The U.S. Promotes Universal Health Care, but Only in Other Countries

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

The good 'ole days. When a man was a man and a woman was a woman.

Stop apologizing for America and the white man.

Sure mistakes were made, but show me a man or country that has never made mistakes. I like our track record compared to those of others.

I would agree except that in many cases we are still dealing with those mistakes today. As an example, slavery was ended generations ago yet we still see the effects in many actions and issues. A lot of our racial tensions between black and white people stem from our history.

As for comparing us with other countries, I choose not to. I believe that if we are to subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism then we must set ourselves to a higher standard.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Right. That was society's fault. Not the fault of those abusive men.

Why don't we blame society for all the murders in history? No single person is truly responsible. Maybe they didn't get enough hugs.

Society condones what it does not punish.

For generations women were horribly abused and had no recourse thanks to a male driven society that tacitly condoned those actions by allowing those men to go unpunished.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

So how many people currently have made these great sacrifices? Have YOU carried the rifle BTW? And your sacrifices and that of the OWS people (as an example) are what exactly?
How many illegals sneaking over the border have made these great sacrifices for our country?
Most of the fighting has been for freedom and to protect ourselves from aggressors. Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars against foes who ssomewaht "sat it out".
Nobody is fighting for "women's prorective rights". I am going to die for that? F that.

I have immense respect for the soldiers who fight honorably for our country. But there are many ways to serve your country without picking up a rifle. No, I did not pick up a rifle to serve my country; instead I serve it by being the best father I can possibly be, the best influence on our youth as a teacher, the best citizen and on and on. All of that helps to contribute to making this country special.

Finally, YOU may not want to fight for women's rights but that does not make the cause any less important to many others.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

I would agree except that in many cases we are still dealing with those mistakes today. As an example, slavery was ended generations ago yet we still see the effects in many actions and issues. A lot of our racial tensions between black and white people stem from our history.

As for comparing us with other countries, I choose not to. I believe that if we are to subscribe to American Exceptionalism then we must set ourselves to a higher standard.

Black/White tension is never going away. And both sides share blame on that. Slavery can't be the excuse for everything. Not a single living person today was a slave.

We do hold ourselves to a higher standard. But it takes time to reach that. America is a relatively young country. We have evolved as a culture, especially with civil rights. Are things perfect? Not even close. But blacks and especially women have more opportunities here than they would in many others countries.

[piney]

I am reading a lot of people calling for "tort reform". What exactly does this mean to those who are for it?

from what I understand states that have passed tort reform don't seem to have lowered the cost of malpractice insurance. I also don't see the reasoning in taking power away from the court system and putting it in the hands of legislators.

Just curious what "tort reform" means to those advocating for it to make sure I am not misinterpreting what to meaning behind that is.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

You telling me to read is irony at its finest.

The "facts" that you and others like you tend to stand on are nothing more than a selective, cherry picked portion of any story. You'll gladly repeat over and over the 1% of the story that sheds your picture as the one. You fail miserably in assessing risk vs. reward. It's obvious, for whatever myriad of reasons, you're only able to grasp perceived pros and either willingly ignorei or can not grasp the cons.

Listen, you can read that wiki article on it or not. But if you're going to dismiss it completely, then what hope is there for any discussion?

[SafetyBlitz]

WASHINGTON | Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:14pm EDT

(Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

PATCHWORK

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...rpc=22&sp=true

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by piney

I am reading a lot of people calling for "tort reform". What exactly does this mean to those who are for it?

from what I understand states that have passed tort reform don't seem to have lowered the cost of malpractice insurance. I also don't see the reasoning in taking power away from the court system and putting it in the hands of legislators.

Just curious what "tort reform" means to those advocating for it to make sure I am not misinterpreting what to meaning behind that is.

It means corporations who abuse the system in the name of profit can rest even easier.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

I have immense respect for the soldiers who fight honorably for our country. But there are many ways to serve your country without picking up a rifle. No, I did not pick up a rifle to serve my country; instead I serve it by being the best father I can possibly be, the best influence on our youth as a teacher, the best citizen and on and on. All of that helps to contribute to making this country special.

Finally, YOU may not want to fight for women's rights but that does not make the cause any less important to many others.

Major cop out. "I am being the best patriot I can by drinking 2 sixpacks a day. Look at the commerce I am creating".
EVERYONE should be a good parent. That goes without saying.
Everyone should do the best they can at their job. Honest work for your pay.

It's all about something EXTRA.

You want women's right? Fine. I am not AGAINST women. Should they get preferential treatment? NO. Womren who wat to do well are just fine thank you. A bunch of sharp female CEOs out there.
Would I fight and die so a woman can get free birth control? Are you kidding me?

