# Health Care as a Human Right



## midcan5 (Feb 21, 2008)

I was just arguing this exact point in the other thread. 


"We Are Not Free - Health Care as a Human Right"
By Helen Redmond

"At the core of the idea that health care is a human right is freedom. The for-profit health care system in the United States severely restricts our freedom in a number of subtle and not so subtle ways. Instead of freedom there is fear.

The health care crisis impacts every aspect of our lives down to the most seemingly insignificant personal decisions we make. This national bully terrorizes and forces us to live in fear. It determines what is possible and not possible, it crushes hopes and dreams and imprisons people into lives they did not choose. For decades in this country we have accepted the barbaric consequences of a profit driven health care system that bullies and denies us basic freedoms. Therefore, we are not free."

http://www.counterpunch.org/redmond02212008.html


----------



## CrpRavens30 (Feb 21, 2008)

Health Care is not a human right..


----------



## Taomon (Feb 21, 2008)

CrpRavens30 said:


> Health Care is not a human right..



http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


This doesn't explicitely state that health care is a right, but it also does not state that we must be subject to economic servitude to healthcare.

I am not so sure that healthcare should be free for all citizens. I would be happy if it were just affordable.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
> 
> Article 25.
> (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
> ...



Hey bozo, we live under *United States *law - not UN "law".


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 21, 2008)

CrpRavens30 said:


> Health Care is not a human right..



Why not?


----------



## Taomon (Feb 21, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Hey bozo, we live under *United States *law - not UN "law".



Who do you think wrote that law?


----------



## Taomon (Feb 21, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Hey bozo, we live under *United States *law - not UN "law".



So, do you believe that it is good for private industry to fleece working class people for necessary medical care & drugs?


----------



## CrpRavens30 (Feb 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So, do you believe that it is good for private industry to fleece working class people for necessary medical care & drugs?



How are they fleecing the people? If anyone is at fault for the rising healthcare costs its the lawyers..


----------



## Taomon (Feb 21, 2008)

CrpRavens30 said:


> How are they fleecing the people? If anyone is at fault for the rising healthcare costs its the lawyers..



No, the rising cost of healthcare is due to two factors. Corporate Greed and Pharmaceutical Companies.

I worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield for three years. Each year the premiums and costs went up. Each year more was taken out of our checks to pay for the Blue Cross Insurance. Each year, the CEOs gave themselves substantial bonuses. This is a greed factor.

Pharmaceutical Companies have not been developing new drugs to cover the patents that are expiring. So they are charging more.

Deregulation on price controls have made it easier for companies to charge whatever they want and there is nothing that consumers can do. The deregulation was put into place so that companies can competitively price...and the prices were projected to drop. But the prices have skyrocketed because there is no oversight. And consumers have only two options, buy it or not.

Unless you live in MA where it is against the law to not purchase health insurance. Thank God Romney is no longer a presidential candidate.

Malpractice lawsuits do not drive the cost of insurance up. That is a myth. If we take away the right to sue for malpractice, the consumer will be at the mercy of doctors who are incompetent or fraudulent.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 21, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Who do you think wrote that law?


A bunch of do-gooders who originally meant well who wished to investigate gross human rights violations around the world - but who now have been taken over by a bunch of not-so-do-gooders who are anti-American one world order socialists who wish to expand their control.

If you think that lack of socialized medicine is a gross human rights violation you have been brainwashed.



> So, do you believe that it is good for private industry to fleece working class people for necessary medical care & drugs?


The fleecing is a result of the interference of many - lawyers, government regulations, insurance companies, immigration practices, employers, and other third parties that exist in our health care system.  We need to get the bloodsuckers out of the system and allow a free market system to flourish.  Costs will plummet when individuals  directly pay for and control their own health care.

We can head in that direction with the use of HSAs and catastrophic insurance.


----------



## William Joyce (Feb 21, 2008)

If "healthcare" is a human right, why not housing, clothing, food, education... why not communism, straight up, no chaser?  Obama and Hillary and McCain all play footsie with it, why not just get buck naked and f*ck?  It would blow away that tiresome tension between freedom and total state control that just gets everyone confused.


----------



## Detmurds (Feb 22, 2008)

No place in the US Constitution does it say that Free Health Care is a right for Americans!  Enough Said!


----------



## Taomon (Feb 22, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> A bunch of do-gooders who originally meant well who wished to investigate gross human rights violations around the world - but who now have been taken over by a bunch of not-so-do-gooders who are anti-American one world order socialists who wish to expand their control.
> 
> If you think that lack of socialized medicine is a gross human rights violation you have been brainwashed.
> 
> ...



Who is the blind one here? Do you really think Private Industry has your best interest in mind or the maximization of share values in mind? Seriously, we need more regulation and price controls. We need lawyers and consumer rights in cases of negligence. Who is the blind one here? You sound like a Bush sound bite.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 22, 2008)

William Joyce said:


> If "healthcare" is a human right, why not housing, clothing, food, education... why not communism, straight up, no chaser?  Obama and Hillary and McCain all play footsie with it, why not just get buck naked and f*ck?  It would blow away that tiresome tension between freedom and total state control that just gets everyone confused.



I don't believe communism is the answer. Price controls and subsidies are. If necessities like housing, clothing, food and healthcare were simply affordable there would be no need to raise minimum wage and the quality of life would be elevated.

Then, and only then, we could begin to make positives changes in the world by example and foreign policy.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 22, 2008)

Detmurds said:


> No place in the US Constitution does it say that Free Health Care is a right for Americans!  Enough Said!



No where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can charge any price they want for a necessary item such as healthcare, housing, utilities, clothing, food & education.

Enough said!


----------



## jillian (Feb 22, 2008)

CrpRavens30 said:


> How are they fleecing the people? If anyone is at fault for the rising healthcare costs its the lawyers..



That's a lie perpetuated by the AMA and insurance industries.

1) people don't bring malpractice cases that don't have a basis because they're too expensive. 

2) after bringing a med mal case, most states require you to go through a panel to determine merit.

3) if someone does damage to you or yours because of medical malpractice (which can't be something that's an anticipated side effect or danger or a particular treatment) it is likely that the damage they cause will result in death or severe injury which could require lifetime care... 

the same rules are true for a products liability case except that they don't usually have to go through a panel first.

so tell me again why a doctor's liability should be limited to $250,000 when he can cause millions of dollars worth of damage.

oh and a case having merit doesn't mean that you automatically win in court. If you lose, it just means you didn't convince the trier of fact.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Who is the blind one here? Do you really think Private Industry has your best interest in mind or the maximization of share values in mind? Seriously, we need more regulation and price controls. We need lawyers and consumer rights in cases of negligence. Who is the blind one here? You sound like a Bush sound bite.


I believe you are the blind one here since you think it is a "human right" to have socialized medicine.   You believe the government should take over an entire private industry.   Where in the Constitution does it say the government should run private industry?  Where does it say health care is a "human right"?  

The only right you have is _to freely pursue _good health care for your own happiness and well-being.  That can happen in a free market.  Please stop falling for the ignorant liberal socialist mantra that private industry is the source of all evil.  Yes, private industry has profit as its prime motive&#8230;.there is absolutely nothing inherently "evil" in that.  When corps and govt mix is when you typically get the "evil" actions.  

When you have a free market, competition will exist and you, the consumer, gets to choose among various competitive services and prices instead of being fed one option via the socialized rubber stamp approach.  Of course you have to pay for those health services&#8230;.or do you think it's your "human right" to get them for "free"?  Give me a break.  Socialized medicine is NOT free either.  Plus you wind up with no control over your own health care...you essentially go on the "government dole" because they (the govt pinheads) determine what you "should" have and what you "shouldn't"...in other words, no more free CHOICE.  (and here i thought you libs were all about "choice")

We need more deregulation to get the government and other bloodsucking third parties OUTof the health care industry.   When products and services exist in a competitive and free market the customer always benefits.

Of course your next beef is what about the poor who can't even pay the lower costs?  There will always be a small minority who cannot pay and these people must depend upon charity - which is abundant in a free and prosperous society.  However, most hardworking people can afford decent health care in a free market.  That used to be the case here in the U.S. but ever since government and other gouging third parties got involved, prices have escalated.  Getting rid of them is our challenge and the solution to our health care crisis, not expanding government interference.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Feb 22, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Of course your next beef is what about the poor who can't even pay the lower costs?  There will always be a small minority who cannot pay and these people must depend upon charity - which is abundant in a free and prosperous society.  However, most hardworking people can afford decent health care in a free market.  That used to be the case here in the U.S. but ever since government and other gouging third parties got involved, prices have escalated.  Getting rid of them is our challenge and the solution to our health care crisis, not expanding government interference.


The poor people are the one's universal health care was designed for. Private industry cannot handle our health care needs. Capitalism is nice and all, but in moderation. To take a line from clinton "we need to stop letting the insurance companies decide who lives and who dies in this country". Charity is no where near enough of the help these people need. If we already had enough charity, then there wouldn't even be talk about universal health care.


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 22, 2008)

jillian said:


> That's a lie perpetuated by the AMA and insurance industries.
> 
> 1) people don't bring malpractice cases that don't have a basis because they're too expensive.
> 
> ...



Well...if you ever develop a tumor....go see a lawyer.....


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 22, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> The poor people are the one's universal health care was designed for. Private industry cannot handle our health care needs. Capitalism is nice and all, but in moderation. To take a line from clinton "we need to stop letting the insurance companies decide who lives and who dies in this country". Charity is no where near enough of the help these people need. If we already had enough charity, then there wouldn't even be talk about universal health care.



Only 12% of the population is poor.  Skyrocketing health care costs are affecting the lives of more than just the poor.  The reason for skyrocketing health care costs is because third parties are getting in the way of the private health care industry.  There are too many layers of bureaucracy.  Without interference, private industry CAN handle our health care needs.

I agree with that line of Clinton.  We absolutely need to get the insurance companies out of our health care decisions.  However, we do NOT need to substitute government control in place of the insurance companies.   Government already has too much of a hand in the health care business and it is NOT doing a good job...just take a gander at Medicare.  Medicare is essentially the same as socialized medicine.  We need to put the control back into the hands of the consumer.  For that we need a free market without so many controls.

Charity could come from government aid, like in the form of health care vouchers to the poor who qualify for it.  
There is absolutely no reason to become a socialist state just to cater to 12% of the population.  You bleeding heart liberals are just suckers for the socialists who have the ulterior goal to control you.


----------



## Detmurds (Feb 22, 2008)

Taomon said:


> No where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can charge any price they want for a necessary item such as healthcare, housing, utilities, clothing, food & education.
> 
> Enough said!



If government would just stop taxing the hell out of them it wouldn't be a problem!  Government knows this and they also know that you don't!


----------



## jillian (Feb 22, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Well...if you ever develop a tumor....go see a lawyer.....



What a stupid comment.


----------



## Detmurds (Feb 22, 2008)

Hey Jillian, ...is that crickets I hear?  It got quiet!


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 23, 2008)

If healthcare isn't a human right, then what sort of "good" is it?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

Detmurds said:


> If government would just stop taxing the hell out of them it wouldn't be a problem!  Government knows this and they also know that you don't!



Here is a great article explaining the falacies with these socialistic agendas.


Prices 

The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don't appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency. 

For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources. 

The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource. 

The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price. 

Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market. 

From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency. 

Profits and Losses 

Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses. 

By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences. 

Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated. 

Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure. 

Private Property Rights 

A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a "tragedy of commons" on a global scale. 

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource. 

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement. 

Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the "common ownership of the means of production," the failure of socialism is a "tragedy of the commons" on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights. 

As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe. 


http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4014


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2008)

jillian said:


> That's a lie perpetuated by the AMA and insurance industries.
> 
> 1) people don't bring malpractice cases that don't have a basis because they're too expensive.
> 
> ...



Remind me again about how medical malpractice is so hard to prove and to expensive to bring unless real. I watch daily adds by a law firm advertising that Cerebral Palsy is a condition that happens because a doctor screwed up a delivery and is not a disease.

I suggest you research John Edwards career and see some of the truly ignorant things he has managed to convince juries to agree with.

Remind us again why some places are without doctors for child birth and other specific conditions, not because no one is available but because the lawsuits are so thick and heavy and costly that no doctor can afford insurance to practice that procedure in that area.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 23, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> I believe you are the blind one here since you think it is a "human right" to have socialized medicine.   You believe the government should take over an entire private industry.   Where in the Constitution does it say the government should run private industry?  Where does it say health care is a "human right"?


Actually, I never said it was a human right to have socialized medicine...nice try. I do believe it is our right to have access to adequate medical care and health insurance seems to have changed into another class caste enabler. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can withhold medical care from the working class? If I am shot am I not afforded the right to be treated by a qualified physician? Do I not have the right to medical care? The health insurance industry seems to have a say in where and when I get treatment. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry dictates my medical care? 



ScreamingEagle said:


> The only right you have is _to freely pursue _good health care for your own happiness and well-being.  That can happen in a free market.  Please stop falling for the ignorant liberal socialist mantra that private industry is the source of all evil.  Yes, private industry has profit as its prime motive.there is absolutely nothing inherently "evil" in that.  When corps and govt mix is when you typically get the "evil" actions.


