Nothing in life is free (of cost.) Our government was founded to protect our freedoms, not create laws. We do not have the same government other folks have, but everyone keeps trying to pigeon hole it into the same tasks. The Federal government's sole job is protecting our rights and defending the states. It's up to the states to create laws that govern the people. It's up to the Feds to keep that in check.
Make sense why I don't want Federal health care? It should be State based... at the very least, systematically tested in the states until a working system is found that works with our laws and state of life. If I feel like I'm getting ripped off, I can simply move to another state. This allows citizens to live by their own means.
Sorry, another edit... take a few minutes to read our Constitution. It really doesn't take long and you may understand.
Strict adherence to a system of government rather nebulously defined over 200 years ago is right up there with literal interpretation of scripture. For a government to survive and truly serve it's citizens it must be capable of adapting.Within reason. Personally I think it's appropriate for the government to expand to do more things, but not to do so at the expense of individual rights. The mandate is a shitty idea that I've hated from start to finish; Obama gained my support over HRC in the primary mostly because he opposed it. If we were a sane county, we'd do no more or less than slowly lower the age for Medicare until we had universal single-payer coverage. Unfortunately, we're a corrupt country, so the insurance companies had to get a piece of the action with this weak-ass national Romneycare.
Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.Because I can afford good health care and I don't really feel like paying for other people's. It's nothing personal toward them, and if it were magically free I'd be quite happy for them, but my pocket is regularly picked enough.
So you'd rather let kids die of leukemia just because they had the poor fortune not to be born rich rather then give a bit more money? Because that sounds an awful lot like what you're saying.Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.Because I can afford good health care and I don't really feel like paying for other people's. It's nothing personal toward them, and if it were magically free I'd be quite happy for them, but my pocket is regularly picked enough.
Every bill pushed forward has been a love song to insurers anyway, so it's not like a good thing is being missed here.
Your argument is an appeal to emotion, and that's just silly. If individuals want to spend their money to help them, that's awesome (and, FWIW, I donated a good chunk of a paycheck to the Jimmy Fund at their last major drive; the difference between charity, which is voluntary, and taxation for pet causes, which is certainly not, is quite large). I choose to do so out of my own free will; it is no one's obligation to do so and I wholly reject the idea.So you'd rather let kids die of leukemia just because they had the poor fortune not to be born rich rather then give a bit more money? Because that sounds an awful lot like what you're saying.Honestly, I didn't get this. Why was there so much anger towards free healthcare in America? It just left me scratching my head with a "Guh?" coming out of my mouth. Especially since a lot of the anger was from people who would benefit from it most.Because I can afford good health care and I don't really feel like paying for other people's. It's nothing personal toward them, and if it were magically free I'd be quite happy for them, but my pocket is regularly picked enough.
Every bill pushed forward has been a love song to insurers anyway, so it's not like a good thing is being missed here.
In a practical sense, I would actually be quite alright with UHC for anyone under the age of 18 and anyone currently enrolled in an institution of higher learning; the former allows for some basic protections before they are in a place to root, hog, or die (and yes, it's quite important that everyone do so, you are neither special nor entitled to take money from my pocket just as I am neither special nor entitled to take money from yours, but a fair starting point is certainly of benefit to everyone), and the latter encourages an improvement of our workforce's baseline capabilities in a way that, intuitively, seems to pay dividends greater than the relatively small expense. (UHC for everyone does not intuitively show a likelihood for an economic improvement beyond the expenditure, nor have I seen any numbers to suggest it to be the case.)
But if you find it so important, feel free to spend your money on it. Nobody's stopping you. Just don't presume to spend mine without my consent. (This goes for vote-pandering of all stripes, from UHC to farm subsidies.)
EDIT: Mind you, I entirely agree that most of the people complaining over UHC are ones who would benefit. They are morons. I would not benefit from UHC, and it is not my job, nor anyone else's, to save them from themselves. Stupidity is the only capital crime, and there are no appeals.
