not an economist.

ravenguy2000
07-24-2009, 08:50 PM
i'm a geographer but this thread sucks

Trotskilicious
07-24-2009, 10:14 PM
geography is cool

killtrocity
07-25-2009, 01:01 AM
If everyone on earth ate the person next to them, we'd still be overpopulated. This is not a fact, just my opinion.

jczeroman
07-25-2009, 06:22 PM
i'm a geographer but this thread sucks

I think a map of this thread would be funny.

jczeroman
07-25-2009, 06:31 PM
kinda weak dude

Gah. There is much wisdom in the biblical proverb:


Ecclesiastes 10.12-15
The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious,
But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up;
The words of his mouth begin with foolishness,
And the end of his talk is raving madness.
A fool also multiplies words.
No man knows what is to be;
Who can tell him what will be after him?
The labor of fools wearies them,
For they do not even know how to go to the city!


The point being that wasting my words on someone who doesn't care to hear, is not paying attention and has no desire to do anything but projectile-vomit out of his own foolery is wasteful and degrading. If he actually believed half of the similar tripe he wrote about me, he would have done the same thing. I have not shied away in the past about answering people for eleven pages of me/them exchanges if they are willing to contribute to a mutually beneficial searching of truth. But such an exchange with this guy at the present time has no redeeming value.

duovamp
07-25-2009, 09:02 PM
I thought it was necessary to teach you some political science, so I responded.

duovamp
07-25-2009, 09:09 PM
Also I've read John Stuart Mill.















...In my sophomore year of college.

beef curtains
07-25-2009, 10:24 PM
Did you read the article? They're trying to NOT pay for everyone in England.

Also it's not just the taxes, it's that anything we let the government run is shit. Everything. You want hospitals that work like the DMV, by all means, let the government run them.


If you are equating the drive of a DMV worker to the drive of a doctor, you are sorely confused about life.

beef curtains
07-25-2009, 10:28 PM
suncrashesdown,

i think part of the problem is that our education system indoctrinates as opposed to educates about many things, in particular the issue of health care.

If health care is a right, then why not a House or a Dodge Viper?


Point is this with health care, there is no natural market flow to any of it. My step-mother is the Head Nurse at Stanford Hospital and occasionally we talk shop and I ask questions.

Just today I found out that if you're uninsured and you get a service that cost, say $5000, the hospital expects that money from you like yesterday. Meanwhile, that same procedure with the same cost to someone who has insurance, will be negotiated by the insurance company and the hospital and will be reduced to about $500 in which the individual would pay about 20% of that...and at that, the insurance company will be late in payments to the hospital, which perpetuates the policy of an inflated retail cost of procedures to the uninsured.

They're needs to be more natural retail cost to procedures, but that doesn't exist in the current system and won't exist in a Universal one either.

Even with insurance, if your provider doesn't have deals set-up with a certain lab that will run a test, you bare the brunt of the inflated cost because your provider doesn't have negotiating rights with that lab.

Oh look, you just made an argument FOR a govt run plan! Legislature to average out things to a real cost would stop the poor and formerly uninsured from being fucked. But hey, fuck the poor right?

beef curtains
07-25-2009, 10:28 PM
Gah. There is much wisdom in the biblical proverb:


Ecclesiastes 10.12-15
The words of a wise manís mouth are gracious,
But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up;
The words of his mouth begin with foolishness,
And the end of his talk is raving madness.
A fool also multiplies words.
No man knows what is to be;
Who can tell him what will be after him?
The labor of fools wearies them,
For they do not even know how to go to the city!


The point being that wasting my words on someone who doesn't care to hear, is not paying attention and has no desire to do anything but projectile-vomit out of his own foolery is wasteful and degrading. If he actually believed half of the similar tripe he wrote about me, he would have done the same thing. I have not shied away in the past about answering people for eleven pages of me/them exchanges if they are willing to contribute to a mutually beneficial searching of truth. But such an exchange with this guy at the present time has no redeeming value.

I doubt Trots is christian.

Trotskilicious
07-26-2009, 03:28 AM
good bet

i just cut a <u>huge</u> fart

seriously the smell is grossing me out and i usually don't mind my own farts

beef curtains
07-26-2009, 11:29 AM
good bet

i just cut a <u>huge</u> fart

seriously the smell is grossing me out and i usually don't mind my own farts

open a window or a door dude. I feel the same way when people quote the bible to me.

duovamp
07-26-2009, 12:12 PM
good bet

i just cut a <u>huge</u> fart

seriously the smell is grossing me out and i usually don't mind my own farts

Let the free market take care of it.

jczeroman
07-27-2009, 04:00 AM
I doubt Trots is christian.

Ecclesiastes was written by Jews.

Nimrod's Son
07-27-2009, 04:14 AM
If you are equating the drive of a DMV worker to the drive of a doctor, you are sorely confused about life.