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Major cop out. "I am being the best patriot I can by drinking 2 sixpacks a day. Look at the commerce I am creating".
EVERYONE should be a good parent. That goes without saying.
Everyone should do the best they can at their job. Honest work for your pay.

It's all about something EXTRA.

You want women's right? Fine. I am not AGAINST women. Should they get preferential treatment? NO. Womren who wat to do well are just fine thank you. A bunch of sharp female CEOs out there.
Would I fight and die so a woman can get free birth control? Are you kidding me?

Not a cop out.

You do not need to pick up a rifle to serve your country. The idea that you can't serve your country by the work you do is simply incorrect. Everyone can do that something EXTRA at work or volunteering.


And being a great parent is one of the best ways to serve your country. It does not go without saying; just take a long look around.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Not a cop out.

You do not need to pick up a rifle to serve your country. The idea that you can't serve your country by the work you do is simply incorrect. Everyone can do that something EXTRA at work or volunteering.


And being a great parent is one of the best ways to serve your country. It does not go without saying; just take a long look around.

With respect, doing things out of self-interest that primarily serve you personally is not "serving your country".

It may have a beneficial effect of some tiny form, but the items you list are all clearly motivated first and foremost, and benefit first and foremost, you and your own.

Now, you've mentioned you are a Teacher. That IS Public Service, and IS serving your local community. It's also a job, and done out of self-interest (if they stopped paying you, you'd stop teaching, and save any laughable denials of that fact). But despite that, it IS a job as a public servant (even though many of our teachers forget that fact), and that would qualify of service.

But most of what you've listed as "service" is, frankly, a laughable idea. I doubt you'd agree if Romney claimed his work with Bain was "serving his country" either, rightfully so.

Serving your country means exactly whats on the tin. Service to the Country, via the Millitary first and foremost, or the Civil/L.E. Public Service for our Federal Government. Anything else, including state and local public service, is not "serving yoru country", it's serving your community.

[cr726]

You would like what benefits your business and pretend it will not cost anything to boot.

Originally Posted by JetPotato

What does the plan do for other high risk patients? Like drinkers and drug userz?

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

If you had the nicest house in your neighborhood and your boiler broke would you then tear down the house and build a new one? The Us healthcare system is the highest quality of care in the world. Why would anyone want to throw it out and start from scratch? Yes the boiler is busted, there are some problems that need to be addressed. Tort reform, portability, competition across state lines and a system in which small businesses could bundle together and purchase insurance at similar rates to large corporations would be a great start. Allowing medicaid money to be used by the states to create free clinics to alleviate the expense of people crowding emergency rooms for basic care would be a solid move as well. This stuff isn't that complicated. Those fixes cost nothing.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

With respect, doing things out of self-interest that primarily serve you personally is not "serving your country".

In the context of the discussion, this argument can go both ways. How about when a soldier joins the military for a college funding? Primarily serving himself/herself or serving the country?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

In the context of the discussion, this argument can go both ways. How about when a soldier joins the military for a college funding? Primarily serving himself/herself or serving the country?

Serving the Country first, himself second. Millitary service, putting one s life on the line, is the highest most noble form of Public Service to the Country.

Again, it takes a massive (ill)logical leap to equate serving in Afghanistan with "raising good kids" as equivalent Service to you Country.

IMO, it stems from the Anti-Millitary, Anti-Nationalism of liberalism, and their at-times strong stink of inferiority complex that they feel they must somehow equate their own personal contributions and actions with true service.

For the record, I have never served. And I am a lesser man than those who did, period.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Again, it takes a massive (ill)logical leap to equate serving in Afghanistan with "raising good kids" as equivalent Service to you Country.

Agreed.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

With respect, doing things out of self-interest that primarily serve you personally is not "serving your country".

It may have a beneficial effect of some tiny form, but the items you list are all clearly motivated first and foremost, and benefit first and foremost, you and your own.

Now, you've mentioned you are a Teacher. That IS Public Service, and IS serving your local community. It's also a job, and done out of self-interest (if they stopped paying you, you'd stop teaching, and save any laughable denials of that fact). But despite that, it IS a job as a public servant (even though many of our teachers forget that fact), and that would qualify of service.

But most of what you've listed as "service" is, frankly, a laughable idea. I doubt you'd agree if Romney claimed his work with Bain was "serving his country" either, rightfully so.

Serving your country means exactly whats on the tin. Service to the Country, via the Millitary first and foremost, or the Civil/L.E. Public Service for our Federal Government. Anything else, including state and local public service, is not "serving yoru country", it's serving your community.