Strict adherence to a system of government rather nebulously defined over 200 years ago is right up there with literal interpretation of scripture. For a government to survive and truly serve it's citizens it must be capable of adapting.Except for the fact that it's a rather awesome system that checks and balances the States (that should be the ones testing Healthcare) who better know how to manage the people they govern. Just because something is old, doesn't make it stupid. States are perfectly capable of adapting laws to fit the people that live there and the people that live there have two motives of voting power. One at the polls and the other at their feet. In a capitalist society, having the states compete with each other over population just makes sense.
The Federal Government should have the power to enforceThere you go...and create lawspersonal rights, run a military, and, above all, be able to override the states.
If the founders of the US didn't want the US to create laws, they wouldn't have created Congress.The Federal Government should have the power to enforceThere you go...and create lawspersonal rights, run a military, and, above all, be able to override the states.
If the founders of the US didn't want the US to create laws, they wouldn't have created Congress.The Federal Government should have the power to enforceThere you go...and create lawspersonal rights, run a military, and, above all, be able to override the states.
Section 8 - Powers of CongressSpoiler (click to show/hide)
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Incidentally, is it just me, or are many Republicans stated opponents of healthcare reform? As in, they don't want to see it changed at all. Even if you don't like the idea of state healthcare, it's pretty difficult to see how anyone would think of the current system as perfect...
So... under a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, the United States government can do LITERALLY nothing at all except change the constitution? Great.Congress can do lots of stuff, but they've "delegated" their tasks away to the IRS, Treasury, et. al. and now they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs looking for more tasks to take over without monitoring, regulating and controlling these spin-offs. Just look at the fact that they have to now pass a bill in order to audit the very organization they started to keep our money (the main one I'm thinking of is the Ron Paul led "Audit the Fed")... and some Congress(wo)men would have the gall to prevent that from happening because of who is leading it and because of the little tag in front of his name that says "Republican."
Although I'm pretty sure this only applies if you don't like what they're doing.It applies no matter if you like or dislike what they are doing. That's their law and the way they MUST run. Not hand it off to someone else to run while they take vacation. The founders knew how little power they were giving the government. They did it on purpose. This wasn't some decision based on events in the world at the time. They studied the available documentation on how Rome and other successful nations in history were run and they established a regiment of strict rules that the Federal Government must follow.
I find the title of this thread amazing in wake of what is happening to Greece right now. The US stock market dived over 1000 points in about 30 minutes yesterday, the highest single drop in over 20 years, because of the chaos going on in Europe right now.
33% of Greece's citizens are employed by the government, including their socialized health care system. The EU has recommended that Greece begin privatizing their Health Care system to get them out of the disaster that they're in.
To behold the gall of those who still can't understand why Americans are resisting the same mess that Europe has gotten itself into by socialization is simply staggering. I feel like I'm watching a group of people repeatedly bash their heads in with baseball bats and label it as healthy and not get why others won't do the same.
Except almost all of Europe has public health care including Germany, the country that's bailing out Greece.
Socialism. C+ America is allergic to it.
I've never set my house on fire, so I don't want to pay for fire departments. And I most certainly don't want any of my federal tax going to California's fire departments, those assholes can burn, it's their own fault they live in such a flammable state.
I feel like I'm watching a group of people repeatedly bash their heads in with baseball bats and label it as healthy and not get why others won't do the same.
If the founders of the US didn't want the US to create laws, they wouldn't have created Congress.The Federal Government should have the power to enforceThere you go...and create lawspersonal rights, run a military, and, above all, be able to override the states.QuoteSection 8 - Powers of CongressSpoiler (click to show/hide)
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It's purpose is to create laws to fulfill it's purpose in meeting the requirements set forth by the Constitution, not to create laws to fulfill whatever purpose they want. This can be read as: "You can create laws that the States must follow in order to maintain the ability to perform the above tasks ("foregoing": which I spoiler-ed to save space) and to allow other branches to perform their tasks."
Edit: Essentially, Congress makes laws that the states must follow... not laws which the citizens must follow.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.
Oh I'm sure they can make it work somehow. The only reason I pointed that part out is to show that you can pretty much make the constitution mean whatever you want if you word it right. Thats why I say we should be flexible because, if not, we'll always be deadlocked by different interpretions.The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.