Freely pursue within a free market at a price. What if one cannot afford that price? Does one not deserve that service? If I have a family of four and earn slightly above minimum wage, do I not deserve heat in the winter, a roof over our heads? I don't believe in socialist redistribution of wealth, but I do believe in price controls and subsidies. Healthcare, utilities, housing, clothing, education and food should all be affordable. These are necessities of intelligent life. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> When you have a free market, competition will exist and you, the consumer, gets to choose among various competitive services and prices instead of being fed one option via the socialized rubber stamp approach.  Of course you have to pay for those health services.or do you think it's your "human right" to get them for "free"?  Give me a break.  Socialized medicine is NOT free either.  Plus you wind up with no control over your own health care...you essentially go on the "government dole" because they (the govt pinheads) determine what you "should" have and what you "shouldn't"...in other words, no more free CHOICE.  (and here i thought you libs were all about "choice")


This free market competition concept works in theory only. Greed is the factor is always left out. The reality is that most people have to settle for insurance that does not cover necessary procedures and things like "_preventive care_." Usually they are not part of a health plan or have high, (usually unattainable) premiums attached. Of course, one can always destroy one's create by getting necessary procedures and owing the facilities that perform them. *That *is the free market system as we know it. Again, I don't think healthcare should be free, just affordable.



ScreamingEagle said:


> We need more deregulation to get the government and other bloodsucking third parties OUTof the health care industry.   When products and services exist in a competitive and free market the customer always benefits.


What? When has that ever happened? Deregulation allows companies to charge any price they want. Competition does force prices down, or have you not noticed that? In MA we are required by law to buy Auto Insurance if one drives a car. The prices are through the roof. There is two auto insurance companies that are very cheap. They don't cover a lot and claims are almost impossible to get approved. Do you think that we should have the same situation for healthcare? We need regulation to enforce a pricing system that is fair. We need regulation to ensure that certain standards are in place within every health care plan. We need regulation to keep the private insurance companies from running amok.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Of course your next beef is what about the poor who can't even pay the lower costs?  There will always be a small minority who cannot pay and these people must depend upon charity - which is abundant in a free and prosperous society.  However, most hardworking people can afford decent health care in a free market.  That used to be the case here in the U.S. but ever since government and other gouging third parties got involved, prices have escalated.  Getting rid of them is our challenge and the solution to our health care crisis, not expanding government interference.


Actually you are wrong. The poor get healthcare for free. I can live with that. The problem is that the working class cannot afford decent healthcare. Where do you live that the working class can afford this?

I am fortunate enough to work in an industry that pays me well, according to experience and ability. This was not always the case. I used to work for Blue Cross and I could not afford the insurance, but needed it. It hurt us financially to pay for it. There is no help for working families because if you earn minimum wage or higher, you earn _too much_ as they say.

People who work at Wal-Mart earn just above minimum wage. How are they able to afford decent health insurance?

Prices have escalated because of the pharma-industry is basically in crisis mode. Most patents are running out. Instead of developing new drugs, most companies are spending millions on finding new uses for already existing drugs...and extending those patents for another 10 years. When a patent runs out, generic labels can imitate the drug. This cuts into profits, but benefits the consumer.

I work for a biotech. The Capital Group Companies, Inc bought a big portion of shares (not nearly a controlling share amount), basically enough to influence the board of directors. This investment group is famous for buying companies, gutting them and selling them for profits. They tried to influence the board to sell the company.

We were looked at by Phizer and Johnson & Johnson. That was when I learned about the current state of the pharma-industry. Biotech is the future and pharmas are fading out.

In addition to this, insurance companies do not have any regulation from raising prices. I am curious, what state do you live in? I would love to see how your boasts compare to the realistic statistics in your area. 

I live in MA and all citizens 18 and older are required by law to purchase health insurance. We had a problem because most of the workers could not afford the high cost of healthcare, the high cost of housing, the high taxes, the high cost of food and so on. Mitt Romney saw a solution...force citizens to buy insurance. Now we do have various plans according to affordability. This plays out exactly as I told you, higher cost coverage has more benefits and lower cost coverage has little or almost none. So basically the upper middle class can have decent coverage and the lower middle class is at the emergency room with the sniffles. *That *is the free market for you.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind me again about how medical malpractice is so hard to prove and to expensive to bring unless real. I watch daily adds by a law firm advertising that Cerebral Palsy is a condition that happens because a doctor screwed up a delivery and is not a disease.
> 
> I suggest you research John Edwards career and see some of the truly ignorant things he has managed to convince juries to agree with.
> 
> Remind us again why some places are without doctors for child birth and other specific conditions, not because no one is available but because the lawsuits are so thick and heavy and costly that no doctor can afford insurance to practice that procedure in that area.



You cannot prove your contentions. And John Edwards is a good man. He was a lawyer who stood up for the little people against the tyranny of private industry, and you demonize him for it?


----------



## jillian (Feb 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind me again about how medical malpractice is so hard to prove and to expensive to bring unless real. I watch daily adds by a law firm advertising that Cerebral Palsy is a condition that happens because a doctor screwed up a delivery and is not a disease.
> 
> I suggest you research John Edwards career and see some of the truly ignorant things he has managed to convince juries to agree with.
> 
> Remind us again why some places are without doctors for child birth and other specific conditions, not because no one is available but because the lawsuits are so thick and heavy and costly that no doctor can afford insurance to practice that procedure in that area.



John Edwards career???

Yeah, he really sucks, doesn't he?

http://www.monkeytime.org/lakey.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/06/ng.01.html


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2008)

jillian said:


> John Edwards career???
> 
> Yeah, he really sucks, doesn't he?
> 
> ...



Remind us again how Cerebral Palsy is caused by a bad doctor. How birth defects can somehow be turned into malpractice by shyster lawyers like Edwards.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind us again how Cerebral Palsy is caused by a bad doctor. How birth defects can somehow be turned into malpractice by shyster lawyers like Edwards.



Prove that John Edwards did such things.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Prove that John Edwards did such things.



Do the research, I am not your errand boy.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Do the research, I am not your errand boy.


Oh no you don't. You made it quite clear not too long ago, that when one makes a statement, one must back it up with evidence.

Twice you made disparaging comments about John Edwards without a shred of evidence. The burdon of proof lies with you. That is how this game is played. Either put up or shut up.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 23, 2008)

Good debate. Consider for a moment the novel idea that in a democracy the people create what comes to be a 'right,' and sooner or latter the common folk are going to wake up - actually that may be happening now - and say, hey, I too would like to have heathcare. Hmm... darn is that a sorta socialistic communistic democractic idea or what.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 23, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Good debate. Consider for a moment the novel idea that in a democracy the people create what comes to be a 'right,' and sooner or latter the common folk are going to wake up - actually that may be happening now - and say, hey, I too would like to have heathcare. Hmm... darn is that a sorta socialistic communistic democractic idea or what.



If the people get tired of having 30 percent of their paychecks stolen maybe they will revolt against the government.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 23, 2008)

Stolen?  How so? explain.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Oh no you don't. You made it quite clear not too long ago, that when one makes a statement, one must back it up with evidence.
> 
> Twice you made disparaging comments about John Edwards without a shred of evidence. The burdon of proof lies with you. That is how this game is played. Either put up or shut up.



Eat my shit. His case history is a matter of public record. Nothing nefarious or tough about it at all. I have no interest in posting articles for you that you won't read and won't accept.

He made his money by convincing Juries he knew what babies thought or felt before they were born. His big cases were not proven they were games of him selling the jury on his opinion.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 23, 2008)

Taomon said:


> Actually, I never said it was a human right to have socialized medicine...nice try. I do believe it is our right to have access to adequate medical care and health insurance seems to have changed into another class caste enabler. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry can withhold medical care from the working class? If I am shot am I not afforded the right to be treated by a qualified physician? Do I not have the right to medical care? The health insurance industry seems to have a say in where and when I get treatment. Where in the Constitution does it say that private industry dictates my medical care?


Yet the things you say leads one to that conclusion.  And you already have the right to access to adequate health care - you just have to pay for it.

The fact that you can't pay for it is why you fall back on the class argument....despite the fact you are a member of the richest working class in the history of the world, a typical 2car, 2TV, 2cell phone family, (and nobody really in need sits for 4+ hours in emergency) you think you are poor and downtrodden.  Boohoo.  

If you are shot there is nothing in the Constitution that says anybody must save you.  You do not have a "right" to medical care.  As God-fearing people, however, we believe it is a moral duty for others to help you if they can&#8230;.but now we are getting into "religion" and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?  Although you might have a new respect for pro-lifers when seculars take over and decide not to give you medical care because you're not worth it...too old, too sick, whatever...all for the greater good, of course.

Yes, the health insurance providers do have a lot to say today about your medical care&#8230;.too much in fact - I believe that is wrong&#8230;you and your doctor should be in control&#8230;.and yes, there is nothing in the Constitution that says they should dictate your health care...we agree on that.



Taomon said:


> Freely pursue within a free market at a price. What if one cannot afford that price? Does one not deserve that service? If I have a family of four and earn slightly above minimum wage, do I not deserve heat in the winter, a roof over our heads? I don't believe in socialist redistribution of wealth, but I do believe in price controls and subsidies. Healthcare, utilities, housing, clothing, education and food should all be affordable. These are necessities of intelligent life.


If you cannot afford the price, you either need to make more money or vote for change.  Change can be for either more government involvement or less.   I think it's already been proven that more is not the best route.

If you have a family of 4 and only earn slightly above minimum wage, that does not mean you deserve anything.  What it really means is you are an irresponsible person for having a family when you cannot afford one.  Why should I pay for your stupid mistakes?   It means you better get two jobs or else learn how to make more money per hour.



Taomon said:


> This free market competition concept works in theory only. Greed is the factor is always left out. The reality is that most people have to settle for insurance that does not cover necessary procedures and things like "_preventive care_." Usually they are not part of a health plan or have high, (usually unattainable) premiums attached. Of course, one can always destroy one's create by getting necessary procedures and owing the facilities that perform them. *That *is the free market system as we know it. Again, I don't think healthcare should be free, just affordable.


This free market competition works real well for the most part.  Just because there are some glitches does not mean we need to scrap the whole idea.  Greed is a factor found in any economic system.  Competition is what keeps greed under control.



Taomon said:


> What? When has that ever happened? Deregulation allows companies to charge any price they want. Competition does force prices down, or have you not noticed that? In MA we are required by law to buy Auto Insurance if one drives a car. The prices are through the roof. There is two auto insurance companies that are very cheap. They don't cover a lot and claims are almost impossible to get approved. Do you think that we should have the same situation for healthcare? We need regulation to enforce a pricing system that is fair. We need regulation to ensure that certain standards are in place within every health care plan. We need regulation to keep the private insurance companies from running amok.


Regulation to enforce price fixing is socialism.  Show me a true socialist system that has worked so well you that you've had dreams of living under it&#8230;.like the once great USSR?  How about Maoist style?  I'm sure you'd love the health care system in Cuba.  Hey, Venezuela is going socialist today&#8230;.quick, change countries!   Socialism and evil seem to go together.  Why is it people cannot learn from history? 



			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> Actually you are wrong. The poor get healthcare for free. I can live with that. The problem is that the working class cannot afford decent healthcare. Where do you live that the working class can afford this?
> 
> I am fortunate enough to work in an industry that pays me well, according to experience and ability. This was not always the case. I used to work for Blue Cross and I could not afford the insurance, but needed it. It hurt us financially to pay for it. There is no help for working families because if you earn minimum wage or higher, you earn _too much_ as they say.
> 
> ...



Looks like Romney's government decree is not working.  Forced car insurance doesn't work either.  Seems every time I'm hit it's by some slacker without insurance.

Where'd you get the idea I've been boasting about anything?  I happen to agree with you that health care prices have skyrocketed, however,  I disagree with you on how to solve the problems..  IMO cradle-to-grave socialism is NOT the answer.  Some better approaches:

1. Reform the tax treatment of health care expenses - to level the playing field & lower costs.
2. Promote portable, nationwide insurance - to help provide lower cost insurance options.
3. Reduce barriers to entry - to help increase the supply of doctors, nurses, etc.
4. Address head-on the costs of treating the chronically ill - provide direct subsidies to purchase insurance.
5. Allow market forces to work - put the consumers in charge.

http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/ne...emarket_solution_for_us_health_care_20040506/


----------



## Taomon (Feb 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Eat my shit. His case history is a matter of public record. Nothing nefarious or tough about it at all. I have no interest in posting articles for you that you won't read and won't accept.
> 
> He made his money by convincing Juries he knew what babies thought or felt before they were born. His big cases were not proven they were games of him selling the jury on his opinion.



So basically, you cannot prove it. I take it that you did a google search and could not find a verifiable source for your lies? RGS, if I stated that George W Bush raped a woman and that she tried to sue him (a police report does actually exist) you would demand that I provide proof...and even then you would probably dismiss it anyhow.

But the fact is that if I made the contention, the burdon of proof is on me. You screamed as much to me many times. You seem to think that the rule doesn't apply to you, and it does.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 24, 2008)

Taomon said:


> So basically, you cannot prove it. I take it that you did a google search and could not find a verifiable source for your lies? RGS, if I stated that George W Bush raped a woman and that she tried to sue him (a police report does actually exist) you would demand that I provide proof...and even then you would probably dismiss it anyhow.
> 
> But the fact is that if I made the contention, the burdon of proof is on me. You screamed as much to me many times. You seem to think that the rule doesn't apply to you, and it does.
> 
> Put up or shut up.



Sorry but not gonna play. Do your own google, once again it is public record, easily found and if you do the search you will read what you find. If I provide links you will just ignore them.

What I find funny is your absolute ignorance on so many issues. what are you? 18?


----------



## Taomon (Feb 24, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Yet the things you say leads one to that conclusion.  And you already have the right to access to adequate health care - you just have to pay for it.
> 
> The fact that you can't pay for it is why you fall back on the class argument....despite the fact you are a member of the richest working class in the history of the world, a typical 2car, 2TV, 2cell phone family, (and nobody really in need sits for 4+ hours in emergency) you think you are poor and downtrodden.  Boohoo.