I had to check and see what that post from a year and a half ago was in reference to, but we're talking about government doctors now, who will be held at bay by the whims of bureaucrats. Once the profits start to tank you'll see less and less of the best and brightest of our culture willing to shell out the cash and deal with the years of schooling to get that jobs anyway. We'll be left with ... whatever's left.

Trotskilicious
07-27-2009, 05:13 AM
yeah don't ask why education costs so much

Nimrod's Son
07-27-2009, 05:57 AM
yeah don't ask why education costs so much

Physician education is directly related to recouping those costs once one becomes a physician. I realize this is a difficult concept for you to grasp since it took you 7 years to get through your undergrad.

beef curtains
07-27-2009, 10:49 PM
Ecclesiastes was written by Jews.

Hey Trots, Jc wants to know if you're a Jew...

Irrelevant
07-28-2009, 02:47 AM
lol someone broke out the old testament

Trotskilicious
07-28-2009, 04:44 PM
Physician education is directly related to recouping those costs once one becomes a physician. I realize this is a difficult concept for you to grasp since it took you 7 years to get through your undergrad.

that ad hominem attack really furthers your point. good work!

Gish08
08-04-2009, 12:31 AM
Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone
Yes, it will.

Thaniel Buckner
08-04-2009, 12:54 AM
I'm an historian.<hg>

D.
08-05-2009, 12:20 PM
thanks for weighing in, 3dfan

Nimrod's Son
08-06-2009, 01:22 AM
<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbWw23XwO5o&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
First comment: "The insurance industry owns the Republican Party."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20115724da6d3970b-800wi
Looks to me like they donate who whomever controls Congress

Nimrod's Son
08-06-2009, 01:23 AM
Sorry I just love pointing out when Olbermann lies, blatantly and then bases an entire rant on it.

Eulogy
08-06-2009, 03:08 AM
half of his rant was directed at democrats

Nimrod's Son
08-06-2009, 03:25 AM
The Blue Dogs. Olbermann is a bleeding heart liberal - there's no difference than when Limbaugh would go after Arlen Specter.

Eulogy
08-06-2009, 09:26 AM
The Blue Dogs.

...who are included in that chart.

god you're stupid.

Nimrod's Son
08-06-2009, 01:40 PM
...who are included in that chart.

god you're stupid.
The chart specifically refutes the comment I quoted regardless of whether or not he talks about blue dogs later. He even claims later that "most of the money is going through Republicans." The chart shows that today that is not true.

Seriously dude, try harder.

Debaser
08-06-2009, 02:06 PM
nimrod posting something from sully? that's definitely an upgrade from your typical sources. kudos.

Future Boy
08-06-2009, 02:41 PM
Is this the same Sully that insisted (insists?) Trig isnt Palins son.

Any chance sully is a 911 truther? When I get the itch to read abovetopsecret maybe Ill just go to him instead.

Nimrod's Son
08-06-2009, 03:01 PM
nimrod posting something from sully? that's definitely an upgrade from your typical sources. kudos.

I agree with Sullivan about half of the time. I don't think I've ever slandered him.

Debaser
08-06-2009, 04:19 PM
Is this the same Sully that insisted (insists?) Trig isnt Palins son.


That's a mischaracterization.

He only kept pointing out inconsistancies of Palin's story. And he is self aware enough to know that most people think he took his provocative questioning into birther territory behavior -- he would post emails of his detractors on the subject.

In the end, I don't think Sullivan actually believes what you say he believes. I think in the end he just chalked it up to Palin just being an inveterate liar, who lies. about. every. little. thing. in order to self-aggrandize.

Sullivan is one of the most intellectually honest pundits out there.

jczeroman
08-06-2009, 06:06 PM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20115724da6d3970b-800wi
Looks to me like they donate who whomever controls Congress

This chart is quite telling.

I can't believe anyone thinks this kind of healthcare proposal is not favoured by the biggest and most politically connected insurance and healthcare providers.

Watch The Aviator to understand more on how "government service" really means giving money and market power to corporations.

Debaser
08-06-2009, 06:22 PM
Obama Health Reform from whitehouse.gov:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Future Boy
08-06-2009, 06:42 PM
That's a mischaracterization.

I guess it is. I knew he harped on it for quite a bit, but I guess he never outright said it, my mistake. The only thing a quick search turned up was some supposed email exchanges. Honestly I wrote him off a long while back over Iraq and some other stuff. Maybe I'll give him another look.

One of the things that turned up
Terry Ann Online: Sullivan's Trig Trutherism (http://blog.theunfocused.com/2009/04/sullivans-trig-trutherism.html)

there are sufficient questions about her very bizarre pregnancy to
wonder if she is indeed trig's mother. and there must be medical
records proving it. but none are available, and the doctor won';t talk
and the media has been intimidated. maybe mercede will halp get to the
bottom of it whatever it is
---
You could easily swap things out and make this an exchange on Obamas birth certificate. But I dont much care to look into it further, so Ill take your word for it.

