Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 100

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

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    That is an outright lie.

    The alternative for the poor is medicaid.

    The alternative to the not poor is getting a job (even one they may not like) and/or choosing to buy insurance before X, Y or Z.



    Another lie. It is NOT beyond their control. Thats excuse making.



    More lies.

    "Cannot", bull****. CHOOSE not is the accurate term.

    It's rather strait forward. I've never been without insurance, from the days I made under $20K thru to today. It was a priority, it got paid for first.

    I have relatives who didn't make that choice, and used their money (often more than the $20K I used to make) on other things and CHOOSE to be insured. Bad decision, as it turns out.

    "cannot" is a partisan bull**** lie. Choose not. To work. To buy insurance when they do work. Or to take advantage of the systems already in place for the poor, even when that can.

    Save your tears for the stupid, if you please.



    As shown, it's not hypocricy. There it's accepted because it's free to them. Here is it (thus far) rejected, and they are accountable to us as voters. You'd think this was rocket science or something.

    The alternative for the "not poor" who cannot get a job is to buy extremely expensive health plans that are frankly, not very good. You are correct; it is not beyond the control of the "not poor" to purchase expensive health care that is not very good. They can do that. But there are things that are out of their control such as finding a job that offers decent benefits in this economy or greedy insurance companies. Of course you would have us believe that we cannot define greed so it simply does not exist or is not a problem or, better yet, its a liberal creation.

    And sorry but it is the very definition of hypocrisy when a politician screams about not using tax money for another government program and then okays it in foreign countries because their corporate friends pay them well to fund and develop ($) foreign countries that are rich in natural resources or offer cheap labor. It is absolute hypocrisy.

    And please spare me the bed time stories about voter accountability. The average American has consistently shown a propensity to vote in the way that their media tells them to. We have the best propaganda machine the ruling elite could ask for. Voter accountability? That is about as true as saying every American citizen can aspire to be the president-and about as realistic. If the $235 Million in negative advertisement for the health reform bill was flipped the other way, over 60% would be in favor of the bill. You would be a fool to think otherwise. Its just like how most Americans are aware that the political system is broken yet millions will show up this November to vote for "their party" drinking the kool-aid that the political problems are mostly the fault of the other party.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 07-02-2012 at 07:43 AM.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    The alternative for the "not poor" who cannot get a job is to buy extremely expensive health plans that are frankly, not very good. You are correct; it is not beyond the control of the "not poor" to purchase expensive health care that is not very good. They can do that. But there are things that are out of their control such as finding a job that offers decent benefits in this economy or greedy insurance companies. Of course you would have us believe that we cannot define greed so it simply does not exist or is not a problem or, better yet, its a liberal creation.

    And sorry but it is the very definition of hypocrisy when a politician screams about not using tax money for another government program and then okays it in foreign countries because their corporate friends pay them well to fund and develop ($) foreign countries that are rich in natural resources or offer cheap labor. It is absolute hypocrisy.

    And please spare me the bed time stories about voter accountability. The average American has consistently shown a propensity to vote in the way that their media tells them to. We have the best propaganda machine the ruling elite could ask for. Voter accountability? That is about as true as saying every American citizen can aspire to be the president-and about as realistic. If the $235 Million in negative advertisement for the health reform bill was flipped the other way, over 60% would be in favor of the bill. You would be a fool to think otherwise. Its just like how most Americans are aware that the political system is broken yet millions will show up this November to vote for "their party" drinking the kool-aid that the political problems are mostly the fault of the other party.
    You've completely missed the point. Both parties have a hand in it, as do the voters.

    But the policies of one party continue to broaden the scope and strengthen the power of the federal government. The only way we can fight them is to reduce central government control.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    You've completely missed the point. Both parties have a hand in it, as do the voters.

    But the policies of one party continue to broaden the scope and strengthen the power of the federal government. The only way we can fight them is to reduce central government control.
    And the other party would have us believe that having a laissez faire attitude towards corporations-and deregulation to the point of absurdity-will benefit the average American In reality its a textbook definition of corporate cronyism.

    At the end of the day, there are no good guys in this two-party system.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    And the other party would have us believe that having a laissez faire attitude towards corporations-and deregulation to the point of absurdity-will benefit the average American
    I'm curious, do you think De-Regulation means no accountabillity for what they do?

    Thats why we have a legal system of courts. If they do harm, regulated or not, they can and should be sued and/or investigated.