I think the main issue that the states have with this piece of legislation is the fact that it imposes fines on those individuals who opt out of the coverage. In all other "welfare" programs like Medicaid, Medicare and SCHIP, there has been penalty free choice for deciding whether or not you want to join the system.
And no, the fine is not a "tax" based on gross earnings, so it can't fall under the "collect Taxes" part of the Constitution.
Your argument is an appeal to emotion, and that's just silly. If individuals want to spend their money to help them, that's awesome (and, FWIW, I donated a good chunk of a paycheck to the Jimmy Fund at their last major drive; the difference between charity, which is voluntary, and taxation for pet causes, which is certainly not, is quite large). I choose to do so out of my own free will; it is no one's obligation to do so and I wholly reject the idea.
In a practical sense, I would actually be quite alright with UHC for anyone under the age of 18 and anyone currently enrolled in an institution of higher learning; the former allows for some basic protections before they are in a place to root, hog, or die (and yes, it's quite important that everyone do so, you are neither special nor entitled to take money from my pocket just as I am neither special nor entitled to take money from yours, but a fair starting point is certainly of benefit to everyone), and the latter encourages an improvement of our workforce's baseline capabilities in a way that, intuitively, seems to pay dividends greater than the relatively small expense. (UHC for everyone does not intuitively show a likelihood for an economic improvement beyond the expenditure, nor have I seen any numbers to suggest it to be the case.)
But if you find it so important, feel free to spend your money on it. Nobody's stopping you. Just don't presume to spend mine without my consent. (This goes for vote-pandering of all stripes, from UHC to farm subsidies.)
EDIT: Mind you, I entirely agree that most of the people complaining over UHC are ones who would benefit. They are morons. I would not benefit from UHC, and it is not my job, nor anyone else's, to save them from themselves. Stupidity is the only capital crime, and there are no appeals.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Don't confuse a stipulation that says they must collect uniform taxes to mean uniform health care. That line basically says they have the right to collect taxes to pay off debts. The aspect of "General Welfare" is hotly debated though. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause)
It sure sounds like congress has the power to tax you to pay for health care if it's considered fro the general welfare of the country. And it sure sound like they're constitutionally bound to make it uniform throughout the states.
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the description above, and are not considered broad grants of a general legislative power to the federal government since the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
* the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[3][4] and,
* that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States was the correct interpretation.[5][6] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[7]
Edit2: And in case you didn't quite "get" it. The General Welfare clause relates to the welfare of the union itself, not it's citizens.
Loo, what the problem? USA citizens dont want free healthcare? Okay, their decision ,theirp roblems? Broke a leg but dont have money for healthcare? Too bad, but htat was your choice.
Edit2: And in case you didn't quite "get" it. The General Welfare clause relates to the welfare of the union itself, not it's citizens.
One requires (and to a degree, implies) the other. You cannot provide for a functioning society without providing for functioning members of that society. It's as much about the nation as it is about the individuals.
Stop being stupid. Increased taxes are nothing compared to prices of healthcare in USA.Loo, what the problem? USA citizens dont want free healthcare? Okay, their decision ,theirp roblems? Broke a leg but dont have money for healthcare? Too bad, but htat was your choice.
I really, honestly want to know. Do people actually believe that health care is "free" under a nationalized system? I really hope people that say that are just being facetious. If you are really this naive, please lie and act like you knew this all along, save yourself the embarrassment.
Exactly, to pay for the healthcare bill as proposed orignally by obama 'Increased taxes' really doesn't come close.Stop being stupid. Increased taxes are nothing compared to prices of healthcare in USA.Loo, what the problem? USA citizens dont want free healthcare? Okay, their decision ,theirp roblems? Broke a leg but dont have money for healthcare? Too bad, but htat was your choice.
I really, honestly want to know. Do people actually believe that health care is "free" under a nationalized system? I really hope people that say that are just being facetious. If you are really this naive, please lie and act like you knew this all along, save yourself the embarrassment.