Future Boy
08-06-2009, 06:50 PM
Obama Health Reform from whitehouse.gov:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

But if the plan mandates coverage and increased profits for them they would be perfectly fine with most anything, no? Plus coupled with a weak public option with no chance of becoming actual universal coverage, or better yet no public option.

Debaser
08-06-2009, 08:40 PM
true enough.


but it doesn't cancel out the tremendous benefits of those new regulations.

Nimrod's Son
08-07-2009, 01:19 AM
true enough.


but it doesn't cancel out the tremendous benefits of those new regulations.

perfect example of a criticism of Obama that you make

Future Boy
08-07-2009, 06:23 AM
true enough.


but it doesn't cancel out the tremendous benefits of those new regulations.

Ill just weigh them against how far actual universal coverage gets kicked down the road while we guarantee the insurance industry a large market with our reformed system. And thats assuming the bill actually performs well.

jczeroman
08-07-2009, 06:47 AM
Obama Health Reform from whitehouse.gov:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Holy Jesus, this will at least double the cost of insurance.

Debaser
08-07-2009, 10:57 AM
perfect example of a criticism of Obama that you make

actually nothing I said there is really a criticism of obama.

Nimrod's Son
08-07-2009, 01:18 PM
actually nothing I said there is really a criticism of obama.

precisely

Debaser
08-07-2009, 01:51 PM
that was the intention.

Debaser
08-07-2009, 02:01 PM
Holy Jesus, this will at least double the cost of insurance.

so will the status quo.

J.H.
08-07-2009, 04:58 PM
No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.



So they're going to charge me more because of someone else's gender. Makes sense.

Debaser
08-07-2009, 05:46 PM
what the

J.H.
08-07-2009, 06:51 PM
On average, women pay more for health care than men (because of susceptibility to diseases requiring more expensive treatments). If they cannot be charged higher premiums, for example, then the difference between the two sets of average premiums will have to be made-up elsewhere.

How will that happen?

1/2 x (women's premiums - men's premiums) = A

Probably, A will be added to men's premiums and subtracted from women's premiums. Now, no one is being charged more because of their own gender; but men will pay more because of someone else's gender (i.e. they will pay half the gender premium of women).

Obviously I don't know whether this is the actual plan, as written. But those costs will need to be paid for somehow. Since this is not an issue that savings can influence - because differences in premiums are based on susceptibility, nothing other than better medical technology can change the relative cost - I can't think of any other feasible way.

Let me know if you hear something different.

Debaser
08-07-2009, 07:34 PM
On average, women pay more for health care than men (because of susceptibility to diseases requiring more expensive treatments).

I don't think this is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

dudehitscar
08-07-2009, 07:46 PM
Holy Jesus, this will at least double the cost of insurance.

i'll remember you made this claim.

J.H.
08-07-2009, 10:50 PM
I don't think this is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/30insure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


IF you don't consider pregnancy a disease, that is. (Joking)

OK - my parenthetical comment was incorrect, but not so widely that it fails on all counts. The article makes clear that women pay higher premiums than men, and that pregnancy is largely responsible for the disparity. Pregnancy is expensive and it also increases susceptibility to certain dangerous conditions later in life.

So, your caveat is understood. But the point stands that preventing gender discrimination will only add to the cost of men's healthcare -- which is an odd sort of discrimination itself.

Your article seems to agree outright:


Cecil D. Bykerk, president of the Society of Actuaries, a professional organization, said that if male and female premiums were equalized, women would pay less but “rates for men would go up.”

And there is no other way to prevent gender discrimination than to equalize rates, which - again - still constitutes gender discrimination, but a discrimination based upon ideas about social fairness rather than actuarial knowledge and the marketplace.

Debaser
08-07-2009, 11:23 PM
Don't you think it's unfair for only women as a group to bear the extra cost of having a child?

Yes, I agree that this will be one factor increasing the cost for men, but I think it is fair. But this reform is not in a vacuum, I am hoping that many other different aspects of health reform will introduce factors to bring the overall cost down for everybody (e.g., universal coverage to spread the risk and cost to a larger base, eliminating free riders, etc.).

killtrocity
08-08-2009, 12:56 AM
It's not like pregnancy is necessary to the perpetuation of humanity. I say women shut their baby makers so I don't have to pay for them.

J.H.
08-08-2009, 03:53 AM
Don't you think it's unfair for only women as a group to bear the extra cost of having a child?