    But this isn't relevant here, as Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries we have in America. And yet, despite all that regulation and Govt. oversight/control, it's still a system you and others like you seem to hate.

    Lets just be honest, for once. You (and many like you) want 100% Nationalized Single-Payor healthcare, i.e. not a regulated private insurence industry but a Governemnt one forced on all of us. I wouldn;t be suprised if you even wanted a UK system of total nationalization.

    So lets not pretend this is about "regulation", when it's so clearly not. It's about control, and what you and those like you claim is "fairness", i.e. collectivism, all the same for everyone and all "free" for everyone, except the taxpayers who pay for it.

    As I always say, hoensty goes a long way towards having a REAL debate over what we want and don't want.

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I'm curious, do you think De-Regulation means no accountabillity for what they do?

    Thats why we have a legal system of courts. If they do harm, regulated or not, they can and should be sued and/or investigated.

    But this isn't relevant here, as Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries we have in America. And yet, despite all that regulation and Govt. oversight/control, it's still a system you and others like you seem to hate.

    Lets just be honest, for once. You (and many like you) want 100% Nationalized Single-Payor healthcare, i.e. not a regulated private insurence industry but a Governemnt one forced on all of us. I wouldn;t be suprised if you even wanted a UK system of total nationalization.

    So lets not pretend this is about "regulation", when it's so clearly not. It's about control, and what you and those like you claim is "fairness", i.e. collectivism, all the same for everyone and all "free" for everyone, except the taxpayers who pay for it.

    As I always say, hoensty goes a long way towards having a REAL debate over what we want and don't want.
    +1

    The extent of regulation would be appropriate debate for left and right to hash out, and the people could have some pieces on that checker board... but if we continue to hand both corrupted sides more power by increasing the scope of this government machine they're driving, the further away from that day we get.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I'm curious, do you think De-Regulation means no accountabillity for what they do?

    Thats why we have a legal system of courts. If they do harm, regulated or not, they can and should be sued and/or investigated.

    But this isn't relevant here, as Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries we have in America. And yet, despite all that regulation and Govt. oversight/control, it's still a system you and others like you seem to hate.

    Lets just be honest, for once. You (and many like you) want 100% Nationalized Single-Payor healthcare, i.e. not a regulated private insurence industry but a Governemnt one forced on all of us. I wouldn;t be suprised if you even wanted a UK system of total nationalization.

    So lets not pretend this is about "regulation", when it's so clearly not. It's about control, and what you and those like you claim is "fairness", i.e. collectivism, all the same for everyone and all "free" for everyone, except the taxpayers who pay for it.

    As I always say, hoensty goes a long way towards having a REAL debate over what we want and don't want.
    Fish, on the subject of honesty and debates you come about this from a mistaken point of view (at least as it related to me). I have no reason to be dishonest, my friend. That is a wonderful benefit about talking politics on a forum where you are anonymous (although I have no problem expressing my political idealogy in person). And since our identities are hidden there is no real consequences for admitting that you are a communist or a fascist or favor a dictatorship. I hope this lessen your concerns and calls for honesty on an anonymous forum.

    As to your point, no I would not want a system that is completely government run. The government has a long history of screwing up a lot of well-intended programs. I would like to see a process that combines private and public entities to control cost yet still create some competition. In my estimation, either end of the spectrum invites problems and corruption. Of course the devil is always in the details.

    At the end of the day I view health care as a necessity, not a luxury. There are certin things in this life that should be a reward for those who work hard and achieve; financial independence, expensive cars, homes etc. But decent, affordable heath care should not be a perk for the successful only.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 07-02-2012 at 12:13 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Fish, on the subject of honesty and debates you come about this from a mistaken point of view (at least as it related to me). There is no reason for me to be dishonest. That is a wonderful benefit about talking politics on a forum where you do not list your real name. And since our identities are hidden there is no real consequences for admitting that you are a communist or a fascist or favor a dictatorship. So there is no need to check for honesty.
    Of course there is. You want to see a certain outcome, and you know that direct honesty about said outcome will not assist in reaching that outcome. It is inherant and ingrained in the politics of collectivism to obscure exactly how collectivist it is, to obscure it with ill-defined or non-defined terms like "fairness" and "social justice", to hide it behind alternative monikers like "progressive", otherwise it will never come to pass in a free country such as ours.