The things I say leads you to believe, that is not a universal phenomena. You think that about me because you cannot think outside of your limited scope. Anything that even remotely sounds socialistic you automatically deem as such and apply false statements to. I pity you for that. We as a society have certain social responsibilities. That is a fact.

I never claimed to be poor. In fact, I was not complaining for me at all. I was complaining for the millions of lower middle class people who cannot afford to survive - let alone buy insurance. As well to do as I am, I do not have 2 cars. Television is a luxury that I can afford. My cell phone is a business expense. I am moving into the upper middle class area financially. And there are many more who cannot.

When I worked at Blue Cross (and I don't anymore), I was at the lowest end of the working class scale. Not poor enough for assistance and not earning enough to pay for food, rent *and *clothes for my kids. There are plenty of people in that boat. And I am speaking for them. You talk as though you are comfortable and everyone doesn't matter. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> If you are shot there is nothing in the Constitution that says anybody must save you.  You do not have a "right" to medical care.  As God-fearing people, however, we believe it is a moral duty for others to help you if they can.but now we are getting into "religion" and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?  Although you might have a new respect for pro-lifers when seculars take over and decide not to give you medical care because you're not worth it...too old, too sick, whatever...all for the greater good, of course.


Actually, it may not be in the Constitution...but if I am shot and no one does anything to help me, they have broken the law. I do have a right to necessary medical care. It comes at a cost (premiums, bills & credit collection calls). I think you misjudge people too quickly and too harshly. Do you really think someone who is pro-choice would decide not to give me medical care for some petty reason? If so, then you do not understand the pro-choice position and are making assumptions that you cannot prove.



ScreamingEagle said:


> If you cannot afford the price, you either need to make more money or vote for change.  Change can be for either more government involvement or less.   I think it's already been proven that more is not the best route.
> 
> If you have a family of 4 and only earn slightly above minimum wage, that does not mean you deserve anything.  What it really means is you are an irresponsible person for having a family when you cannot afford one.  Why should I pay for your stupid mistakes?   It means you better get two jobs or else learn how to make more money per hour.


Wow, that is the coldest thing I ever heard someone say. Do you really believe people wake up and say "hmm, I want to let my kids go hungry today." Or maybe love is not allowed to be in this equation? So you fall in love, get married and have a kid or two. That is wrong if you are poor and lower class because you cannot afford it?

That is one of the things wrong about our society. Human emotion is only allowed to be used when guiding the masses through an election. As a matter of public policy, emotion is not allowed. Love is not allowed. Family issues are not allowed. 

Why should you pay for some one's stupid mistakes? One, having a child is not a stupid mistake. And two, we are a society and we have a social responsibility towards each other. You will be taxed no matter what. Would you rather the money go to Bureaucrats, military quagmires or social programs that help working class people who are struggling?

Personally, I would want to see price controls and subsidies that drive the cost of living down. Food, shelter, healthcare, education, utilities, and clothing should never be unattainable. And it would not matter if you made minimum wage if the cost of living were lower. Greed and apathy drive this and you exemplified it in your post.



ScreamingEagle said:


> This free market competition works real well for the most part.  Just because there are some glitches does not mean we need to scrap the whole idea.  Greed is a factor found in any economic system.  Competition is what keeps greed under control.


Some glitches? Please show some examples of how competition has kept greed under control. Healthcare is not one of them.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Regulation to enforce price fixing is socialism.  Show me a true socialist system that has worked so well you that you've had dreams of living under it.like the once great USSR?  How about Maoist style?  I'm sure you'd love the health care system in Cuba.  Hey, Venezuela is going socialist today.quick, change countries!   Socialism and evil seem to go together.  Why is it people cannot learn from history?


See, this is what I am talking about. You cannot see the forest for the trees. I never said I wanted to live under corrupt regimes like those you mention here. I do not want to see America become a socialist state. But it requires a little socialism to enforce social responsibility. And the business world has spent trillions of dollars on (since 1945) to drive any notion of that out of our heads. You must be a star pupil.

Socialism isn't evil. The problem with the socialist regimes you mention is one factor; human greed. Those systems were corrupted by human greed. Greed for money and power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So you can only consider solutions that fit the frame of capitalism, otherwise it is socialist and therefore evil? C'mon, you must be smarter than that eagle. Price controls would make healthcare (and other necessary commodities) affordable for the lower working classes.

And let's face it, the following necessities are considered a commodity in our country: Food, shelter, healthcare, clothing, utilities (like heat and electricity) and education. Do you believe that the necessities of life should be a commodity? How do you feel about homeless people? Are they just lazy & irresponsible? Are all homeless people easily generalized like that? Have you ever seen or spoke to a homeless person? The route word there is person.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Looks like Romney's government decree is not working.  Forced car insurance doesn't work either.  Seems every time I'm hit it's by some slacker without insurance.


Slacker or lower working class person who cannot afford it?



ScreamingEagle said:


> Where'd you get the idea I've been boasting about anything?


I meant posting. And socialism can be part of the solution. Don't be so narrow minded about this brother.



ScreamingEagle said:


> 1. Reform the tax treatment of health care expenses - to level the playing field & lower costs.


That only works for upper middle class families. Lower middle class families (of which, I was one for many years) usually have bills to catch up on or a big expense (like a new-used car, medical/dental needs, etc) when they get their taxes. It doesn't really solve anything and takes tax money away from social programs that we need.


ScreamingEagle said:


> 2. Promote portable, nationwide insurance - to help provide lower cost insurance options.


Can you say *MONOPOLY*?


ScreamingEagle said:


> 3. Reduce barriers to entry - to help increase the supply of doctors, nurses, etc.


Can you guarantee a high standard of knowledge and capability from those reduce barrier doctors & nurses? Education is a factor and some changes there could actually increase the amount of available doctors & nurses. 


ScreamingEagle said:


> 4. Address head-on the costs of treating the chronically ill - provide direct subsidies to purchase insurance.


So free healthcare for chronically ill? I can dig that. If we are capable of working we should want to help those who cannot. But we lack solidarity in this country (again, proven by your posts).


ScreamingEagle said:


> 5. Allow market forces to work - put the consumers in charge.


We already know that model does not work. The people in charge of major corporations do not want to relinquish that power.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 24, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry but not gonna play. Do your own google, once again it is public record, easily found and if you do the search you will read what you find. If I provide links you will just ignore them.
> 
> What I find funny is your absolute ignorance on so many issues. what are you? 18?



I am not ignorant. I am 40 years old. I am telling you to put up or shut up. You cannot prove what you said about John Edwards. ou know it and I know it. And now, everyone here knows it.

Nice try old man. Go back to Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Stolen?  How so? explain.



The top 50% wage earners in this country pay 97% of the federal income taxes that is way more than their fair share. Also, the federal government takes taxes collected and gives it to other's. 
steal·ing, noun 
verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force:


----------



## CharlestonChad (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> The top 50% wage earners in this country pay 97% of the federal income taxes that is way more than their fair share. Also, the federal government takes taxes collected and gives it to other's.
> steal·ing, noun
> verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force:



Didn't jesus tell a story about a poor woman going to give her taxes at a temple, and she put one coin in the tray and all the rich laughed, saying "look at that poor woman, she cannot even afford to give more than one coin", and jesus said "that woman may have given one coin, but that one coin was more generous than all of your donations."


----------



## Gunny (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> If the people get tired of having 30 percent of their paychecks stolen maybe they will revolt against the government.



No shit.  I'm imaging how much healthcare insurance I can afford if that 30% was used for MY healthcare instead of providing it for someone who doesn't earn theirs.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Didn't jesus tell a story about a poor woman going to give her taxes at a temple, and she put one coin in the tray and all the rich laughed, saying "look at that poor woman, she cannot even afford to give more than one coin", and jesus said "that woman may have given one coin, but that one coin was more generous than all of your donations."



You are debating the old argument about whether we should have a flat tax or a graduated tax.  

A person earning $20,000 a year cant afford to give as much as can someone earning $1000000.  Therefore, one notion is that the one earning $1000000 should be required to pay a higher percentage of his income (since he can easily afford to do so).  That is the graduated income tax.  

There is the other notion that says that it is unfair to have the higher wage earner pay a higher percentage of his income.  We should all pay the same percentage.  Yet what percentage should the very poor pay?  There should be a cut-off because one who is barely making ends meet might not even be able to live on what is left over after Uncle Sam takes 5 percent. 

We have not even touched on the argument of consumption tax versus income tax yet but I will.  A consumption tax hurts the poor.  The rich can buy the basic necessities (and pay the consumption tax) and have money left over.  The poor might not be able to afford the basic necessities if the consumption tax placed on those goods is high.

The debate rages on.


----------



## Gunny (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Didn't jesus tell a story about a poor woman going to give her taxes at a temple, and she put one coin in the tray and all the rich laughed, saying "look at that poor woman, she cannot even afford to give more than one coin", and jesus said "that woman may have given one coin, but that one coin was more generous than all of your donations."



She was not compelled to give.  She gave of her own free will.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Didn't jesus tell a story about a poor woman going to give her taxes at a temple, and she put one coin in the tray and all the rich laughed, saying "look at that poor woman, she cannot even afford to give more than one coin", and jesus said "that woman may have given one coin, but that one coin was more generous than all of your donations."


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


>



funny


----------



## CharlestonChad (Feb 24, 2008)

Question: "What does the Bible say about paying taxes?"

Answer: In Matthew 22:17-21, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question, "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor" (Romans 13:6-7).

Federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, sales tax, property tax, personal property tax, capital gains tax - the list could go on and on. Statistics show that in the United States, April 15th, tax day, is one of the most stressful days of the year. The Internal Revenue Service is probably the most despised government organization. Similarly, tax collectors were not thought highly of in Bible times (Matthew 11:19; 21:31-32; Luke 3:12-13).

As much as we hate taxes, as much as the tax system is corrupt and unfair, as much as there are far better things our money could go towards - the Bible commands, yes commands us to pay our taxes. Romans 13:1-7 makes it clear that we are to submit ourselves to the government. The only instance in which we are allowed to disobey the government is when it tells us to do something the Bible forbids. The Bible does not forbid paying taxes. In fact, the Bible encourages us to pay taxes. Therefore, we must submit to God and His Word - and pay our taxes.

The most frequent objection to paying taxes is that the money is being misused by the government or even used for evil purposes by the government. That, however, is not our concern. When Jesus said, "Give to Caesar..." the Roman government was by no means a righteous government. When Paul instructed us to pay taxes, Nero, the most evil Roman emperor in history, was the head of the government. We are to pay our taxes even when the government is not God-honoring.

We are free to take every tax deduction that is both legal and honest. We do not have to pay the maximum amount of taxes possible. If the government allows you a tax break - take it. If there is a legal way you can shelter some of your money from being taxed - shelter it. By all means, take the deduction for your children, your mortgage, your moving expenses, etc., etc. Again, feel free to take every legal and honest opportunity to reduce your tax burden. Illegal and/or dishonest methods must be rejected. Romans 13:2 reminds us, "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 24, 2008)

Taomon said:


> The things I say leads you to believe, that is not a universal phenomena. You think that about me because you cannot think outside of your limited scope. Anything that even remotely sounds socialistic you automatically deem as such and apply false statements to. I pity you for that. We as a society have certain social responsibilities. That is a fact.
> 
> I never claimed to be poor. In fact, I was not complaining for me at all. I was complaining for the millions of lower middle class people who cannot afford to survive - let alone buy insurance. As well to do as I am, I do not have 2 cars. Television is a luxury that I can afford. My cell phone is a business expense. I am moving into the upper middle class area financially. And there are many more who cannot.
> 
> ...



After that rant I can see you are nothing more than a bleeding heart liberal&#8230;with mush for brains.
-You claim that you were once poor.  Obviously you overcame that.  I wonder how you did it?  Could it have been from hard work and effort?  Congratulations.  That is the American Way, brother&#8230;not by government handouts&#8230;handouts never do anything for the poor except for the short term&#8230;long term they just keep the poor in the government chains of poverty.  
-Food, housing, clothing, cars, health care, dental care, hair care&#8230;.those are all things we work for in life&#8230;.they are not things that are gratuitously handed to us from somebody else (except maybe by family).  If you believe otherwise, why don't you just adopt a poor bum&#8230;.give the bum all those things for free and then watch him continue to be a bum&#8230;I guarantee you won't put up with it for long.  But that's socialism in miniature.
-You think that I am a cold-hearted person.  Just the opposite.  I am all for helping those who cannot help themselves - the sick, the young, the old, the animals.  But I am not for helping those who repeatedly do not help themselves.  People who make bad choices like drinking, drugging, spending too much, bumming around, or having kids before they can afford them have no right to demand that other people pay for their bad decisions.
-Before you start knocking capitalism and start claiming the great economic wonders of Socialism, show me a country about the size of the U.S. that ever had real, sustained success under Socialism.

*1.  Reform the tax treatment of health care expenses - to level the playing field & lower costs.*


			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> That only works for upper middle class families. Lower middle class families (of which, I was one for many years) usually have bills to catch up on or a big expense (like a new-used car, medical/dental needs, etc) when they get their taxes. It doesn't really solve anything and takes tax money away from social programs that we need.


Obviously you are admitting that the lower classes don't really pay taxes or else you would agree that being able to deduct health care costs would be a great help.

*2.  Promote portable, nationwide insurance - to help provide lower cost insurance options.*


			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> Can you say MONOPOLY?