Yes, I agree that this will be one factor increasing the cost for men, but I think it is fair. But this reform is not in a vacuum, I am hoping that many other different aspects of health reform will introduce factors to bring the overall cost down for everybody (e.g., universal coverage to spread the risk and cost to a larger base, eliminating free riders, etc.).

From the link you posted:

“Many state insurance laws require insurance policies to cover complications of pregnancy, even if they do not cover maternity care,” Ms. Leif said. Insurers say those complications generate significant costs.

I think it sucks that women pay higher insurance premiums because they could conceivably conceive, whether or not they intend to conceive.

Laws like the one quoted above are responsible for some of the disparity in men's and women's premiums - it's just another cost of making certain that people are cared for during emergencies, which is a fine but expensive goal. Yet women do have some say in becoming pregnant and their insurance options should be allowed to reflect that.

If women were permitted by law to purchase insurance that did not cover any expenses related to pregnancy - past, present or future - the price of their insurance would be much closer to the rate paid by men. If I were King, women would be permitted to purchase such policies; subsequently, the disparity in premiums would become more reasonable (pay more only if/when you want to become pregnant) and I would live in a castle surrounded by evergreens.

How about this ...

A woman goes to the sperm bank and decides she wants to become a single mother. In that case, higher insurance payments are justified. No one needs help make easier her own choices. A pregnant woman will hopefully have a husband or boyfriend to help raise the child. If she does, then in effect the insurance premium for each partner ought to be (his + hers) / 2. In more difficult circumstances, child care payments can be a powerful tool. So while women pay a disproportionate cost on paper, the de facto cost evens out somewhat.

Come to think of it, lesbians really get screwed on the issue while gays have a fine time. Though I don't see any help for that.

To get to the heart of it - each time the playing field is raised for one person, another sees his own position diminished; and while this is good most of the time, there is no system (nor will there ever be) for summing up all of the costs imposed on people and then deciding whether they've paid the right amount, too much or too little. Take me for instance, I'm incredibly ugly. It's a significant disadvantage -- but the ugliness penalty isn't deducted from my payments! No, I think fairness ends once each person receives the basics; from there, they make what they will of them. And I just don't think the proposed reform is the thing for it.

jczeroman
08-09-2009, 02:35 PM
so will the status quo.

Agreed. But part of the reason that insurance is so much money is because of state mandates like these ones. It is inevitable that once insurance, which is supposed to be for virtually uncontrollable catastrophes (as insurance is the monetisation of risk), is used for routine payments of controllable and regular purchases - there are going be be great price distortion. Mandate that all insurance cover maternity care (even though something like 30% would actually use this service) and costs will increase. More such interventions will increase the price even more than the status quo would


i'll remember you made this claim.

Just remember all of it, and the context of this discussion. Healthcare can still be "free" but have enormous costs. There are other non-monetary costs that I am factoring in here (opportunity cost, marginal utility, etc...). The gist of what I am saying, and it will happen (because it isn't a positivist claim), is that these mandates will increase the cost of insurance higher than it otherwise would be.

ravenguy2000
08-09-2009, 03:16 PM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L6K6u_OpDhA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L6K6u_OpDhA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

This happened down the road from me.

Trotskilicious
08-09-2009, 05:11 PM
lloyd dogget was booed off stage at a town hall in austin

it would be nice if these people had some kind of dignity and respect

this country really fucking sucks.

TuralyonW3
08-09-2009, 06:17 PM
These people need to get hobbies.

TuralyonW3
08-09-2009, 06:18 PM
Besides exposing their laughable ignorance in a rude disruptive manner that is

Nimrod's Son
08-09-2009, 07:01 PM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L6K6u_OpDhA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L6K6u_OpDhA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

This happened down the road from me.

Wow, look at the story the guy posted along with his video:
Well, I tried. Strategically I should have just sat there and videotaped as the Tea Baggers went through with their desire to shout down a United States Congressman and prevent him from speaking with his constituents.

But I couldn't just sit their and let thuggery rule the day, so I did what I could to try and record the screaming mob, and challenge them on their over-the-top obnoxious behavior. (Why aren't these guys in a protest pen where they belong?)

I hope the people involved will stop and reflect upon what it means to live in a free and democratic country. And maybe in the future they'll have a little more respect for our basic processes. (like the time-honored tradition of an elected official showing up at a grocery store, to simply talk with his constituents.) So, protesting is "thuggery" and people should be placed in "protest pens" like in China.

People should have more respect for democratic processes and not exercise free speech.

I bet this guy got virtual handjobs over at Daily Kos and Huffington though

Nimrod's Son
08-09-2009, 07:02 PM
lloyd dogget was booed off stage at a town hall in austin

it would be nice if these people had some kind of dignity and respect

this country really fucking sucks.

boo hoo people exercised free speech, wah wah

dudehitscar
08-09-2009, 07:17 PM
protest is only wrong when it's the opposition doing the shouting. :)

Eulogy
08-09-2009, 09:12 PM
boo hoo people exercised free speech, wah wah

the problem is their unabashed ignorance, not the fact that they're "protesting."