    100 years of lessons learned by the various flavors of Communists/Socialist/Collectivists has not gone to waste.

    At the end of the day I view health care as a necessity, not a luxury.
    Just because something is a "neccessity" does not mean society owes it to you.

    Both food and shelter are higher-degree neccessities than healthcare. But no one suggests Universal Foodcare or Universal Homecare.

    Self-Defense from crime is just as vital to life as healthcare, but I'd bet teh colelctivists would freak out if, for example, they passed a "Universal Gun Ownership for Safety" mandate forcing every american to own a gun or pay a tax.

    There are certin things in this life that should be a reward for those who work hard and achieve; financial independence, expensive cars, homes etc. But decent, affordable heath care should not be a perk for the successful only.
    Best of luck defining "decent" and "affordable".

    Healthcare is a service, provided by other human beings labors. It is not a right. Nothing that someone else has to work to provide is.

    One man's "right" cannot and should not ever make another man a slave to the State to provide him with that "right".

    I'm all for assiting our disabled, elderly and former-soldiers, and with strict limitations our currently poor.

    I'm not for free **** for lazy ****wad able-bodied people a la the UK. if you want healthcare, work for it. I do. They can too.
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-02-2012 at 12:19 PM.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Of course there is. You want to see a certain outcome, and you know that direct honesty about said outcome will not assist in reaching that outcome. It is inherant and ingrained in the politics of collectivism to obscure exactly how collectivist it is, to obscure it with ill-defined or non-defined terms like "fairness" and "social justice", to hide it behind alternative monikers like "progressive", otherwise it will never come to pass in a free country such as ours.

    100 years of lessons learned by the various flavors of Communists/Socialist/Collectivists has not gone to waste.



    Just because something is a "neccessity" does not mean society owes it to you.

    Both food and shelter are higher-degree neccessities than healthcare. But no one suggests Universal Foodcare or Universal Homecare.

    Self-Defense from crime is just as vital to life as healthcare, but I'd bet teh colelctivists would freak out if, for example, they passed a "Universal Gun Ownership for Safety" mandate forcing every american to own a gun or pay a tax.



    Best of luck defining "decent" and "affordable".

    Healthcare is a service, provided by other human beings labors. It is not a right. Nothing that someone else has to work to provide is.

    One man's "right" cannot and should not ever make another man a slave to the State to provide him with that "right".

    I'm all for assiting our disabled, elderly and former-soldiers, and with strict limitations our currently poor.

    I'm not for free **** for lazy ****wad able-bodied people a la the UK. if you want healthcare, work for it. I do. They can too.
    Please explain what realistic outcome can be expected from talking politics anonymously on an football website to people named Warfish and Jetpotato . Or is this how revolutions begin?

    I read somewhere that we are entitled to certain things in this society. I think they said something about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So if one defines health care as a necessity to life it would be logical to feel entitled to it.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Please explain what realistic outcome can be expected from talking politics anonymously on an football website to people named Warfish and Jetpotato . Or is this how revolutions begin?
    Seriously?

    The realistic outcome is convincing even one single voter to vote in your direction. Behind every screen name is a real person, many of whom I assume can legally vote.

    Has nothing to do with Revolution, it's base-level politics. Manage the message for the side you support, convince even one person and thats a win.

    I read somewhere that we are entitled to certain things in this society. I think they said something about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    So if one defines health care as a necessity to life it would be logical to feel entitled to it.
    One would be making **** up. You can live without healthcare. Not as long, but it did not say "long life" or "healthy life" or "comfortable life".

    It was a limitation on what the Govt. could take, not an open ended credit card as to what the Govt, must take from some to give to others.

    You can try and redefine it to fit your view, and you're even likely to be successful tbqh, but the original intentions of those who wrote it was "life", as in the Govt. cannot kill me at it's whim.

    You're a highly educated teacher IJF, you know you knew that. You know you must fundamentally redefine what was written and what was intended to make it fit what you desire.

    You also ignore the "liberty" portion, which certainly did not originally entail "working 35% of the year for the State before you earn a single penny for yourself, so as to give free stuff to other able-bodied people, including whatever benefits we decide is needed today".
    Last edited by Warfish; 07-02-2012 at 12:49 PM.

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,820
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    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.
    Amen.