Get real.  Isn't the government running the health care business also a MONOPOLY?  At least this way a person would have choices from his home state as well as nationwide options.
*
 3.  Reduce barriers to entry - to help increase the supply of doctors, nurses, etc*


			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> Can you guarantee a high standard of knowledge and capability from those reduce barrier doctors & nurses? Education is a factor and some changes there could actually increase the amount of available doctors & nurses.


Is there a guarantee now?
*
 4.  Address head-on the costs of treating the chronically ill - provide direct subsidies to purchase insurance.*


			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> So free healthcare for chronically ill? I can dig that. If we are capable of working we should want to help those who cannot. But we lack solidarity in this country (again, proven by your posts).


Solidarity?  That is a Socialist's term. Solidarity my ass.  This is a country of INDIVIDUALS.
*
 5.  Allow market forces to work - put the consumers in charge.*


			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> We already know that model does not work. The people in charge of major corporations do not want to relinquish that power


Wrong.  We already know that the model of free markets does work for health care (before govt. & third parties like big insurance companies intervened).  We already know that socialized medicine does not work from observing other countries.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 24, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> ]
> 
> Wrong.  We already know that the model of free markets does work for health care (before govt. & third parties like big insurance companies intervened).  We already know that socialized medicine does not work from observing other countries.  Prove me wrong.



It works for some people who can afford insurance or who can afford to pay medical bills.  It does not work for those who have to choose between buying food or paying their insurance premium.   I think that we have a good balance between socialism and capitalism.  There is Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP for those who need help.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> Question: "What does the Bible say about paying taxes?"
> 
> Answer: In Matthew 22:17-21, the Pharisees asked Jesus a question, "Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In full agreement, the Apostle Paul taught, "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor" (Romans 13:6-7).
> 
> ...



Can't believe a democrat is using the Bible, I guess our founding fathers were immoral for breaking away from Britian because of high taxation...LOL


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Can't believe a democrat is using the Bible, I guess our founding fathers were immoral for breaking away from Britian because of high taxation...LOL



Did the founding fathers break away due to high taxation or was it due to taxation without representation?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Did the founding fathers break away due to high taxation or was it due to taxation without representation?



Both...


----------



## Taomon (Feb 24, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> After that rant I can see you are nothing more than a bleeding heart liberalwith mush for brains.


 And you are a blind asswipe with Rush Limbaugh as your puppet master.



ScreamingEagle said:


> -You claim that you were once poor.  Obviously you overcame that.  I wonder how you did it?  Could it have been from hard work and effort?  Congratulations.  That is the American Way, brothernot by government handoutshandouts never do anything for the poor except for the short termlong term they just keep the poor in the government chains of poverty.


 Actually, I fell ass-backwards into a job offered by an industry I did not know existed. I have a knack for datasystems and a niche was carved out for me based on their need and my capabilities.

But just because I was able to find an excellent job with a great company does not mean that everyone has that within their means. There are many factors that block people from achieving more, such as out-sourcing. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> -Food, housing, clothing, cars, health care, dental care, hair care.those are all things we work for in life.they are not things that are gratuitously handed to us from somebody else (except maybe by family).  If you believe otherwise, why don't you just adopt a poor bum.give the bum all those things for free and then watch him continue to be a bumI guarantee you won't put up with it for long.  But that's socialism in miniature.


 And you miss the point completely. I never said these things should be free. But because they are considered commodities, they are priced as if they are luxury items. A bag of apples is morfe expensive than a bag of chips. Why is this acceptable? I say make it affordable for low income households to survive. 

Why is that wrong and why do you equate that to being a handout?  



ScreamingEagle said:


> -You think that I am a cold-hearted person.  Just the opposite.  I am all for helping those who cannot help themselves - the sick, the young, the old, the animals.  But I am not for helping those who repeatedly do not help themselves.  People who make bad choices like drinking, drugging, spending too much, bumming around, or having kids before they can afford them have no right to demand that other people pay for their bad decisions.


 Which makes you cold hearted. You don't have any children of your own so you do not understand. You apparently are not poor or lower class so you do not understand. There are not enough jobs that pay a livable wage to go around. Are you suggesting we be more like China and not allow people to have children according to State regulations?



ScreamingEagle said:


> -Before you start knocking capitalism and start claiming the great economic wonders of Socialism, show me a country about the size of the U.S. that ever had real, sustained success under Socialism.


 See, this is where you are a beligerent ass clown. I never said that Socialism is the be all end all answer to Capitalism. You want proof of a society inwhich Socialism was the model of success in order to accept just a little socialism mixed with capitalism here. That is narrow-minded and foolish.

We need to engage a social contract with our citizens. This does not mean a hand out or wealth distribution. But we must stop thinking of people as dead weight and unworthy of social programs. We must stop all of the money being handed over to already wealthy conglomerates.

This is where you become so stupid and beligerent that I cannot believe that someone like you actually exists.  



ScreamingEagle said:


> *1.  Reform the tax treatment of health care expenses - to level the playing field & lower costs.*Obviously you are admitting that the lower classes don't really pay taxes or else you would agree that being able to deduct health care costs would be a great help.


No, the lower classes pay more in taxes than the upper classes - that is their rates are higher so they actually see more of a percentage taken from them. If you bothered to read what I said, when you rob Peter to pay Paul (as many lower class families are forced to do) that tax deduction becomes a rent check, or arrearage for heating, or car repairs, etc.

Again, you are proving that you do not understand.



ScreamingEagle said:


> *2.  Promote portable, nationwide insurance - to help provide lower cost insurance options.*
> 
> Get real.  Isn't the government running the health care business also a MONOPOLY?  At least this way a person would have choices from his home state as well as nationwide options.


But the rates would be higher. This doesn't solve that issue. You think competition will drive the rates down and it doesn't work that way. Millions went without insurance in MA alone, so that marketshare did not drive the rates down. Believe me, the rates have only risen steadily in the past 8 years.

It would be more like Cable TV. You can get the one cable company in your area, satelitte TV (if you are not renting) or go without. The rates for these services have not been driven down by the consumers.



ScreamingEagle said:


> *
> 3.  Reduce barriers to entry - to help increase the supply of doctors, nurses, etc*
> 
> Is there a guarantee now?


To some degree, yes. Those barriers are called regulations. Do you want someone who is unqualified to operate on you, or diagnose medication to you? This can cause more problems than it solves. I think the answer lies within education, such as a reduced tuition rate for medical students.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Solidarity?  That is a Socialist's term. Solidarity my ass.  This is a country of INDIVIDUALS.


*Oh, so you feel that we should just revert to Anarchy?



ScreamingEagle said:



			5.  Allow market forces to work - put the consumers in charge.
		
Click to expand...

*


ScreamingEagle said:


> Wrong.  We already know that the model of free markets does work for health care (before govt. & third parties like big insurance companies intervened).  We already know that socialized medicine does not work from observing other countries.  Prove me wrong.



Once again, given our higher standards and wealth, we can socialize healthcare and make it a modelfor the rest of the world. But I wasn't suggesting we socialize healthcare. I was stating very clearly that we should subsidize it so that everyone can afford it. The poor get free healthcare and the rich can afford private services. The working class are the one who suffer. Prove me wrong.


----------



## CharlestonChad (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Can't believe a democrat is using the Bible, I guess our founding fathers were immoral for breaking away from Britian because of high taxation...LOL



LOL, I figure if you guys are going to justify your actions with the bible, then so can us. The bible pretty much makes anything possible to justify, except gayness.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> LOL, I figure if you guys are going to justify your actions with the bible, then so can us. The bible pretty much makes anything possible to justify, except gayness.



Unless you are a Catholic Priest. But what can you expect from a man who has to wear a dress?


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

The for profit non-healthcare system in the US controlled by big pharma and insurance companies is a joke and an embarrassment around the world   . Until we as people in this country decide to realize & understand that our society is and will be judged by history as to how we cared for our poor, young and old and that we dropped the ball and handed it over to greedy healthcare insurance co. CEO's(Kaiser-thanks Nixon)    and sharholders and doctors who have all become filthy rich at the expense of our health. 

The US is the most obese nation on earth    and we rank very low on infant mortality rates. We need a universal health care system that will allow doctors to be doctors and treat patients and practice preventative medicine rather than stuff pills down their throat. Big pharma controls the FDA and the AMA so now doctors know little more than what they are allowed to know which seems not much more than writing a script for pills. 

So long as health care is for profit, being run by insurance companies slaves to wall street, we will never have the so called best health care in the world, that other countries currently enjoy.

This will change when Obama becomes president however!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

CharlestonChad said:


> LOL, I figure if you guys are going to justify your actions with the bible, then so can us. The bible pretty much makes anything possible to justify, except gayness.



LOL


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> The for profit non-healthcare system in the US controlled by big pharma and insurance companies is a joke and an embarrassment around the world   . Until we as people in this country decide to realize & understand that our society is and will be judged by history as to how we cared for our poor, young and old and that we dropped the ball and handed it over to greedy healthcare insurance co. CEO's(Kaiser-thanks Nixon)    and sharholders and doctors who have all become filthy rich at the expense of our health.
> 
> The US is the most obese nation on earth    and we rank very low on infant mortality rates. We need a universal health care system that will allow doctors to be doctors and treat patients and practice preventative medicine rather than stuff pills down their throat. Big pharma controls the FDA and the AMA so now doctors know little more than what they are allowed to know which seems not much more than writing a script for pills.
> 
> ...



You liberals never cease to amaze me. You claim that big...this and big this controls everything...yet you always seem to leave out the proof. Just to stir emotions I suppose. Fact...Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done to save it (which will tons and tons of taxpayer money). Fact Universal Healthcare will cost billions of dollars....money that could used to save your other failed program(Social Security).


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You liberals never cease to amaze me. You claim that big...this and big this controls everything...yet you always seem to leave out the proof. Just to stir emotions I suppose. Fact...Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done to save it (which will tons and tons of taxpayer money). Fact Universal Healthcare will cost billions of dollars....money that could used to save your other failed program(Social Security).




I got your billions: cut the bloated military budget that is 500 billion dollars in half, take all the health care premiums people waste(er pay) to non-healthcare co.'s and add in their co-pays for all the overpriced pharma pills they gulp down and there is a great start to a budget for universal health care. Next question!(points to confused republican) 



Thank you very much!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> I got your billions: cut the bloated military budget that is 500 billion dollars in half, take all the health care premiums people waste(er pay) to non-healthcare co.'s and add in their co-pays for all the overpriced pharma pills they gulp down and there is a great start to a budget for universal health care. Next question!(points to confused republican)
> 
> Thank you very much!



580 billion dollars "whole Dept. of Def." budget or 680 billion in social spending and you want to cut the Defense budget in half to fund another failed social program....LOL So lets see 250 billion dollars to keep our country safe. That sounds brillant...


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> 580 billion dollars "whole Dept. of Def." budget or 680 billion in social spending and you want to cut the Defense budget in half to fund another failed social program....LOL So lets see 250 billion dollars to keep our country safe. That sounds brillant...




oh yes because we NEED to spend half a trillion to stay safe right? Other countries spend far less than we do and are safe so why cant we do it? I know! Because then the military industrial complex will not keep making billions off making 100 million dollar f-22s to make us safe or billion dollar sea wolfs either.

ok now I get it! 

You ARE brilliant. 

You must have voted for WUBBUA right?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> oh yes because we NEED to spend half a trillion to stay safe right? Other countries spend far less than we do and are safe so why cant we do it? I know! Because then the military industrial complex will not keep making billions off making 100 million dollar f-22s to make us safe or billion dollar sea wolfs either.
> 
> ok now I get it!
> 
> ...



I'm sure the new 800 billion dollars in governmental spending will get people out of the cycle of poverty...Money well spent....All you do by throwing money at poverty is create more people seeking money from the government. The reasons other countries are able to spend far less money on their defense budgets is because they aren't a superpower. We are a target to Islamic extremist because our democracy is the most successful in the world. Go figure...


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I'm sure the new 800 billion dollars in governmental spending will get people out of the cycle of poverty...Money well spent....All you do by throwing money at poverty is create more people seeking money from the government. The reasons other countries are able to spend far less money on their defense budgets is because they aren't a superpower. We are a target to Islamic extremist because our democracy is the most successful in the world. Go figure...




The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions 
on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).


 Next is it really so successful? We have terrible voter turn out compared to other nations.


 And realize the new spending was signed into law by WUBBUA.


I will be here all week.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
> on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
> 
> 
> ...



Wubbua didn't sign Obama's new 800 billion dollars he has proposed....hello is there anyone home??


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
> on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
> 
> 
> ...



Successful countries aren't defined by voter turnout


----------



## Obama4Pres08 (Feb 24, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Successful countries aren't defined by voter turnout




....nor can or should successful countries be defined on how large their military is also. The Roman empire had a great military, but fed people to the lions The US is the same: great military but feeds their people to corporate America (low wages,overworked and under insured and over-drugged) etc,ect


----------



## jreeves (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> ....nor can or should successful countries be defined on how large their military is also. The Roman empire had a great military, but fed people to the lions The US is the same: great military but feeds their people to corporate America (low wages,overworked and under insured and over-drugged) etc,ect



There you go again, big bad corporate America....proof please....


----------



## Diuretic (Feb 24, 2008)

Obama4Pres08 said:


> The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions
> on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).
> 
> 
> ...




You've got an indirect democracy.  You have a republic cos you ain't got a king (although that's debatable right now )  No the founders didn't like democracy (as they knew it, 18th Century style) but they'd be okay with the idea now that the fear of the tyranny of the majority has been dealt with in many other democracies by various forms of representation.