Trotskilicious
08-09-2009, 09:24 PM
Besides exposing their laughable ignorance in a rude disruptive manner that is

you're a paid operative for rachel maddows, own up

Trotskilicious
08-09-2009, 09:26 PM
boo hoo people exercised free speech, wah wah

i'd expect someone like you to support people like this since you do the same thing here

also i recall very clearly that you bitch plenty about leftist causes going out in the street and doing the exact same thing

Nimrod's Son
08-10-2009, 02:25 AM
i'd expect someone like you to support people like this since you do the same thing here

also i recall very clearly that you bitch plenty about leftist causes going out in the street and doing the exact same thing
Untrue. I always support the right to protest. It's a basic American right that now we're starting to put into "protest areas" which get no where near the media or the people involved.

Future Boy
08-10-2009, 07:03 AM
Ive given the thing up for dead, but what exactly are these guys out there trying to sell, theres no set bill yet, right?

28if
08-11-2009, 03:08 PM
This protesting shit is getting out of control. These people are either severely misinformed or just hateful people.

It's not even about health care anymore, it's just poor white people getting pissed off because there's a black guy in the white house. "SOCIALISM! COMMUNISM! RUSSIAN INVASION!" These people obviously have no idea what the word socialism actually means. Fuck this shit!

Nimrod's Son
08-11-2009, 03:18 PM
This protesting shit is getting out of control. These people are either severely misinformed or just hateful people.

It's not even about health care anymore, it's just poor white people getting pissed off because there's a black guy in the white house. "SOCIALISM! COMMUNISM! RUSSIAN INVASION!" These people obviously have no idea what the word socialism actually means. Fuck this shit!
You must be severely misinformed or just hateful to believe that the only criticism of the national healthcare plan is from bitter white people who hate the blacks.

28if
08-11-2009, 03:39 PM
Uh, did I say that? I'm talking about the fuckers protesting with guns outside town halls.

Eulogy
08-11-2009, 03:39 PM
You must be severely misinformed or just hateful to believe that the only criticism of the national healthcare plan is from bitter white people who hate the blacks.

He didn't say that.

The most vocal people do indeed seem to be severely misinformed and more likely to be pissed off about a black democrat in office than anything else. Are there people with legitimate concerns? Of course. But they're being drowned out by the nutjobs. As someone who I assume has some of these legitimate beefs, you should be more pissed off by these people than most.

Eulogy
08-11-2009, 03:40 PM
*sob*I want*sniffle*my*sob*AMERICA BACK!

Corganist
08-11-2009, 03:46 PM
I have not seen one of these "nutjobs" say anything that my suggest they have a problem with a "black democrat" in the White House. Yet, it's not only been mentioned, but repeated in this thread. Where is this stuff coming from? If it is really a problem with Obama that's driving these people to protest, why can't it just be because he's a democrat? Why the jump to assume that race plays any part whatsoever?

Whether these protesters are nutjobs or not, the left is playing a dangerous game in assuming that all of the opposition they're getting is all being generated by the vast right wing conspiracy.

28if
08-11-2009, 04:19 PM
Because a lot of it IS racially motivated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not in tune with the reality of poor, white America.

Eulogy
08-11-2009, 04:30 PM
and especially not poor, white, southern america.

look, clearly not all opponents of health care reform are racists. they don't all think obama is a nazi...or a fascist...or socialist? whatever the fuck the current nonsensical meme is. they aren't all distressed about their america being taken away from them. but as i already said, the ones who do think this way are grabbing all of the attention and are being encouraged by lobbying firms and GOP politicians. there is a debate to be had. and one side just doesn't want to have it.

you may say that the "librul media" is giving these nuts all the attention. and to a point that is an unfortunate truth. but they're the only people the conservative media/politicians are paying attention to as well.

Corganist
08-11-2009, 04:33 PM
Because a lot of it IS racially motivated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not in tune with the reality of poor, white America.

Do you have anything other than stereotyping to base that on? It sounds like you're pulling this completely out of your ass.

And for that matter, whoever said these protesters were poor? Ostensibly the people who would be upset about government health care are people who can at least afford insurance that they like already.

Eulogy
08-11-2009, 04:38 PM
i can't really argue with your reasoning. i could be wrong.

but i'm trusting my intuition on this one. when there are pictures of obama as an african witch doctor with a bone through his nose being circulated by local party leaders with allusions to the soviet union to go with it....and someone lynching a congressman (even though he's white) in effigy...and people spray painting swastikas on congressmen's offices...it just adds somewhat of a racial tint to everything. doesn't it? and we cannot pretend that our society is beautifully post-racial. clearly, and i would hope you can bring yourself to admit this without me having to show you a poll detailing how many racists there are in america, there are people who do not want a black man in the white house. and clearly, some of them will take a debate over a big issue like health care as an opportunity to voice their disapproval. this is not all that difficult to comprehend.

like i said, this isn't everyone. but it's the group that's hogging the attention and distracting from debate.