    If they would only consult with doctors and nurses and hospital administrators rather than lawyers and lobbyists.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    For a good deal of people in the U.S. the alternative IS nothing. Millions are uninsured for many reasons, a lot of which are beyond their control. We are supposed to be the greatest nation in the world and yet millions of citizens cannot get decent health benefits.

    We are not talking about items of luxury. And the point of the article is to show the continued hypocrisy of our politicians that are against universal-type health care at home, yet rubber stamp it overseas-using our tax money.
    I don't know about health benefits, I'm concerned about getting good health care in this country. Right now we are facing a huge shortage in doctors that is going to play out in most of our lifetimes that's without giving free care to another 20 million Medicaid patients. Emergency room care is going to go up regardless of adding more people onto the insurance rolls.

    We live in a society that uses free markets to create supply to match demand and drive prices through competition. What is already happening in a system that is already massively controlled by the Federal government is the supply is going down while demand is going up.

    How do we get more people health insurance if we don't have enough doctors. My guess is we are going to have to pay them more than insurance companies and the federal government is willing to pay them.

    I really like the idea of universal coverage however I'm very concerned that Universal coverage that doesn't meet the demands of physicians and providers is going to lead to massive rationing. It may be universal but that doesn't meet my requirement of quality health care.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-02-2012 at 02:28 PM.

  12. #32
    Good points, I think nurses are more valuable for the simple and/or preventive stuff. Let's be honest doctors rely on their nurses more than they would like anyone to know, more LPN and RN's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I don't know about health benefits, I'm concerned about getting good health care in this country. Right now we are facing a huge shortage in doctors that is going to play out in most of our lifetimes that's without giving free care to another 20 million Medicaid patients. Emergency room care is going to go up regardless of adding more people onto the insurance rolls.

    We live in a society that uses free markets to create supply to match demand and drive prices through competition. What is already happening in a system that is already massively controlled by the Federal government is the supply is going down while demand is going up.

    How do we get more people health insurance if we don't have enough doctors. My guess is we are going to have to pay them more than insurance companies and the federal government is willing to pay them.

    I really like the idea of universal coverage however I'm very concerned that Universal coverage that doesn't meet the demands of physicians and providers is going to lead to massive rationing. It may be universal but that doesn't meet my requirement of quality health care.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Good points, I think nurses are more valuable for the simple and/or preventive stuff. Let's be honest doctors rely on their nurses more than they would like anyone to know, more LPN and RN's.
    Agreed.

    Which is many HMO's rely on "Nurse Practioners" for many appointment needs.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Seriously?

    The realistic outcome is convincing even one single voter to vote in your direction. Behind every screen name is a real person, many of whom I assume can legally vote.

    Has nothing to do with Revolution, it's base-level politics. Manage the message for the side you support, convince even one person and thats a win.



    One would be making **** up. You can live without healthcare. Not as long, but it did not say "long life" or "healthy life" or "comfortable life".

    It was a limitation on what the Govt. could take, not an open ended credit card as to what the Govt, must take from some to give to others.

    You can try and redefine it to fit your view, and you're even likely to be successful tbqh, but the original intentions of those who wrote it was "life", as in the Govt. cannot kill me at it's whim.

    You're a highly educated teacher IJF, you know you knew that. You know you must fundamentally redefine what was written and what was intended to make it fit what you desire.

    You also ignore the "liberty" portion, which certainly did not originally entail "working 35% of the year for the State before you earn a single penny for yourself, so as to give free stuff to other able-bodied people, including whatever benefits we decide is needed today".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_l...t_of_happiness

  15. #35
    I would like it to work. But the big problem is that there are to many people who pay no taxes and will get tax credits to cover the cost of insurance. This is a tax no ands ifs or buts about it. I guarantee this will destroy the healthcare in this country. There are not enough doctors for all the people as it is now imagine millions more + illegals. The costs will not go down it will rise by leaps and bounds. How long will the companies start to drop health insurance and pay the penalty(tax) instead. This is just the beginning hold on to your wallet!

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    But this isn't relevant here, as Healthcare is one of the most regulated industries we have in America. And yet, despite all that regulation and Govt. oversight/control, it's still a system you and others like you seem to hate.

    Lets just be honest, for once. You (and many like you) want 100% Nationalized Single-Payor healthcare, i.e. not a regulated private insurence industry but a Governemnt one forced on all of us. I wouldn;t be suprised if you even wanted a UK system of total nationalization.