I can recommend the beef, there's plenty of it.

Don't forget to tip the waitresses.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 25, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> It works for some people who can afford insurance or who can afford to pay medical bills.  It does not work for those who have to choose between buying food or paying their insurance premium.   I think that we have a good balance between socialism and capitalism.  There is Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP for those who need help.



Those who are too poor to pay for their insurance premium are addressed in point #4.  There is no need to put 85%+ of the country into socialized medicine in order to take care of the 15% who are indigent.  BTW if we were to get rid of illegals who are swamping our hospitals, that percentage would probably be cut way, way down.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 25, 2008)

Taomon said:


> And you are a blind asswipe with Rush Limbaugh as your puppet master.
> 
> Actually, I fell ass-backwards into a job offered by an industry I did not know existed. I have a knack for datasystems and a niche was carved out for me based on their need and my capabilities.
> 
> ...



Until you can show me a similar size country that has had sustained success with socialism/socialized medicine you don't have a leg to stand on&#8230;

However, your mythical savior Obama is going solve everything, isn't he?  

Why is a bag of apples more expensive than a bag of chips?  Because  it's cheaper to mass produce chips.  Price fixing is bad for an economy because it is a false representation of what something is worth. 

Why is it immigrants who don't even speak English or have a nickel to their name can come to our country and make it?  It's because they work hard and make their own way to success.   I'm not talking about those who come here looking for handouts.  The freedom to work hard and make your way up the ladder of success is the American dream.  

Socialism takes that away.  Socialism takes away the incentive to work hard.  People can just pretty much let the government take care of them and sit on their fat asses, collecting their government checks because it's been deemed by socialists that they have a "human right" to eat, have a warm house and health care too.  

Have you ever met some of these "poor" people?  For example, one guy I hired for day labor is getting a subsidized apt. for which he only pays $100 per month.  His working for me for $10 an hour just about pays for his whole months rent in ONE day's work!  Wish I had that kind of deal.  The government is probably subsidizing at least $400 he otherwise would have to pay in this market.  What a ripoff of hard working, tax-paying Americans!   Obviously the guy is quite capable of working a job but he would rather work the system&#8230;and us hard-working Americans get to pay for freeloaders like this. 

Socialized medicine will not be free for anyone except for the freeloaders.  Government does not do anything efficiently.  Therefore health care will become even more expensive than it is now.

You claim that the lower classes pay more in taxes than the upper classes.  Wrong.  The top 50% of taxpayers pay more than 96% of the taxes.  The bottom half of income tax payers  (those making $30,000 or less) only pay about 3% of the taxes.  And you claim this is somehow a problem?  
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Since you claim in your last paragraph that you _don't _think we should socialize health care then you must agree that we need to get the government out of the health care business and let the free markets work.  If you want to expand something like charity vouchers for the qualified needy that is a completely different solution than what Hillary/Obama are proposing&#8230;.they are basically pushing socialized medicine&#8230;so why do you plan to vote for one of them?


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 25, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Those who are too poor to pay for their insurance premium are addressed in point #4.



What point number 4 are you talking about - Is it where you said, Solidarity? That is a Socialist's term. Solidarity my ass. This is a country of INDIVIDUALS? 



> There is no need to put 85%+ of the country into socialized medicine in order to take care of the 15% who are indigent.  BTW if we were to get rid of illegals who are swamping our hospitals, that percentage would probably be cut way, way down.



I agree but we need government to help those who can't help themselves.   I guess Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is enough to help those who cant help themselves.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 25, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> What point number 4 are you talking about - Is it where you said, &#8220;Solidarity? That is a Socialist's term. Solidarity my ass. This is a country of INDIVIDUALS&#8221;?
> 
> I agree but we need government to help those who can't help themselves.   I guess Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS is enough to help those who can&#8217;t help themselves.



Point 4:  Address head-on the costs of treating the chronically ill - provide direct subsidies to purchase insurance.

As you say we already have government aid for health care...but it's obvious that government forms of health care do not work that well...I have no problem temporarily helping those in need while we shake out the bungled system we currently have....but eventually government aid should be reduced to a small fraction.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 27, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Until you can show me a similar size country that has had sustained success with socialism/socialized medicine you don't have a leg to stand on


Canada has done well. Is there flaws? Of course. The first flaw was that the ID cards did not have picture IDs so anyone could anyone else's card. That cost the government a lot of money. They fixed that by adding pictures on the ID cards and have trimmed down that cost.

Another flaw is that the funding is provincial instead of Federal. So smaller provinces have less funds to cover expenses. e have the same problem with our own public school systems. So inner-city schools get lower funding and therefore worse conditions and less programs than wealthier middle class suburbs.

But the idea of having a social safety net to cover the expenses of universal healthcare is a good idea, but it would require all of us valuing the well being of each other. Which is why I chose to offer making healthcare affordable through subsidies and price controls. You still have not explained why making a necessary service, like healthcare or education, affordable is a bad thing.

Perhaps all you have to go on is an unreasonable fear/loathing of socialism based on McCarthyesque propaganda being hammered into your head since birth.



ScreamingEagle said:


> However, your mythical savior Obama is going solve everything, isn't he?


He is not my savior, but it remains to be seen if he or anyone else can resolve our social issues like the economy, healthcare, education, and the war. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> Why is a bag of apples more expensive than a bag of chips?  Because  it's cheaper to mass produce chips.  Price fixing is bad for an economy because it is a false representation of what something is worth.


So you feel it is better to make necessary items unattainable for the poor and working classes? Mass production is not the problem, it is marketing. We know potato chips are bad, because of the additives. Foods like this are contributing to our poor health as a nation. These agri-businesses that pushed out all of our farmers has replaced our food with garbage. Now even foods like beef, chicken, broccoli and so on have poisons in them. We are inundated with marketing of the mass produced products. Every movie has a Fast-food/cereal/video game tie-in. That is not progress and blatant evidence that our best interests are not represented by our elected officials. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> Why is it immigrants who don't even speak English or have a nickel to their name can come to our country and make it?  It's because they work hard and make their own way to success.   I'm not talking about those who come here looking for handouts.  The freedom to work hard and make your way up the ladder of success is the American dream.


Right, and they live with multiple familes crammed into houses and apartments, work two or three crappy jobs, subsist on rice & beans, and ship most of that cash back home. Are you suggesting that we should follow this model? Should we go back to flop houses with shared bathrooms? Should we all work two or three crappy jobs and not be a part of our familes? What is wrong with earning a livable wage? 

The problem is the cost of living is too high. We need to elevate the cost of living so that families who earn minimum wage (or just above) can afford to live.

We accept that the economy is a two income reality. Thanks to Reagan, mom & dad must work to survive. Okay, fine. But are you suggesting that we should work two or three jobs each if we are not worthy of a better paying job? Whose responsibility is it to raise they latchkey children?



ScreamingEagle said:


> Socialism takes that away.  Socialism takes away the incentive to work hard.  People can just pretty much let the government take care of them and sit on their fat asses, collecting their government checks because it's been deemed by socialists that they have a "human right" to eat, have a warm house and health care too.


That is a lie. Look at Russia: the only people sitting on their asses getting fat were the politicians & KGB chiefs. Everyone else worked hard, very hard. Socialism doesn't take away the incentive to work. You are very misinformed if you believe that. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> Have you ever met some of these "poor" people?  For example, one guy I hired for day labor is getting a subsidized apt. for which he only pays $100 per month.  His working for me for $10 an hour just about pays for his whole months rent in ONE day's work!  Wish I had that kind of deal.  The government is probably subsidizing at least $400 he otherwise would have to pay in this market.  What a ripoff of hard working, tax-paying Americans!   Obviously the guy is quite capable of working a job but he would rather work the systemand us hard-working Americans get to pay for freeloaders like this.


So this guy represents all poor people? I have met many poor people. I was poor for years. All poor people are not lazy, that also is a lie that you are perpetrating.

I don't think you know any poor people. I was a manager for a few years. I know how difficult it is to motivate employees. I think your frustration is misdirected. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> Socialized medicine will not be free for anyone except for the freeloaders.  Government does not do anything efficiently.  Therefore health care will become even more expensive than it is now.


And privatized healthcare is even less effective than anything the government can do. It won't become expensive, it will become effective. No more class distinction and economic sanctions for necessary medical care.



ScreamingEagle said:


> You claim that the lower classes pay more in taxes than the upper classes.  Wrong.  The top 50% of taxpayers pay more than 96% of the taxes.  The bottom half of income tax payers  (those making $30,000 or less) only pay about 3% of the taxes.  And you claim this is somehow a problem?
> http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6


Actually, what I said was that the lower classes pay more of a percentage of their earnings. Perhaps I explained it wrong. So if you make one million a year, you pay maybe 20% in taxes (unless you have business deductions and tax shelters). If you earn 30 thousand for the year, you pay about 35-45% of your earnings to taxes. Sorry for the confusion.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Since you claim in your last paragraph that you _don't _think we should socialize health care then you must agree that we need to get the government out of the health care business and let the free markets work.  If you want to expand something like charity vouchers for the qualified needy that is a completely different solution than what Hillary/Obama are proposing.they are basically pushing socialized medicineso why do you plan to vote for one of them?


No, the free market doesn't work. I don't think you have read anything I have said. We need price controls and subsidies to make it affordable. We need zero restrictions for pre-existing conditions. We need a social safety net to cover the costs of the lower classes.

I think voucher systems are even more limiting than anything we have discussed here.

Try reading my words and thinking it through next time.


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 27, 2008)

jreeves said:


> There you go again, big bad corporate America....proof please....



Does socialized health care pull stuff like this?  The moment I read this my opinion of private health insurance companies went down 5 points &#8211; figuratively speaking &#8211; and my opinion on the possible positives for socialized medicine grew.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_he_me/health_net_damages;_ylt=AlIXK2hVTs.fdd3zH.2FsYdZ24cA

I mean, my gaud, its like:  Yes, you gave us your premiums regularly.  You were a good and faithful member.  I know that we are a health insurance company and you were counting on us to help you if you get sick.  Sorry that you have cancer.  That&#8217;s just too bad.  Good luck in paying your bills.  Bye.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 27, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> Does socialized health care pull stuff like this?  The moment I read this my opinion of private health insurance companies went down 5 points  figuratively speaking  and my opinion on the possible positives for socialized medicine grew.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_he_me/health_net_damages;_ylt=AlIXK2hVTs.fdd3zH.2FsYdZ24cA
> 
> I mean, my gaud, its like:  Yes, you gave us your premiums regularly.  You were a good and faithful member.  I know that we are a health insurance company and you were counting on us to help you if you get sick.  Sorry that you have cancer.  Thats just too bad.  Good luck in paying your bills.  Bye.



Where is your point that socialized medicine will be any better? At least with private insurance companies there is legal recourse. With the Federal gov't you would probably wind up before some adminstrative judge, with no possibility of recovering any of your damages. A more pressing problem than that is, how in the hell can we fund this astronomical program when there are much greater needs. I really get sick and tired of new social proposals when Social Security is doomed for bankruptcy. How can politicians just act ho hum and not address the real problems of this country?


----------



## mattskramer (Feb 27, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Where is your point that socialized medicine will be any better? At least with private insurance companies there is legal recourse. With the Federal gov't you would probably wind up before some adminstrative judge, with no possibility of recovering any of your damages. A more pressing problem than that is, how in the hell can we fund this astronomical program when there are much greater needs. I really get sick and tired of new social proposals when Social Security is doomed for bankruptcy. How can politicians just act ho hum and not address the real problems of this country?



I think that under socialized medicine there would be less of an incentive to cheat people.  I think that this cancer-stricken lady who was nearly practically left to die in the streets by this corrupt and opportunistic private health insurance company exemplifies a real problem in America.

She probably lucked out in that the insurance company apparently didn&#8217;t bribe the judge.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 27, 2008)

Taoman said:
			
		

> Canada has done well. Is there flaws? Of course. The first flaw was that the ID cards did not have picture IDs so anyone could anyone else's card. That cost the government a lot of money. They fixed that by adding pictures on the ID cards and have trimmed down that cost.
> 
> Another flaw is that the funding is provincial instead of Federal. So smaller provinces have less funds to cover expenses. e have the same problem with our own public school systems. So inner-city schools get lower funding and therefore worse conditions and less programs than wealthier middle class suburbs.
> 
> ...


If Canada's socialized medicine is so great, why would any sane Canadian purchase private insurance?

Let me clue you.  The delays for care are widespread.   In some cases people have died as a result of waiting too long.  Those who are not on the "serious" lists find themselves waiting and suffering in pain.

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004. 

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271

I do not have "unreasonable" fear/loathing of socialism.  One only has to look at the facts.



			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> So you feel it is better to make necessary items unattainable for the poor and working classes? Mass production is not the problem, it is marketing. We know potato chips are bad, because of the additives. Foods like this are contributing to our poor health as a nation. These agri-businesses that pushed out all of our farmers has replaced our food with garbage. Now even foods like beef, chicken, broccoli and so on have poisons in them. We are inundated with marketing of the mass produced products. Every movie has a Fast-food/cereal/video game tie-in. That is not progress and blatant evidence that our best interests are not represented by our elected officials.


If marketing is "the problem" as you say, why are apples more costly than chips?  I never see ads for bags of apples.

You appear to be one of those people who support the "food police".  Where does it say in our Constitution that anybody has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat?  Don't you believe in indidividual freedom?  If we go to socialized medicine the government will take away a lot of that because it will then have the power to dictate your lifestyle choices.