Eulogy
08-11-2009, 04:41 PM
i mean shit, corganist. you're not an idiot. are you happy about what's going on at these town halls? wouldn't you rather have conservatives like yourself going and calmly asking good questions about health care? instead of clueless idiots yelling shit like "I'M SCARED OF OBAMA! WE'RE ALL SCARED OF OBAMA! YOU NEED TO WATCH GLENN BECK!!!"

come the fuck on.

Corganist
08-11-2009, 04:51 PM
and especially not poor, white, southern america.

I think poor, white, southern America is more my scene than most people here. There may be some racial resentment of Obama, no doubt. But it doesn't bleed into every little policy choice people take. People didn't decide government spending and universal healthcare were bad ideas because a black man happens to be president. The very idea is insulting.

look, clearly not all opponents of health care reform are racists. they don't all think obama is a nazi...or a fascist...or socialist? whatever the fuck the current nonsensical meme is. they aren't all distressed about their america being taken away from them. but as i already said, the ones who do think this way are grabbing all of the attention and are being encouraged by lobbying firms and GOP politicians. there is a debate to be had. and one side just doesn't want to have it.

you may say that the "librul media" is giving these nuts all the attention. and to a point that is an unfortunate truth. but they're the only people the conservative media/politicians are paying attention to as well.

The story isn't necessarily what these vocal protesters say or do. It's the fact that the Dems have been so woefully unable to deal with them in anything resembling an intelligent manner. They could shut up a great deal of the protesters just by reading the bill (or just saying they did, for crying out loud) and prove that they're not trying to sell snake oil. Instead, the Dems have tried to marginalize these people, called them un-American, and suggested that they're all GOP operatives.

It's Joe the Plumber all over again. The Dems MO is always "attack first, ask questions later" when it comes to regular people questioning their policies. Sure, sometimes they luck out and can tear down the questioners. But still, all the regular folks with legitimate concerns see just how dissent gets treated by the left. You can't pretend that this is a winning strategy for the left, regardless of whether these vocal protesters are GOP operatives or what have you.

Nimrod's Son
08-11-2009, 04:55 PM
The most vocal people do indeed seem to be severely misinformed and more likely to be pissed off about a black democrat in office than anything else.

No, those are the people on the news, because that's who the media chooses to show. Also really at what point do you just assume they're racists?

Nimrod's Son
08-11-2009, 04:58 PM
Alren Specter's nationally broadcast town hall:
TheHill.com - Raucous Specter town hall turns into TV event (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/raucous-specter-town-hall-turns-into-tv-event-2009-08-11.html)

Corganist
08-11-2009, 05:03 PM
i mean shit, corganist. you're not an idiot. are you happy about what's going on at these town halls? wouldn't you rather have conservatives like yourself going and calmly asking good questions about health care? instead of clueless idiots yelling shit like "I'M SCARED OF OBAMA! WE'RE ALL SCARED OF OBAMA! YOU NEED TO WATCH GLENN BECK!!!"

come the fuck on.

I have no doubt that the crazies show up in full force for these things, and they do make their whole side look bad. But both sides have that to deal with, and I just didn't see a similar amount of handwringing about the crazies who populated all the Iraq protests in years past. How many Bush effigies do you suppose have been lynched and/or burned since 2001?

As for the town halls, I don't necessarily have much problem with what's been going on at them. It'd be nice if everyone could have a nice civil debate on the issues...but that's never really been the way of American public discourse, has it? I mean, this country has a tradition that includes protesting taxes by grabbing the tax collector and tarring and feathering him. We've come a long way since then, but we haven't come that far. And personally, I think a rowdy and relatively uncontrolled crowd is a lot truer to the "town hall" format than the sterilized, carefully hand-picked question and answer session we usually get.

Would I like to see a little more intelligence and a lot less ranting? Yes. But from what I've seen thus far, at least some of the ranting is justified.

J.H.
08-11-2009, 05:18 PM
Because a lot of it IS racially motivated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just not in tune with the reality of poor, white America.


That's far from the mark.

First, does anyone actually believe that at present there are 44 million uninsured Americans who want health insurance and absolutely cannot afford it?

It's not true.

This health care flap is a proxy for a debate about the correct level of government intervention in the economy and personal life. In purchasing banks, motor companies and insurance companies over the past year, the federal government has taken an unprecedented stake in the economy. Meanwhile, the national unemployment rate is 9.4% (the real level is closer to 15%) and a new wave of mortgage defaults is on the horizon.