Andir... You suggest having state funded healthcare on a state level... but healthcare is not something that can be done on that level. If one state introduces it, sick people from other states are likely to flock their, crippling their finances. The whole country needs to introduce it or it is useless.Considering that it's not really that different from today... if someone crosses the border to get care in another state, their major medical insurance is restricted to the state from which they came. You'll still have to pay for your treatment in California because your insurance is restricted to Nevada by Federal Law... and this system they just voted in doesn't change that! You can buy Health Insurance in another state, but you'll have to go there for providers (ie: care). So even if you did go to another state and didn't have your coverage card you'd still get the bill, the collections, etc.
As for chaining you up... No, that'd obviously violate multiple other points of the constitution. Basically, if you really want to, you can declare ANYTHING unconstitutional by selective quoting.Sure, chaining might have been a reach, but let's say the "General Welfare" of citizens in Maine included everyone in America buying Lobster for every meal... btw, they sort of already do this with Corn and HFCS indirectly through tariffs and mandates... which I think is wrong as well, but another topic.
Hell, that's part of what being a social animal is all about. You take care of your weak, period.
(edit: BTW, I just went through this when I called an ambulance because my Mom was visiting me when I was in Chicago and she had a diabetic fit... she was charged the full amount because she had out of state insurance.)Just more evidence of the American healthcare system working. Although if you're ok with living your entire life in one state I suppose it's fine.
This would also be no different than someone going to Canada or Mexico to get a treatment. Do you see a lot of this going on? (edit: struck Mexico... I really don't know what their health care is like. :-X)It's a lot easier to police borders of countries and check if you're from Canada or not than it is to do the same with states. Sure, you can illegally emigrate, but it's gonna be hard to get state healthcare in Canada with no paperwork.
Sure, chaining might have been a reach, but let's say the "General Welfare" of citizens in Maine included everyone in America buying Lobster for every meal... btw, they sort of already do this with Corn and HFCS indirectly through tariffs and mandates... which I think is wrong as well, but another topic.Analogy doesn't work. People die without basic healthcare. People do not die without lobster. Welfare doesn't need to go a long way, but keeping people alive is a fairly basic tenet of it... and having some coverage for the poor makes sense economically. Britain first began to introduce healthcare reforms because our workforce was crippled and sick (and because, on starting the Boer War, we found that a large number of our young men were actually completely unfit for military service), and we were beginning to fall behind countries like Germany with healthy workers.
Fear! Paranoia! Taxes! Conspiracy! Parasites! More Fear! Change! Abject Terror! Socialism! Communism! Liberals! Conservitives! More Terror! Misinformation! Backwards Ideals! Exclaimation Marks! ADDITIONAL TERROR!
I think that pretty much sums up everything.
I never said it was perfect as it is right now, but I think they are going at it the wrong way. I don't think centralizing the power (and that's my biggest complaint) is a good thing at all.Quote from: Andir(edit: BTW, I just went through this when I called an ambulance because my Mom was visiting me when I was in Chicago and she had a diabetic fit... she was charged the full amount because she had out of state insurance.)Just more evidence of the American healthcare system working. Although if you're ok with living your entire life in one state I suppose it's fine.
Good point. And when the country was expanding, and you could strike it rich in minerals or oil or pelts or just buying land for pennies, I'm sure the American Dream seemed feasible.Only if you work for someone else all your life... The American Dream by definition is being able to create your own business, make money, and be successful. Working for someone else is supposed to be a stopgap and a way to get experience. The A.D. has nothing to do with time, resources, land grabs and all the crap you spouted. It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.
Now you have to strive for a Curtailed American Dream, which is "if I work really hard all my life, and don't get sick or injured, and nothing bad happens to my family either, then I might be able to retire to an efficiency apartment at 70 and then into a reasonably priced nursing home".
An analogy would be two people trying to cross a river, one says they should build a raft and the other says build a bridge. The bridge plan is attempted, but the raft-man saws through the struts so the bridge collapses.But look at it from the raftsman's point of view:
I'd say, what matters is that we get across the river safely and securely. Maybe a raft will do it. But maybe the bridge will too.