			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> Right, and they live with multiple familes crammed into houses and apartments, work two or three crappy jobs, subsist on rice & beans, and ship most of that cash back home. Are you suggesting that we should follow this model? Should we go back to flop houses with shared bathrooms? Should we all work two or three crappy jobs and not be a part of our familes? What is wrong with earning a livable wage?
> 
> The problem is the cost of living is too high. We need to elevate the cost of living so that families who earn minimum wage (or just above) can afford to live.
> 
> We accept that the economy is a two income reality. Thanks to Reagan, mom & dad must work to survive. Okay, fine. But are you suggesting that we should work two or three jobs each if we are not worthy of a better paying job? Whose responsibility is it to raise they latchkey children?



Flop houses with shared bathrooms?  Sounds like college days.  Yes I am suggesting we follow this model.  It appears that many immigrants also like this model as they keep on coming here for the privilege of living in a flophouse because they know it is only temporary.  They know they can pursue a better life here.  Believe it or not nobody has the "right" to be handed anything for free.   You need to work for your supper.   The government has no right to take from one person and give it to another person.  I suppose you are going to call me hard-hearted again for saying that&#8230;too bad.  That's how Americans learn the nitty gritty of life and to value their hard won freedoms.  Socialism is a form of government servitude.



			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> That is a lie. Look at Russia: the only people sitting on their asses getting fat were the politicians & KGB chiefs. Everyone else worked hard, very hard. Socialism doesn't take away the incentive to work. You are very misinformed if you believe that.


Would you have liked to work under Socialism in Russia?  You'd work twice as hard and get half as much.  

That's why the Socialist propaganda today is such a lie.   They promise utopia (and for some for a while this seems true) but in reality you get hell in the end.



			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> And privatized healthcare is even less effective than anything the government can do. It won't become expensive, it will become effective. No more class distinction and economic sanctions for necessary medical care.


Less effective than anything the govt. can do?  What do you think of the effectiveness of Medicare?  Now there's a great example of what the govt. can do.  Not.

Today's health care is not as privatized as it should be.  It should be privatized to the point where you and your doctor are making your health care decisions, not an insurance company.  If you think an insurance company is bad for your health care, wait until the government takes over.  You want politicians managing your health care?



			
				Taoman said:
			
		

> No, the free market doesn't work. I don't think you have read anything I have said. We need price controls and subsidies to make it affordable. We need zero restrictions for pre-existing conditions. We need a social safety net to cover the costs of the lower classes.
> 
> I think voucher systems are even more limiting than anything we have discussed here.
> 
> Try reading my words and thinking it through next time.



I have been reading and thinking about your position.  I don't buy it.  You haven't provided any real proof that socialized medicine will work...you just have the heartfelt _belief_ it will work.

IMO we don't "need" any of that stuff you claim we "need"...price controls and subsidies (other than for the core poor) are not necessary to provide our health care.   Instead we need a health care system that is rid of government and insurance company interference.  Once third parties get their grubby hands out of the sytem the market can work.

Take a look at WalMart.  This is private enterprise at work without the price controls and subsidies.  You can go there and buy $4 prescriptions.  Believe it or not, that is helping a lot of poor and working class people.  Going further, Walmart is also going to set up clinics at many of its stores.  People will be able to go there and get everyday health care at a low cost.  It will help take the pressure off regular clinics which should help everybody.   A great boon to the poor and "disenfranchised" wouldn't you say?  That's the free market at work.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 28, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> If Canada's socialized medicine is so great, why would any sane Canadian purchase private insurance?
> 
> Let me clue you.  The delays for care are widespread.   In some cases people have died as a result of waiting too long.  Those who are not on the "serious" lists find themselves waiting and suffering in pain.


Have you spoken to any Canadians? Can you back up your claims? I have spoken to a lot of Canadians. You are dead set against socialized healthcare so you will only listen to and research data in a predetermined - biased manner. I don't think you are capable of understanding the problem because you are determined to be against any social program what so ever. How pathetic.



ScreamingEagle said:


> The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute keeps track of Canadian waiting times for various medical procedures. According to the Fraser Institute's 14th annual edition of "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (2004)," total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, rose from 17.7 weeks in 2003 to 17.9 weeks in 2004.


And again, there are flaws and they can be addressed. You act as though every flaw in any system is evidence that we cannot do it better and should not try. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> I do not have "unreasonable" fear/loathing of socialism.  One only has to look at the facts.


But you are looking historical records of corrupt regimes and ignoring the glaring historical record against capitalism and the free market system. It only works if you are in the top ten percentile and can influence the corrupt legislatures.



ScreamingEagle said:


> If marketing is "the problem" as you say, why are apples more costly than chips?  I never see ads for bags of apples.


Exactly! They only want us to eat shitty food and become fat, sickly and weak. They want us to pay for every fad diet, work out video, and miracle cure that comes along. They want to advertise prescription drugs to us to convince us that a bleeding out of our colon is better than erectile dysfunction or the sniffles. They will never have coupons for apples that don't include the purchase of a mass produced item (such as candy apple ingredients). Marketing is a manufactured need. It is a form of mind control, which is what all of the academic literature will tell you point blank.



ScreamingEagle said:


> You appear to be one of those people who support the "food police".  Where does it say in our Constitution that anybody has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat?  Don't you believe in indidividual freedom?  If we go to socialized medicine the government will take away a lot of that because it will then have the power to dictate your lifestyle choices.


I believe in being honest. I believe in education. Look at our food pyramid. Look at the percentage of meat compared to the percentage of vegetables that we are told we should eat daily. It is a lie. It is sponsored by the Department of Agriculture who are influenced by very specific lobbies (grains & sugar for example). The grain industry is mostly for feed for our meat industries. The warnings about sugar have become very obscure and muddled. Think about it.

If you want to eat chips, then eat chips. But make the good foods (fruits, vegetables, water) less expensive. Minimize the advertisements for junk food. Make more PA about good food, diet & exercise. And make those marketing firms develop those PAs. That is what I believe in.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Flop houses with shared bathrooms?  Sounds like college days.  Yes I am suggesting we follow this model.  It appears that many immigrants also like this model as they keep on coming here for the privilege of living in a flophouse because they know it is only temporary.  They know they can pursue a better life here.  Believe it or not nobody has the "right" to be handed anything for free.   You need to work for your supper.   The government has no right to take from one person and give it to another person.  I suppose you are going to call me hard-hearted again for saying that&#8230;too bad.  That's how Americans learn the nitty gritty of life and to value their hard won freedoms.  Socialism is a form of government servitude.


*And yet, I was not suggesting anything be free. You accused me of such. I said that all necessities should be affordable.

And you still haven't explained why that is bad.*    



ScreamingEagle said:


> Would you have liked to work under Socialism in Russia?  You'd work twice as hard and get half as much.


And you are saying that people don't work hard enough so what are you trying to say? You want to work and keep all of your money to yourself, pay no taxes, have no social responsibility, and keep to your own.

I don't believe in wealth distribution!   But taxes are the grease for the wheels of society. We cannot run our government on arms deals. Would you prefer Anarchy? No laws? Survival of the fittest? 



ScreamingEagle said:


> That's why the Socialist propaganda today is such a lie.   They promise utopia (and for some for a while this seems true) but in reality you get hell in the end.


Funny, that is what the free market is doing too. You claim the free market lets the consumers control the prices and that is not true at all. The free market allows conglomerates to take jobs away at will (capital flight) and price whatever they want for their commodities. That is a form of oppression. It is economic in nature. So most people will not make it in America. There is only so much room at the top. You do not address what becomes of the lower classes.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Less effective than anything the govt. can do?  What do you think of the effectiveness of Medicare?  Now there's a great example of what the govt. can do.  Not.


There are flaws and we can fix them. Economically, the Medicare system works as a tight ship. Socially, it is bad now for many people. I am all for reform. We have the wrong leaders now and have had that problem for decades. Since Nixon at least.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Today's health care is not as privatized as it should be.  It should be privatized to the point where you and your doctor are making your health care decisions, not an insurance company.  If you think an insurance company is bad for your health care, wait until the government takes over.  You want politicians managing your health care?


I don't want any private entity (individual doctors, insurance agencies, etc) to manage my healthcare. There should be oversight. There should be regulations. There should be a system of checks and balances. Why not instill civilian tribunals as an oversight system? I would be all for that.



ScreamingEagle said:


> I have been reading and thinking about your position.  I don't buy it.  You haven't provided any real proof that socialized medicine will work...you just have the heartfelt _belief_ it will work.


And you refuse to consider any option other than privatized healthcare. Your views are individualistic. You don't seem to care about your fellow Americans. You don't seem to care about strangers who are also people.  



ScreamingEagle said:


> IMO we don't "need" any of that stuff you claim we "need"...price controls and subsidies (other than for the core poor) are not necessary to provide our health care.   Instead we need a health care system that is rid of government and insurance company interference.  Once third parties get their grubby hands out of the system the market can work.


No, because there are greedy doctors. And there are plenty of historical evidence of that. We need oversight and checks & balances. We need to make sure that Doctor A is not overcharging people. We need to make sure that Doctor B is qualified and honest.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Take a look at WalMart.  This is private enterprise at work without the price controls and subsidies.  You can go there and buy $4 prescriptions.  Believe it or not, that is helping a lot of poor and working class people.  Going further, Walmart is also going to set up clinics at many of its stores.  People will be able to go there and get everyday health care at a low cost.  It will help take the pressure off regular clinics which should help everybody.   A great boon to the poor and "disenfranchised" wouldn't you say?  That's the free market at work.


WalMart also will not fill birth control and abortion pill prescriptions. here is a reason why monopolies are bad, they ultimately control what we can and cannot buy...and that is not exactly a free market system.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Feb 28, 2008)

Have you spoken to any Canadians? Can you back up your claims? I have spoken to a lot of Canadians. You are dead set against socialized healthcare so you will only listen to and research data in a predetermined - biased manner. I don't think you are capable of understanding the problem because you are determined to be against any social program what so ever. How pathetic.
So give me proof that socialized medicine is better than free market medicine&#8230;.I've been waiting for some time now&#8230;.your only response has been name calling&#8230;now that's what I'd call pathetic.

And again, there are flaws and they can be addressed. You act as though every flaw in any system is evidence that we cannot do it better and should not try. 
Why do you act as if the flaws in our system are evidence that we cannot do it better and should not try to correct them instead of completely turning our health care over into the hands of politicians?

No, you are the one stuck on going socialistic.  You're the one who's been sold a "dream".  You completely ignore my evidence that socialized medicine in Canada is not working well.  How would you like to wait an average 17 WEEKS (& climbing)  to have that operation you need?  That's progress?? 

But you are looking historical records of corrupt regimes and ignoring the glaring historical record against capitalism and the free market system. It only works if you are in the top ten percentile and can influence the corrupt legislatures.
Proof please.

Exactly! They only want us to eat shitty food and become fat, sickly and weak. They want us to pay for every fad diet, work out video, and miracle cure that comes along. They want to advertise prescription drugs to us to convince us that a bleeding out of our colon is better than erectile dysfunction or the sniffles. They will never have coupons for apples that don't include the purchase of a mass produced item (such as candy apple ingredients). Marketing is a manufactured need. It is a form of mind control, which is what all of the academic literature will tell you point blank.
They want us to eat their products, but you DON'T have to eat them.  If the government gets into the picture you can bet you will get dictates on what you should eat.

Marketing is nothing more than merchants trying to sell you.  Ignore them and make your own choices&#8230;.or are you so weak you need Big Brother to tell everybody what to do?

I believe in being honest. I believe in education. Look at our food pyramid. Look at the percentage of meat compared to the percentage of vegetables that we are told we should eat daily. It is a lie. It is sponsored by the Department of Agriculture who are influenced by very specific lobbies (grains & sugar for example). The grain industry is mostly for feed for our meat industries. The warnings about sugar have become very obscure and muddled. Think about it.

If you want to eat chips, then eat chips. But make the good foods (fruits, vegetables, water) less expensive. Minimize the advertisements for junk food. Make more PA about good food, diet & exercise. And make those marketing firms develop those PAs. That is what I believe in.
I agree with you about the food pyramid but if you are upset about the government food pyramid you are in for a lot more upsets in the future if the government takes over your health care.  Think about it.

*And yet, I was not suggesting anything be free. You accused me of such. I said that all necessities should be affordable.

And you still haven't explained why that is bad.*    
When you say "affordable" you are implying that someone selling apples must lower his market price arbitrarily in order to make them "affordable" to you or some poor working person.  Who gets to pay the difference in the real cost?  The government through subsidies to the apple growers?  This is exactly how those lobbyists and the government wind up with power over you and the food pyramids&#8230;.think about it.

And you are saying that people don't work hard enough so what are you trying to say? You want to work and keep all of your money to yourself, pay no taxes, have no social responsibility, and keep to your own.

I don't believe in wealth distribution!   But taxes are the grease for the wheels of society. We cannot run our government on arms deals. Would you prefer Anarchy? No laws? Survival of the fittest? 
You're starting to freak&#8230;.calm down there.  I'm not an anarchist.  There is no way we are going to get rid of all taxes and government programs&#8230;.but we need to head in that direction instead of the other.

Funny, that is what the free market is doing too. You claim the free market lets the consumers control the prices and that is not true at all. The free market allows conglomerates to take jobs away at will (capital flight) and price whatever they want for their commodities. That is a form of oppression. It is economic in nature. So most people will not make it in America. There is only so much room at the top. You do not address what becomes of the lower classes.
There you go again with your socialist mantra against big business.  Big business is what has made America great.  And small businesses are the backbone of America.  A person can start with a little business in his garage and after a few years of hard work can become one of the biggest in the world.  Think about it.