Were President Obama to bring the economy back from this precipice, he would inspire loads of genuine confidence and be fondly remembered for all time as the greatest president in modern history. The mint would begin striking his likeness on coins before the current term is up. In his second term, he would pass health care reform without opposition, like Tom Brady marching down the field in the two minute drill.

I have little -- if any -- approbation for how these protesters have been expressing themselves lately. I also think their noise-making at least comes from a place of valid concern; pity they aren't better expressing it. But to write off their views as racist or ignorant is to be missing out entirely on the debate.

When you have a bias toward one side, whichever, sometimes you have to go looking for the substance of the opposing argument - you cannot expect that it will come directly to you. That's what it means to biased; from such a porch, even legitimate concerns are easily overlooked.

28if
08-11-2009, 05:21 PM
I think poor, white, southern America is more my scene than most people here. There may be some racial resentment of Obama, no doubt. But it doesn't bleed into every little policy choice people take.

You obviously do not understand racism at all. Nobody labels themself a "racist," it's just a subconscious bias/hatred that DOES permeate their every decision or belief.

People didn't decide government spending and universal healthcare were bad ideas because a black man happens to be president. The very idea is insulting.

The thing is, they DID. Maybe not consciously, but it happens and has happened. Your denial of this fact displays your immense disconnect from the reality of American culture. A lot of these people think Obama is a MUSLIM for crying out loud. They will reject every one of his policies because they are scared of what he is doing to their country. They have this false belief that the Constitution was founded on these insane nonexistent Christian principles and they think Obama is undermining them. It's ridiculous, but it's true.

J.H.
08-11-2009, 05:29 PM
The independent voters, who elected him but do not support his health care reform, are racist?

J.H.
08-11-2009, 05:30 PM
Democrats have a filibuster proof majority and still cannot pass this legislation.

And it's because of racist rednecks?

Democrats could pass a bill switching the names of colors red and green, and no one could stop them. But rather than admit there are genuine concerns about this bill, you explain the issue with racism. Yet racism clearly does not explain why universal health care is not a reality, at present.

Maybe the congressmen are racists, too. What do you think?

Corganist
08-11-2009, 05:42 PM
You obviously do not understand racism at all. Nobody labels themself a "racist," it's just a subconscious bias/hatred that DOES permeate their every decision or belief.

But they actually have to be racist before racism can permeate their every decision and belief. You have shown no reason whatsoever to back up your assertion that race is an issue here. "It just is," is not the right answer.


The thing is, they DID. Maybe not consciously, but it happens and has happened. Your denial of this fact displays your immense disconnect from the reality of American culture. A lot of these people think Obama is a MUSLIM for crying out loud. They will reject every one of his policies because they are scared of what he is doing to their country. They have this false belief that the Constitution was founded on these insane nonexistent Christian principles and they think Obama is undermining them. It's ridiculous, but it's true.

Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but haven't most of these protesters been showing up at town halls being held by WHITE democratic congresspersons? Your attempt to shoehorn this issue into the racism box by bringing up non sequiturs like the "Obama is a Muslim" crowd is getting ridiculous. I'm not a racist, so maybe I can't get into the mindset well enough, but I don't see how yelling at old white man Arlen Specter about the shortcomings of the health care bill is supposed to get across a deep seeded racial hatred of Barack Obama.

28if
08-11-2009, 06:07 PM
The independent voters, who elected him but do not support his health care reform, are racist?

I repeat (again), that is not what I said. I think a lot of the screaming masses at the recent town hall meetings are motivated by racism, whether consciously or not.

But they actually have to be racist before racism can permeate their every decision and belief. You have shown no reason whatsoever to back up your assertion that race is an issue here. "It just is," is not the right answer.

Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but haven't most of these protesters been showing up at town halls being held by WHITE democratic congresspersons? Your attempt to shoehorn this issue into the racism box by bringing up non sequiturs like the "Obama is a Muslim" crowd is getting ridiculous. I'm not a racist, so maybe I can't get into the mindset well enough, but I don't see how yelling at old white man Arlen Specter about the shortcomings of the health care bill is supposed to get across a deep seeded racial hatred of Barack Obama.

I'm not attempting to shoehorn anything. Race was one point of my OP on this page, you just took off with it.

ravenguy2000
08-11-2009, 06:24 PM
And it's because of racist rednecks?


It's because our government should serve to protect voters from corporations when in reality serves to protect corporations from voters. Much of the debate is racially charged, which is interesting but pretty incidental to the overall picture. It really has more to do with class but we cling fast to our American mythology that requires us to pretend that we live in a classless society, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc so race ends up being a proxy for class much of the time.

Bottom line is our health care system is a disaster but there's no (or little) political will the change it. That's the death of it right there whether or not someone comes up with a good bill.