Only if you work for someone else all your life... The American Dream by definition is being able to create your own business, make money, and be successful. Working for someone else is supposed to be a stopgap and a way to get experience. The A.D. has nothing to do with time, resources, land grabs and all the crap you spouted. It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.Get back to me when you've made a successful business without anyone else working for you :/.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIIIGood point. And when the country was expanding, and you could strike it rich in minerals or oil or pelts or just buying land for pennies, I'm sure the American Dream seemed feasible.Only if you work for someone else all your life... The American Dream by definition is being able to create your own business, make money, and be successful. Working for someone else is supposed to be a stopgap and a way to get experience. The A.D. has nothing to do with time, resources, land grabs and all the crap you spouted. It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.
Now you have to strive for a Curtailed American Dream, which is "if I work really hard all my life, and don't get sick or injured, and nothing bad happens to my family either, then I might be able to retire to an efficiency apartment at 70 and then into a reasonably priced nursing home".
An analogy would be two people trying to cross a river, one says they should build a raft and the other says build a bridge. The bridge plan is attempted, but the raft-man saws through the struts so the bridge collapses.But look at it from the raftsman's point of view:
I'd say, what matters is that we get across the river safely and securely. Maybe a raft will do it. But maybe the bridge will too.
He's a shepherd, and there was a pack of wolves on the other side of the river that was disturbing his flock but was kept at bay to a good degree by the natural barrier the river provides. Now his neighbor came along and said "We're going to deal with the wolves, will you help?". The raftman agrees, and the neighbor then announces that wolf related tourism is important, so they're going to build a bridge to make it easier to get to the wolves. The raftman then compains that'll just make it easier for the wolves to eat his sheep, at which point the neighbor says "but you agreed to do something about the wolf problem" never actually realizing that what he thought of as the "wolf problem" is totally different then what the raftman thought of as the "wolf problem".
It's about a single person being able to make success in life without having to rely on someone else for help.
That suggests that, despite all evidence to the contrary, any person can succeed if they just work hard enough. It turns lack of success into a moral failure. Blaming the victim and all that.
Get back to me when you've made a successful business without anyone else working for you :/.That's not what I meant and you know it.
That suggests that, despite all evidence to the contrary, any person can succeed if they just work hard enough. It turns lack of success into a moral failure. Blaming the victim and all that.Hardly. You can form a business by coming up with something new and productive. Forming a business isn't overly "difficult" but picking he right type of business might be a chore... you can also do some research, invest into an upcoming company and make money that way as well. Hell, I have a friend that lived for 5 years trading stocks alone. I wouldn't call it "hard work." You can also get an education and get out of the auto line where you insert the same bolt for 8 hours a day.
You keep saying that like you think it's a realistic option for most people. "Able to make success if life" means "able", not "will", and most people can't even afford to try to start a business. A good third or so fail in the first five years, and are the businesses most susceptible to recessions like right now.I only said it once... and I never said "will" but I surely did use "able."
Get back to me when you've made a successful business without anyone else working for you :/.That's not what I meant and you know it.
Not as such no, but it's not much more realistic. "...without having to rely on someone else for help." is a horribly unrealistic assessment of starting a business, unless you're already independently wealthy enough that you wouldn't have to work anyway. Every business relies on investors to start with, friends and family being the most common for small businesses. The very fact that small-business loans exist apart from ordinary loans is that mean old government stepping in to make it easier for you to get money to start.And still more assumptions... Anyone can start a business without massive loans. Are you assuming that I'm saying that anyone can start up the next General Motors? Businesses do not all require massive capital and footprints to be a success.
And still more assumptions... Anyone can start a business without massive loans.
Because everyone that believes that something can happen has obviously tried it. ;)And still more assumptions... Anyone can start a business without massive loans.
Good to hear advice from someone who clearly has never attempted what they're advocating. You're a credit to your philosophy, really.
Okay, I'll be a little less pretensions. Most people who start "small businesses" are not really in business for themselves, any more than any other worker. Most "small businesses" are independent contractors, effectively a company of one person, who hires out their service on a semi-permanent basis to an established company that doesn't feel like keeping an internal staff to do the job. Ironically they're the people in most need of a government provided health-care system (to return to the thread's point), because they don't have employer-provided health-care because they don't have a risk-pool to buy it with.