We have laws against price fixing and monopolies and have tariffs to protect industries.  Change the laws if you don't like it.

There are flaws and we can fix them. Economically, the Medicare system works as a tight ship. Socially, it is bad now for many people. I am all for reform. We have the wrong leaders now and have had that problem for decades. Since Nixon at least.
Medicare is economically a tight ship?  Now I know you're from lala land.   Medicare is going broke&#8230; by 2018.

I don't want any private entity (individual doctors, insurance agencies, etc) to manage my healthcare. There should be oversight. There should be regulations. There should be a system of checks and balances. Why not instill civilian tribunals as an oversight system? I would be all for that.
Civilian tribunals?  What for?  To determine whether or not you should receive doctor care for your head injury?  I vote against it....you're incurable. 

And you refuse to consider any option other than privatized healthcare. Your views are individualistic. You don't seem to care about your fellow Americans. You don't seem to care about strangers who are also people.  
Oh, cry me a river&#8230;.I'm looking for answers that will actually work&#8230;.there is ample proof that socialized medicine does not fit the bill.

No, because there are greedy doctors. And there are plenty of historical evidence of that. We need oversight and checks & balances. We need to make sure that Doctor A is not overcharging people. We need to make sure that Doctor B is qualified and honest.
Oh, now our heath care problems are all due to "greedy" doctors&#8230;.more of those "greedy" capitalists right?  That's why so many doctors are closing shop right?  Why so many students are choosing other fields today right?  What is really happening &#8230;doctors just can't afford to take on non-paying patients.  

For example doctors are dropping Medicare patients because they just can't afford them.   For example Medicare will pay $232 to take care of a patient's broken neck over a 90 day period.  Like that paltry amount is going to cover a doctor's expenses.  It costs $3500 PER DAY just to run a surgical office.
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=4185

WalMart also will not fill birth control and abortion pill prescriptions. here is a reason why monopolies are bad, they ultimately control what we can and cannot buy...and that is not exactly a free market system.
That's your repsonse to something that will really help poor and working class people?  Obviously your mind is a shut door.  WalMart is not a monopoly btw.  I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could name many other big stores which are competitors.  FYI socialized medicine IS a monopoly.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 28, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I think that under socialized medicine there would be less of an incentive to cheat people.  I think that this cancer-stricken lady who was nearly practically left to die in the streets by this corrupt and opportunistic private health insurance company exemplifies a real problem in America.
> 
> She probably lucked out in that the insurance company apparently didnt bribe the judge.



There are unscrupulous people in every walk of life. That doesn't mean we blow up the whole health care industry as we know it. For instance, if a prosecutor was to take bribes from a defendant, would you want to scrap the whole justice system. What we need to do is institute harsh punishments(jail time) for this type of misconduct, not scrap the entire system.


----------



## Taomon (Feb 29, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Have you spoken to any Canadians? Can you back up your claims? I have spoken to a lot of Canadians. You are dead set against socialized healthcare so you will only listen to and research data in a predetermined - biased manner. I don't think you are capable of understanding the problem because you are determined to be against any social program what so ever. How pathetic.
> So give me proof that socialized medicine is better than free market medicine&#8230;.I've been waiting for some time now&#8230;.your only response has been name calling&#8230;now that's what I'd call pathetic.


The only proof that socialized medicine is better is the very fact that we have millions of citizens who do not have health care or have very inadequate health care...mostly because of cost. You appear to believe that if someone cannot afford something, they do not deserve it. But everyone deserves health care. Everyone deserves medical treatment. And the same quality should be given to the poor & working class as is given to the rich. We only have two models in which to review, socialized & privatized health care. 

Would you rather millions go without health care so that you won't  be inconvenienced by a social program, that God Forbid helps someone who cannot afford it? Basically, it is the right thing to do. And we could simply subsidize it to make it affordable. You apparently cannot grasp that one.



ScreamingEagle said:


> And again, there are flaws and they can be addressed. You act as though every flaw in any system is evidence that we cannot do it better and should not try.
> Why do you act as if the flaws in our system are evidence that we cannot do it better and should not try to correct them instead of completely turning our health care over into the hands of politicians?


Because when we leave it in the hands of businessmen (and private doctors are businessmen), we are giving up our right to have affordable medical treatment and therefore...choices. Not all politicians are corrupt. Ted Kennedy is a good man. He is always seeking to help the underdog.

The Supreme Court ruled that patients harmed by defective medical devices cannot sue the company responsible. Ted Kennedy is trying to pass legislation that gives back the rights to the patients. I would say that is honorable. He has been working on Medicare reform - especially now since Bush's plan has become so evil.



ScreamingEagle said:


> No, you are the one stuck on going socialistic.  You're the one who's been sold a "dream".  You completely ignore my evidence that socialized medicine in Canada is not working well.  How would you like to wait an average 17 WEEKS (& climbing)  to have that operation you need?  That's progress??


Socialized medicine is working. You want evidence of a system that is working better than any other. No system like that exists. All health care systems are flawed. The Canadian model is working. Do we ourselves not have horror stories of privatized health care gone astray? Stop pointing the finger at Canada & the Europe and saying "see, it cannot work," and start thinking about the best feasible way to cover all US citizens. I say subsidize healthcare to drive down costs. Regulate who doctors can reject as patients  so no one goes without primary care. We can do it - and it is the right thing to do. 

Unnecessary operations can wait. I passed a kidney stone. That sucked big time. It took months before I could see a urologist. It took months to get past all the testing. It would take just as long for non-emergency surgery. Emergencies are one thing, non-emergencies are another. That is hardly proof that we should leave millions of US citizens without healthcare simply because we sold out to that industry.



ScreamingEagle said:


> But you are looking historical records of corrupt regimes and ignoring the glaring historical record against capitalism and the free market system. It only works if you are in the top ten percentile and can influence the corrupt legislatures.
> Proof please.


You need proof that millions of people are going without health insurance because of cost and those  people are all working class? We both know that the poor are covered by Medicaid (and other state plans). We both know that the rich can definitely afford health care. Do you realize that there are millions who cannot afford health insurance? Do you understand that temp agencies are not required to provide health insurance? Do you realize that their clients (the companies hiring temps) do not provide insurance? Do you understand under-employed people cannot afford health insurance?

You need proof?  



ScreamingEagle said:


> Exactly! They only want us to eat shitty food and become fat, sickly and weak. They want us to pay for every fad diet, work out video, and miracle cure that comes along. They want to advertise prescription drugs to us to convince us that a bleeding out of our colon is better than erectile dysfunction or the sniffles. They will never have coupons for apples that don't include the purchase of a mass produced item (such as candy apple ingredients). Marketing is a manufactured need. It is a form of mind control, which is what all of the academic literature will tell you point blank.
> They want us to eat their products, but you DON'T have to eat them.  If the government gets into the picture you can bet you will get dictates on what you should eat.


Right, and if you make $30,000 and have children, pay rent, pay utilities, pay for clothing, pay for school stuff (lunch, materials for homework assignments, etc), pay for gasoline & car insurance...when you have a limited amount of money to buy food, the bag of chips will stretch further than the amount of apples for the same price.

When we are inundated with advertisements, commercial jingles, status symbols, etc that manipulates what we consider to be necessary. But let's not forget the whole schoolyard thing. How many of us have been victim to or victimized others in school because of a lack of status symbol items.

And you wonder why we have school shootings? We are judged by possessions. And that inundation of marketing perpetuates it. I am only suggesting we cut back on advertisements and replace them with PAs.  Why would that be wrong?



ScreamingEagle said:


> Marketing is nothing more than merchants trying to sell you.  Ignore them and make your own choices&#8230;.or are you so weak you need Big Brother to tell everybody what to do?


I am not weak. But many people are. If you watch 1/2 and hour of television, how many commercials do you see? How many product placements in any given show? A lot of it is subliminal. We must cut back on that. Why would that be wrong?



ScreamingEagle said:


> I believe in being honest. I believe in education. Look at our food pyramid. Look at the percentage of meat compared to the percentage of vegetables that we are told we should eat daily. It is a lie. It is sponsored by the Department of Agriculture who are influenced by very specific lobbies (grains & sugar for example). The grain industry is mostly for feed for our meat industries. The warnings about sugar have become very obscure and muddled. Think about it.
> 
> If you want to eat chips, then eat chips. But make the good foods (fruits, vegetables, water) less expensive. Minimize the advertisements for junk food. Make more PA about good food, diet & exercise. And make those marketing firms develop those PAs. That is what I believe in.
> I agree with you about the food pyramid but if you are upset about the government food pyramid you are in for a lot more upsets in the future if the government takes over your health care.  Think about it.


No, we just need the lobbys out of it, we need the right people to develop the system. You are angry because you know you cannot trust the government. But we cannot leave it to the private investors neither. Our political system was developed to allow us to take control of our destinies. Are you willing to make a sacrifice like this; develop a healthcare system that will take the flaws of socialized medicine and correct them? Can you instead develop a subsidies program to lower the cost? I am willing to do that. Are you? It takes people like us to develop the idea, sell it to the powers that be and implement it.



ScreamingEagle said:


> *And yet, I was not suggesting anything be free. You accused me of such. I said that all necessities should be affordable.
> 
> And you still haven't explained why that is bad.*
> When you say "affordable" you are implying that someone selling apples must lower his market price arbitrarily in order to make them "affordable" to you or some poor working person.  Who gets to pay the difference in the real cost?  The government through subsidies to the apple growers?  This is exactly how those lobbyists and the government wind up with power over you and the food pyramids&#8230;.think about it.


No, the lobbys are attorneys who work for the industries that they represent. The money for the lobbys comes from that industry. They influence where subsidies go. We must remove all lobbys. We must remove corrupt politicians. We must have subsidies for necessary commodities (food, clothing, shelter, health care, education). Subsidies are paid regardless of whether you like it or not. They are generally paid to businesses like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc. That money should go to the people by lowering the cost of living.



ScreamingEagle said:


> And you are saying that people don't work hard enough so what are you trying to say? You want to work and keep all of your money to yourself, pay no taxes, have no social responsibility, and keep to your own.
> 
> I don't believe in wealth distribution!   But taxes are the grease for the wheels of society. We cannot run our government on arms deals. Would you prefer Anarchy? No laws? Survival of the fittest?
> You're starting to freak&#8230;.calm down there.  I'm not an anarchist.  There is no way we are going to get rid of all taxes and government programs&#8230;.but we need to head in that direction instead of the other.


Why? I agree that I want most of the money I earn. I also agree that I must pay into the system. I don't like paying excise tax, but I do it.



ScreamingEagle said:


> Funny, that is what the free market is doing too. You claim the free market lets the consumers control the prices and that is not true at all. The free market allows conglomerates to take jobs away at will (capital flight) and price whatever they want for their commodities. That is a form of oppression. It is economic in nature. So most people will not make it in America. There is only so much room at the top. You do not address what becomes of the lower classes.
> There you go again with your socialist mantra against big business.  Big business is what has made America great.  And small businesses are the backbone of America.  A person can start with a little business in his garage and after a few years of hard work can become one of the biggest in the world.  Think about it.


How many small businesses have been swallowed up by big businesses. How many mom & pop stores were devastated by Wal-Mart? Think about it.



ScreamingEagle said:


> We have laws against price fixing and monopolies and have tariffs to protect industries.  Change the laws if you don't like it.


That is my intention.



ScreamingEagle said:


> There are flaws and we can fix them. Economically, the Medicare system works as a tight ship. Socially, it is bad now for many people. I am all for reform. We have the wrong leaders now and have had that problem for decades. Since Nixon at least.
> Medicare is economically a tight ship?  Now I know you're from lala land.   Medicare is going broke&#8230; by 2018.


According to Bush?



ScreamingEagle said:


> I don't want any private entity (individual doctors, insurance agencies, etc) to manage my healthcare. There should be oversight. There should be regulations. There should be a system of checks and balances. Why not instill civilian tribunals as an oversight system? I would be all for that.
> Civilian tribunals?  What for?  To determine whether or not you should receive doctor care for your head injury?  I vote against it....you're incurable.


Civilian tribunals to act as a checks and balance. They would be a resource for the patients. Why should the businesses have all the rights and the consumers have none? 



ScreamingEagle said:


> And you refuse to consider any option other than privatized healthcare. Your views are individualistic. You don't seem to care about your fellow Americans. You don't seem to care about strangers who are also people.
> Oh, cry me a river&#8230;.I'm looking for answers that will actually work&#8230;.there is ample proof that socialized medicine does not fit the bill.


And again, the same can be said of privatized health care. But all along I have said simply to subsidize it to drive the cost down and to control the prices so that people are not over charged for expenses. But you are stuck on this socialized medicine thing.



ScreamingEagle said:


> No, because there are greedy doctors. And there are plenty of historical evidence of that. We need oversight and checks & balances. We need to make sure that Doctor A is not overcharging people. We need to make sure that Doctor B is qualified and honest.
> Oh, now our heath care problems are all due to "greedy" doctors&#8230;.more of those "greedy" capitalists right?  That's why so many doctors are closing shop right?  Why so many students are choosing other fields today right?  What is really happening &#8230;doctors just can't afford to take on non-paying patients.


Greed (doctors, facilities, insurance companies) is a big factor, and you known this is true. So if people not paying is an issue, subsidize healthcare so they can afford to pay. 9 times out of 10, people don't pay because they cannot afford it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a syndrome that we are all familiar with I am sure...except for you because you live in a perfect world. 



ScreamingEagle said:


> For example doctors are dropping Medicare patients because they just can't afford them.   For example Medicare will pay $232 to take care of a patient's broken neck over a 90 day period.  Like that paltry amount is going to cover a doctor's expenses.  It costs $3500 PER DAY just to run a surgical office.