Gish08
08-11-2009, 07:42 PM
At the rate this debate (or lack thereof) is going, Democrats are fucked when it comes to health care. If they can't have some kind of positive impact and keep trying anyway, they're going to lose a considerable amount of seats in 2010 and Obama's reputation will be severely damaged.

The unfortunate thing is that these people are totally misinformed and are spewing blind angst from town to town. It doesn't bode well for Congress, the President, the state of health care (whether you like it or not) and so many people who are getting put on the backburner because a real conversation about reform is being tainted by mostly old stupid people.

Even with a majority in the House and Senate, Obama will still likely pull the plug on legitimate reform just like Clinton did because it doesn't poll well with Americans.

All of the statements being made about reform and how it makes the government too intrusive is nowhere in the four bills that are floating around Congress right now. Right-wingers can go eat a dick.

Corganist
08-11-2009, 08:07 PM
At what point do the Dems realize that it's just possible that the reason their health care reform ideas are unpopular is because they are bad ideas (or good ideas being promoted very badly) and not because more than half the country are drooling racist morons?

I mean, again, most people supporting this stuff (and to be fair, those opposing it as well) haven't even read the bill, much less can they explain what's in it. The protesting is not coming from people being "misinformed" about the bill. It's from people on both sides being "uninformed." At least the people against the bill have an excuse for being uninformed. They didn't write the thing. What is the excuse for all of these clueless congressional democrats?

28if
08-11-2009, 08:08 PM
At the rate this debate (or lack thereof) is going, Democrats are fucked when it comes to health care. If they can't have some kind of positive impact and keep trying anyway, they're going to lose a considerable amount of seats in 2010 and Obama's reputation will be severely damaged.

The unfortunate thing is that these people are totally misinformed and are spewing blind angst from town to town. It doesn't bode well for Congress, the President, the state of health care (whether you like it or not) and so many people who are getting put on the backburner because a real conversation about reform is being tainted by mostly old stupid people.

Even with a majority in the House and Senate, Obama will still likely pull the plug on legitimate reform just like Clinton did because it doesn't poll well with Americans.

All of the statements being made about reform and how it makes the government too intrusive is nowhere in the four bills that are floating around Congress right now. Right-wingers can go eat a dick.

I think it's going to pass and the Republicans are going to end up fucking themselves over again. I guess we'll see.

Gish08
08-11-2009, 08:15 PM
At what point do the Dems realize that it's just possible that the reason their health care reform ideas are unpopular is because they are bad ideas (or good ideas being promoted very badly) and not because more than half the country are drooling racist morons?
They're good ideas being promoted very badly if anything. And all of the noise coming from people who only serve one purpose, and that is to obstruct, does not help the situation.

Moderate Democrats (Conservatives in any other place but UAE or something, but whatever) did not help the start of this initiative. It gave Republicans more confidence and people on the ground opposed to it even more pride. Not that they're solely to blame, but behind closed doors, I think these people will be the biggest challenge to those in Congress who favor reform. Public opinion dropping does not help their cause, either.

Nimrod's Son
08-11-2009, 08:23 PM
Moderate Democrats (Conservatives in any other place but UAE or something, but whatever) did not help the start of this initiative. .

Man you really have a hardon for every country but the US don't you

Gish08
08-11-2009, 08:29 PM
Hell no, UAE can fuck off.

28if
08-11-2009, 11:36 PM
Man you really have a hardon for every country but the US don't you

Doesn't make it any less true.

Nimrod's Son
08-12-2009, 02:07 AM
"True." What a strange word to use.

Starla
08-12-2009, 02:41 AM
I'm talking about the fuckers protesting with guns outside town halls.

They were kickin ass.

Future Boy
08-12-2009, 04:21 AM
You obviously do not understand racism at all. Nobody labels themself a "racist," it's just a subconscious bias/hatred that DOES permeate their every decision or belief.


I think some people do actually label themselves as racists. But that aside, how many of those that dont support reform would you say do so because of race. Ballpark, how many out of 10.

Future Boy
08-12-2009, 04:23 AM
plus that armed poor white southerner made it pretty far north

Trotskilicious
08-12-2009, 03:19 PM
hey guys

health care controversy : motivated by fear

questions over obama's legitimacy as an american citizen : Latent racism

just so you are clear

Karl Connor
08-12-2009, 04:04 PM
if obamacare is going to be such a disaster then why don't conservatives just let it pass so obama & co. can be voted out?

Future Boy
08-12-2009, 05:06 PM
I dont think its so much about letting it pass, they cant actually block it, can they? I think repubs are just using this to fire up their side and strip aways idiots with the whole socialism stuff. This is purely a democratic fuck up, repubs are just exploiting it.

Trotskilicious
08-12-2009, 05:39 PM
politricks as usu-al