Going at it on your own and being successful at your own goals. Failing to do that doesn't make you a drain on society or as someone put it, a moral failure unless your morals are so jacked up that you could never succeed. There are people that don't strive for that. They are the same ones that would rather live day to day, feeding off other people and doing as little as possible in order to continue doing whatever it is they want to do. These are the same ones screaming that they are entitled to this or that and that the government is here to make their life better instead of doing something for themselves.
Basically, you need to forget "The American Dream" altogether. It's a bunch of romantic nonsense cooked up by exceptionalist boosters for another time and age, and was myopic bullcrap then too.So you'd rather live your life for the homeland... doing whatever is asked of you all for the sake of "King and Country." It's either that or you apply to the school that says that we should take our $50 paycheck and give $1 to 50 people no matter how much they contributed.
I don't even know what you think you're talking about now, but I'll try to answer. It's neither. Again, the world is not a binary choice between slavery and whatever you seem to think communism is. We can have a world where you're free to succeed and be rich by your own efforts, but if you fail, you won't be completely destitute. I don't know what's so damn confusing about this.
What? I think you're overestimating the scope of the UHC, which as far as I can tell only provides healthcare, as opposed to electricity, food, computers, luxury goods etc.No, I'm talking about what Aqizzar said...
We can have a world where you're free to succeed and be rich by your own efforts, but if you fail, you won't be completely destitute.Being completely destitute would mean having to ask someone for food, a place to live, and what have you... in order to not die.
How can everyone have a chance of being successful, declare bankruptcy when that happens and have no worries in life? That's what you're asking for. If nobody has to worry about starving to death or being able to afford a lifesaving operation, where's the motivation to continue doing things that you may not like doing but must be done?
The fact of the matter is that we don't currently have the technology, the capacity, nor the capability to provide what you ask for. Yeah, it's not a binary choice, but it's also not a zero sum game.
So what he's petitioning for is a world where someone wouldn't have to ask for help to survive.
So what he's petitioning for is a world where someone wouldn't have to ask for help to survive.
That's quite a leap you made.
Just because you're not going to starve, doesn't mean you won't work.Maybe not you... but I can guarantee that there are people who would see it as an opportunity.
Look up the meaning of destitute. His word not mine.So what he's petitioning for is a world where someone wouldn't have to ask for help to survive.That's quite a leap you made.
So we all sell to our oppressive Chinese masters instead. I fail to see the problem here.That is a rather concerning side of it.. yes. Considering how much you all hate how we are treated in America, China is by far a better model of citizen welfare.
I don't know where to begin on how wrong that statement is...So we all sell to our oppressive Chinese masters instead. I fail to see the problem here.That is a rather concerning side of it.. yes. Considering how much you all hate how we are treated in America, China is by far a better model of citizen welfare.
I'm not talking about social welfare (social services, etc.) I'm talking about work conditions, human rights, and all that.I don't know where to begin on how wrong that statement is...So we all sell to our oppressive Chinese masters instead. I fail to see the problem here.That is a rather concerning side of it.. yes. Considering how much you all hate how we are treated in America, China is by far a better model of citizen welfare.
I'm not talking about social welfare (social services, etc.) I'm talking about work conditions, human rights, and all that.I don't know where to begin on how wrong that statement is...So we all sell to our oppressive Chinese masters instead. I fail to see the problem here.That is a rather concerning side of it.. yes. Considering how much you all hate how we are treated in America, China is by far a better model of citizen welfare.
I apparently left my sarcasm tag in my other pants... I figured it was obvious.I'm not talking about social welfare (social services, etc.) I'm talking about work conditions, human rights, and all that.I don't know where to begin on how wrong that statement is...So we all sell to our oppressive Chinese masters instead. I fail to see the problem here.That is a rather concerning side of it.. yes. Considering how much you all hate how we are treated in America, China is by far a better model of citizen welfare.
You think China is a good example of human rights and work conditions?
Dude...
Also, those countries make their living off the efforts of capitalism... the capitalism that's driving our country to the forefront of pretty much every field. Yes, there are things we've learned from Japan as far as car manufacturing processes are concerned. Sweden's big exports (machinery, resources) go to fuel this capitalist evil and keeps all those people making an average under $40K/year. Denmark provides this capitalist machine with machinery, pharmaceuticals and other things as well. Finland... resources (wood) and even rifles... without our insatiable demand for stuff, the countries you listed would likely be up the creek without a paddle trying to find another "greedy" group of people to send their resources and items to.