So subsidize it so his expenses are covered or are are lowered. But really, we need to examine the industries that bill in that amount. They (the medical devices companies, pharma-companies, medical facilities, etc) over charge for services. Ever stay in a hospital? You are charge for everything.



ScreamingEagle said:


> WalMart also will not fill birth control and abortion pill prescriptions. here is a reason why monopolies are bad, they ultimately control what we can and cannot buy...and that is not exactly a free market system.
> That's your repsonse to something that will really help poor and working class people?  Obviously your mind is a shut door.  WalMart is not a monopoly btw.  I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could name many other big stores which are competitors.  FYI socialized medicine IS a monopoly.


Look who is calling whom a closed mind. Wal-Mart has competition. It is called Target. Target is a little more expensive. Wal-Mart is trying to model themselves after Target. So prices will go up.

But my point was, if the poor & working classes need to go to Wal-Mart because they cannot afford to go elsewhere, and Wal-Mart refuses certain prescriptions, they limit what is on the market. That is not a free market system. The consumer is not controlling marketability, the retailers are.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Mar 3, 2008)

The only proof that socialized medicine is better is the very fact that we have millions of citizens who do not have health care or have very inadequate health care...mostly because of cost. You appear to believe that if someone cannot afford something, they do not deserve it. But everyone deserves health care. Everyone deserves medical treatment. And the same quality should be given to the poor & working class as is given to the rich. We only have two models in which to review, socialized & privatized health care. 

Would you rather millions go without health care so that you won't  be inconvenienced by a social program, that God Forbid helps someone who cannot afford it? Basically, it is the right thing to do. And we could simply subsidize it to make it affordable. You apparently cannot grasp that one.
Everyone deserves to eat too.  Do you think we should hand out free food to everyone as well?

Again, you have not yet provided me with any proof that socialized medicine is better than free market care.   You have not answered the question why do so many Canadians buy private insurance.  If you think that the U.S. should downgrade its care so that paying customers must wait 4 months in pain for an operation or put up with patient stacking waiting over 4 hours at the emergency rooms you're crazy.   Under socialized medicine you may have the "right" to health care, but if the care is not available when you need it, what's so great about socialized medicine?


Because when we leave it in the hands of businessmen (and private doctors are businessmen), we are giving up our right to have affordable medical treatment and therefore...choices. Not all politicians are corrupt. Ted Kennedy is a good man. He is always seeking to help the underdog.

The Supreme Court ruled that patients harmed by defective medical devices cannot sue the company responsible. Ted Kennedy is trying to pass legislation that gives back the rights to the patients. I would say that is honorable. He has been working on Medicare reform - especially now since Bush's plan has become so evil.
America has the greatest health care in the world.  It's because we have a free market system.  Of course lots of doctors are businessmen too.  Most become doctors because they want to make good money while also attaining prestige as well as the good feeling of helping others.   Many doctors start up their own clinics because they like to run things their own way.  You take those many incentives away and you will find that lots of would-be doctors will seek out other fields of endeavor.   Smart people don't want to become government drones.  Think how much that will negatively impact our health care. 

The Supreme Court ruled on devices that were already approved by the FDA.  Guess the government is not doing its job very well in that department either. 


Socialized medicine is working. You want evidence of a system that is working better than any other. No system like that exists. All health care systems are flawed. The Canadian model is working. Do we ourselves not have horror stories of privatized health care gone astray? Stop pointing the finger at Canada & the Europe and saying "see, it cannot work," and start thinking about the best feasible way to cover all US citizens. I say subsidize healthcare to drive down costs. Regulate who doctors can reject as patients  so no one goes without primary care. We can do it - and it is the right thing to do. 

Unnecessary operations can wait. I passed a kidney stone. That sucked big time. It took months before I could see a urologist. It took months to get past all the testing. It would take just as long for non-emergency surgery. Emergencies are one thing, non-emergencies are another. That is hardly proof that we should leave millions of US citizens without healthcare simply because we sold out to that industry.
The Canadian model is NOT working better than ours.  Neither is the British model.  I've already given you proof of that.  At least you can get care here when you need it.  Got any other models you want to point to?  

You keep harping on the fact that about 12% here in America do not have health care.  Can you identify those people for me precisely?  I'll bet you'll find that lots of those people choose not to buy health care even though they could.   Also,  I'll bet lots of those people are illegal immigrants who just use our emergency rooms for "free" health care.   Those are the ones who are driving many good hospitals into financial ruin.


You need proof that millions of people are going without health insurance because of cost and those  people are all working class? We both know that the poor are covered by Medicaid (and other state plans). We both know that the rich can definitely afford health care. Do you realize that there are millions who cannot afford health insurance? Do you understand that temp agencies are not required to provide health insurance? Do you realize that their clients (the companies hiring temps) do not provide insurance? Do you understand under-employed people cannot afford health insurance?

You need proof?  
I need proof that the free market system as you said "only works if you are in the top ten percentile and can influence corrupt legislatures".


Right, and if you make $30,000 and have children, pay rent, pay utilities, pay for clothing, pay for school stuff (lunch, materials for homework assignments, etc), pay for gasoline & car insurance...when you have a limited amount of money to buy food, the bag of chips will stretch further than the amount of apples for the same price.

When we are inundated with advertisements, commercial jingles, status symbols, etc that manipulates what we consider to be necessary. But let's not forget the whole schoolyard thing. How many of us have been victim to or victimized others in school because of a lack of status symbol items.

And you wonder why we have school shootings? We are judged by possessions. And that inundation of marketing perpetuates it. I am only suggesting we cut back on advertisements and replace them with PAs.  Why would that be wrong?
Obviously you want a nanny state to tell everybody what to do and to take care of you.


I am not weak. But many people are. If you watch 1/2 and hour of television, how many commercials do you see? How many product placements in any given show? A lot of it is subliminal. We must cut back on that. Why would that be wrong?
So just because you think you are strong you have the right to dictate what everybody must do? 


No, we just need the lobbys out of it, we need the right people to develop the system. You are angry because you know you cannot trust the government. But we cannot leave it to the private investors neither. Our political system was developed to allow us to take control of our destinies. Are you willing to make a sacrifice like this; develop a healthcare system that will take the flaws of socialized medicine and correct them? Can you instead develop a subsidies program to lower the cost? I am willing to do that. Are you? It takes people like us to develop the idea, sell it to the powers that be and implement it.
Who are the "right people"?  People like you?  LOL.  In a truly free market system the lobbyists would be out of the picture because government would also be out of the picture.  Sellers will get to sell to customers who want to buy.  Customers will buy from those who sell products that they like.  This is a bottom-up approach as opposed to a top-down approach.   In other words, the People make their OWN choices&#8230;.not some elite few who think they know what's best for everybody.  A free market system shakes out what does not work.  A free market system will provide products for all levels of income.   A free market system will bring down costs.


No, the lobbys are attorneys who work for the industries that they represent. The money for the lobbys comes from that industry. They influence where subsidies go. We must remove all lobbys. We must remove corrupt politicians. We must have subsidies for necessary commodities (food, clothing, shelter, health care, education). Subsidies are paid regardless of whether you like it or not. They are generally paid to businesses like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc. That money should go to the people by lowering the cost of living.
I think the government should get out of the subsidy business.  Let the free market work.  If you want separate government aid to the poor, OK, but don't we already have that?


Why? I agree that I want most of the money I earn. I also agree that I must pay into the system. I don't like paying excise tax, but I do it.
If you want most of the money you earn then you don't want a socialized state.

How many small businesses have been swallowed up by big businesses. How many mom & pop stores were devastated by Wal-Mart? Think about it.
Think how many new mom & pop businesses have started up after the old ones went by the wayside.  The free market business world is an ever-changing and dynamic model. 

That is my intention.
And it's my intention to keep nanny stater socialists like you out of my life.

According to Bush?
What a dodo bird.  Get informed. That info has only been around for oh, years.

Civilian tribunals to act as a checks and balance. They would be a resource for the patients. Why should the businesses have all the rights and the consumers have none? 
Consumers have consumer advocates.  Consumers have legal options.  Civilian tribunals as you envision them would be nothing more than another layer of government bureaucracy.  More of the nanny state you like so much.

And again, the same can be said of privatized health care. 
But all along I have said simply to subsidize it to drive the cost down and to control the prices so that people are not over charged for expenses. But you are stuck on this socialized medicine thing.
Like I said before the government needs to get out of the subsidy business.  I also thought you hated lobbyists....they go right along with subsidies. Private care today works just fine for those that pay for it.  That's more than 85% of our country.  People are complaining about the higher costs which are due to many things&#8230;.those are the things we should be addressing&#8230;.such as illegals sucking the system dry, too much government regulation and interference, too much insurance company interference, unfair taxation, etc.

Greed (doctors, facilities, insurance companies) is a big factor, and you known this is true. So if people not paying is an issue, subsidize healthcare so they can afford to pay. 9 times out of 10, people don't pay because they cannot afford it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is a syndrome that we are all familiar with I am sure...except for you because you live in a perfect world. 
When the government subsidizes anything prices always go up.  Wrong approach.

So subsidize it so his expenses are covered or are are lowered. But really, we need to examine the industries that bill in that amount. They (the medical devices companies, pharma-companies, medical facilities, etc) over charge for services. Ever stay in a hospital? You are charge for everything.
You think $232 is enough for a spinal surgeon's care for 90 days?  Get real.  Again, subsidies are the wrong approach.   You are charged more because you are paying for those who cannot pay plus greed still will exist.  If you want the government to help the poor, why not just have the govt. pay for the poor directly for their health insurance?  Leave the rest of us out of it.


Look who is calling whom a closed mind. Wal-Mart has competition. It is called Target. Target is a little more expensive. Wal-Mart is trying to model themselves after Target. So prices will go up.

But my point was, if the poor & working classes need to go to Wal-Mart because they cannot afford to go elsewhere, and Wal-Mart refuses certain prescriptions, they limit what is on the market. That is not a free market system. The consumer is not controlling marketability, the retailers are.[/QUOTE]
Of course WalMart has competition.  That was my point.  I'm sure there is a WalMart competitor or a Mom&Pop store who is willing to sell birth control and abortion pills.  That's the free market at work.

Now you're crying that the poor people "can't afford" to buy birth control and abortion pills at those higher priced places.   Now you say they "need" to buy them at WalMart.   What?  Just a minute ago you were complaining about WalMart replacing all those higher priced Mom&Pop stores.   Which is it bozo?  You want WalMart or not?  At least get your stupid complaints straight&#8230;

Why is it people like you will denigrate the very thing that helps the poor?  WalMart is going to set up low cost heath clinics which will help thousands of low income people.  Walmart already offers low cost $4 prescriptions for generic medicines which helps the budgets of thousands of low income people.  Yet you still want to destroy WalMart.  Of course it's because you are socialists who hate free enterprise.  The very fact that you attack WalMart for not selling abortion pills means your slip is showing&#8230;.you are agenda-driven and want to impose your secular progressive ideals & morality upon private citizens and private business.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 3, 2008)

That's some serious obsessive behaviour - you got health insurance?


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 3, 2008)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Everyone deserves to eat too.  Do you think we should hand out free food to everyone as well?



If people are too poor to afford food or cant get to food  yes.  Thankfully, we have Caritas and Meals on Wheels  two great charities.  We also have WIC and Food Stamps.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 3, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> If people are too poor to afford food or cant get to food  yes.  Thankfully, we have Caritas and Meals on Wheels  two great charities.  We also have WIC and Food Stamps.



It depends also if people have the capacity/capability to provide their own food.  If they have some land (like a reasonable size back garden) they can plant vegetables.  If they have the equipment and the skill and they're not living downtown they can hunt or fish.  Everyone is free to do those things if they have the potential to do them.  Problem is that in our highly urbanised societies (yours and mine) the skills have been lost, we're all (me included) used to having someone else do it all for us.  

What's all this leading to?

Simple.

Food is a commodity.  

Should health care be a commodity?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Mar 4, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> If people are too poor to afford food or can&#8217;t get to food &#8211; yes.  Thankfully, we have Caritas and &#8220;Meals on Wheels&#8221; &#8211; two great charities.  We also have WIC and Food Stamps.



I guess I worded that wrong.  My question meant should we hand out food to EVERYBODY in the sense that the source of your food would only be through a socialized government program&#8230;.much like socialized health care&#8230;.

You would not be able to go to a regular grocery store and buy food of your own choice, you can only go to a government food store.

You would get the same food that everybody else got.  (boring and bland...hope you like government cheese)

Your food would be rationed.  (especially for you overweight people).

If you like Coke or Frosted Flakes, too bad, they've been banned by the Food Police.  Beer is strictly rationed.  And those T-bones?  Forget 'em.  

You would get to wait in loooong lines at the government stores to pick up your rations (like at the DMV).

Government food stores would not be the attractive, clean places like the grocery stores of today.

You would get to deal with surly government employees, not the nice and attentive grocery store employees you find today in the free markets.

Due to government red tape and hangups sometimes the food you wanted/needed would not be available and you get to wait for it.  For example, coffee or butter could disappear for months.

You would need to have an annually approved ID and approved ration card in order to obtain food.  Take a number.

Liking it so far?

&#8230;.welcome to socialized heath&#8230;er, I mean....socialized food stores.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 5, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> "At the core of the idea that health care is a human right is freedom...


You have the absolute freedom to pursue whatever health care you want.

What you do NOT have the right to do is expect that someone else will pay for that health care -- as in doing so you are taking away someone else's freedom.


----------