How many soldiers would volunteer for service if they were told they would not get paid at all, not get any benefits including college tuition should they agree to join? How many join because they want to escape their home situations or get a fresh start? The reality is a good deal of the people would think twice not because they don't love their country but because they want to make smart decisions. To some degree and level, self interest plays a role. Would I still teach if I did not get paid? Of course not. I may volunteer to tutor friends and family on the side but I need to provide for my family.

I believe you serve your country in the pay it forward mode. We live in a wonderful country with a lot of opportunities, you serve your country by doing the extra acts above and beyond. And your community is part of your country. Your deeds and actions, positive or negative, reverberate throughout.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

How many soldiers would volunteer for service if they were told they would not get paid at all, not get any benefits including college tuition should they agree to join? How many join because they want to escape their home situations or get a fresh start? The reality is a good deal of the people would think twice not because they don't love their country but because they want to make smart decisions. To some degree and level, self interest plays a role. Would I still teach if I did not get paid? Of course not. I may volunteer to tutor friends and family on the side but I need to provide for my family.

I believe you serve your country in the pay it forward mode. We live in a wonderful country with a lot of opportunities, you serve your country by doing the extra acts above and beyond. And your community is part of your country. Your deeds and actions, positive or negative, reverberate throughout.

Not really worth a direct response tbh.

Suffice to say your earlier claims of what constitutes "Serving your country" remains, in my view, a laughably self-serving screed designed to make you look better for doing what is basic-level direct-self-interest activity, and not look bad and lesser for not actually serving, thus avoiding the "well, did you serve" argument to which you rightfully have no actual response to.

A basic false equaivalency. You did not and do not serve your country.

Nor did (or do) I.

The difference is I don't need to change the terms meaning to suit my politics, or inflate my own service to make myself feel better for choosing not to serve my countries in their armed or civil services.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Not really worth a direct response tbh.

Suffice to say your earlier claims of what constitutes "Serving your country" remains, in my view, a laughably self-serving screed designed to make you look better for doing what is basic-level direct-self-interest activity, and not look bad and lesser for not actually serving, thus avoiding the "well, did you serve" argument to which you rightfully have no actual response to.

A basic false equaivalency. You did not and do not serve your country.

Nor did (or do) I.

The difference is I don't need to change the terms meaning to suit my politics, or inflate my own service to make myself feel better for choosing not to serve my countries in their armed or civil services.

fish, try to keep in mind that we are posting on an anonymous football forum when you imply that one is trying to 'look better' (how is that even possible?) or 'feel less then'. I hope you trust me when I tell you that my head hits the pillow easy every night secure in my contributions. I don't need validation from other anonymous posters with cute nicknames on a football forum. I can't be anymore honest then that.

As to the topic at hand, there is a simple question that can help solve this debate; what does it mean to serve your country? I am sure we will end in agreeing to disagree.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

fish, try to keep in mind that we are posting on an anonymous football forum when you imply that one is trying to 'look better' (how is that even possible?) or 'feel less then'. I hope you trust me when I tell you that my head hits the pillow easy every night secure in my contributions. I don't need validation from other anonymous posters with cute nicknames on a football forum. I can't be anymore honest then that.

As to the topic at hand, there is a simple question that can help solve this debate; what does it mean to serve your country? I am sure we will end in agreeing to disagree.

Anonymous posting does not negate basic human nature.

If anything, if hightens it, as verification and consequences are impossible.

As for your question, I believe I have already answered it earlier, but I'm happy to do so again. Serving your Country is serving, directly, in the Countries Armed Services (first) or it's Civil/L.E. Services or it's Political Leadership/Elected Office.

Some might add working in our Media.......frankly, I no longer would agree with that position, but at least that one is debatable.

Anything beyond that and you are not "Serving your Country". You may be doing something that has an exceptionally small positive effect on your country (as well as a bigger effect on yourself), but that is not service.

Again, I feel we have an issue of changing definitions to suit. Serving Yoru Country has had a generally agreed upon meaning for quite some time. To attempt to modify that meaning to include "raising good kids" is just not something I can find any form of agreement with, and I maintain the main reason to attempt such change is to diminish those who have actually served, and to bolster those who have not via a false equivalency.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Not a cop out.

You do not need to pick up a rifle to serve your country. The idea that you can't serve your country by the work you do is simply incorrect. Everyone can do that something EXTRA at work or volunteering.


And being a great parent is one of the best ways to serve your country. It does not go without saying; just take a long look around.

Then EVERYBODY is serving their country. Even the prison population by providing jobs for guards. Enough already.
A job is not enough. It's what you do extra. Do you do volunteer work? Work with kids? Coach a youth athletic team?
Giving $10 to United Way ( a corrupt organizatio) is also not enough.