    So lets not pretend this is about "regulation", when it's so clearly not. It's about control, and what you and those like you claim is "fairness", i.e. collectivism, all the same for everyone and all "free" for everyone, except the taxpayers who pay for it.


    As I always say, hoensty goes a long way towards having a REAL debate over what we want and don't want.
    Doesn't a socialized system mean MORE regulation? UK style healthcare is ultimate in regulation?

    As a person who wants socialized medicine, in the Canadian or German variety, I still want doctors to have private practices and not be government employees.

    I still think there should be insurance companies for those who want better coverage than what could be offered in several stages of a public option/medicare for everyone.

    I think in the instance of healthcare, some form of government insurance for everyone through taxation, while limiting individual freedom, is better for our society than the pure capitalist model. Other countries around the world have proven that they can spend less of their GDP and cover more people, at the same quality, sometimes better - unless you're in the top 1%, in which case America has the best healthcare - as the US.

    But long story short, there are certain, in fact, many areas, where limiting freedom is better off for all of us than not. That's one of government's major roles, to limit certain freedoms, in the safeguard of other freedoms.

    "Losing the freedom to buy your own healthcare" is a common refrain, but it if it would lower the amount America spends on healthcare, not be tied to your current employer, and insure 30 million uninsured - what is the benefit of choosing your own healthcare?

    It's good that I don't have the freedom to build my own road that attaches to the expressway of my choice, even if I had the funds to afford it. It's good that I don't have the freedom to organize with my town and tell Nassau County, and thus NY state that we're opting out of your police force and we will police ourselves. It's good that you don't have the freedom to just drive without being licensed to drive. It's good that you don't have the freedom to amass your own military, or buy a fully loaded F18 for your own purposes. It's good that you don't have the freedom to fire someone from their job for refusing to perform sexual acts on you.

    There are so many instances where the limiting of freedom is better than not. It should be debated in every issue, but it's not always true that more freedom is better and thus less freedom is always wrong.

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I don't know about health benefits, I'm concerned about getting good health care in this country. Right now we are facing a huge shortage in doctors that is going to play out in most of our lifetimes that's without giving free care to another 20 million Medicaid patients. Emergency room care is going to go up regardless of adding more people onto the insurance rolls.

    We live in a society that uses free markets to create supply to match demand and drive prices through competition. What is already happening in a system that is already massively controlled by the Federal government is the supply is going down while demand is going up.

    How do we get more people health insurance if we don't have enough doctors. My guess is we are going to have to pay them more than insurance companies and the federal government is willing to pay them.

    I really like the idea of universal coverage however I'm very concerned that Universal coverage that doesn't meet the demands of physicians and providers is going to lead to massive rationing. It may be universal but that doesn't meet my requirement of quality health care.
    As chiefs already said, TORT reform and malpractice insurance reform need to happen for doctors. Furthermore, if you count the cost of medical school and college these days, the cost of becoming a doctor is insane.

    From just about every angle, American healthcare needs reform.

  18. #38
    Let people pick what they want covered. Office visits, perscription drugs, hospital costs and deductibles. Something like auto insurance. I certainly do not want the government picking it for me. When I become a burden to myself and my family let me go in peace!

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    But long story short, there are certain, in fact, many areas, where limiting freedom is better off for all of us than not. That's one of government's major roles, to limit certain freedoms, in the safeguard of other freedoms.

    There are so many instances where the limiting of freedom is better than not. It should be debated in every issue, but it's not always true that more freedom is better and thus less freedom is always wrong.
    Says everything about you and your type that needs said.

    You know better, you know best, and you'll use the force of Government by any means possible to force it on everyone, for their own good of course. After all, who cares about silly old freedom or liberty anyway as long as you get what you want, and you stay in control of us all, right?

    I reject that completely, and your silly comparison of roads to healthcare. I will not live under such Tyrany as you'd force upon me.

    Hopefully I am not alone. /shrug

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by MnJetFan View Post
    I would like it to work. But the big problem is that there are to many people who pay no taxes and will get tax credits to cover the cost of insurance. This is a tax no ands ifs or buts about it. I guarantee this will destroy the healthcare in this country. There are not enough doctors for all the people as it is now imagine millions more + illegals. The costs will not go down it will rise by leaps and bounds. How long will the companies start to drop health insurance and pay the penalty(tax) instead. This is just the beginning hold on to your wallet!
    THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us