Let's try this again. You're conflating "capitalism" on a national scale with "social welfare" on the internal scale. You have both, and they are two different things. Every nation with a functioning economy exports stuff to other markets. Nobody is arguing against that or calling it a bad thing. It's not even "capitalism" because there is no formal international economy. It's just trade.
As for reliance on exports, Germany is actually the largest exporting nation in the world, ahead of China and then the U.S. And they take famously good care of their people. So there you go, the world's three largest exporters by a very close margin have three different social welfare systems. I'd rather see America more like Germany than China, because that is in fact a real option.
For the record, America is the largest importer of goods, at about three times that of the #2, Germany ironically. If no-holds-barred American capitalism weren't outsourcing our entire industrial economy to China, we might actually be able to afford "socialism" like a guaranteed health system. Interesting dichotomy that.
We have quite possibly the best (albeit expensive) health care in the world.
We have quite possibly the best (albeit expensive) health care in the world.
Noone is arguing with how expensive it is, but you definatly don't have the best in the world.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) Ten years ago the US was ranked 37th by the World Health Orginization.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Maps-and-Data/Performance-Snapshots/View-All.aspx?pscollection=International+Comparisons (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Maps-and-Data/Performance-Snapshots/View-All.aspx?pscollection=International+Comparisons) Three years ago the Commonwealth Fund did a comparison of the US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Germany. Lets just say you didn't come first.
Yeah you have good hospitals for the rich and famous, but they aren't representative of your entire health care system.
We have quite possibly the best (albeit expensive) health care in the world.
Noone is arguing with how expensive it is, but you definatly don't have the best in the world.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) Ten years ago the US was ranked 37th by the World Health Orginization.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Maps-and-Data/Performance-Snapshots/View-All.aspx?pscollection=International+Comparisons (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Maps-and-Data/Performance-Snapshots/View-All.aspx?pscollection=International+Comparisons) Three years ago the Commonwealth Fund did a comparison of the US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Germany. Lets just say you didn't come first.
Yeah you have good hospitals for the rich and famous, but they aren't representative of your entire health care system.
See, that's the thing. The US does have very good healthcare. You just can't afford it (and neither can I).
See, that's the thing. The US does have very good healthcare. You just can't afford it (and neither can I).
Andir - stop whining. You failed to prevent a "socialist" government from coming to power, therefore you deserve everything you get from them. If you're annoyed about it, go and become president. If you don't, you're just lazy and shiftless.I'd never get elected because I'm an atheist and I'd also never get a Democrat or Republican nomination. I've covered that in the other thread. Our country is so screwed up when it comes to that. When religion trumps education as far as issues are concerned there's not much you are going to be able to do. Also, I didn't "fail" to prevent it. I voted and did everything in my power to stop it. I even voted, just this week, in the primaries for the local and government officials that best fit my ideals. Also, it's funny that you consider this conversation whining... no, it's sad really. You are so diametrically set in your way that any alternative view is considered whining.
Being on the leading edge in health care technology that noone can afford is not something to boast about. It is something to be ashamed of; you're proving you can have world class health care, if you actually got around to providing some.I wasn't boasting. I was stating (what I think to be pretty good) fact. And I'm not disagreeing with you... I already said that expense was a problem. (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)
Speaking as a foreigner, who the f#$% would want to take over the United States? It'd be like trying to keep a giant diseased ape in your apartment, that eats money and suffers from life threatening obesity and constant diarrhoea but viciously savages you every time you try to give it free healthcare.
And thanks G-Flex for seeing what I was really talking about. We are on the leading edge of health care technology. We most likely have the best trained doctors and well equipped hospitals, but it's coming at a heavy cost. Think of it like this. Our healthcare industry is the early adopter type of video gamers. The ones that go out and buy the top of the line equipment, but drain their pockets doing it. The WHO Stats cover availability/cost in the rankings and I noted it's expense as a downside. If I were able to pay whatever I needed, I wouldn't want to go anywhere else for care.
The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.
I already said that expense was a problem. (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)
The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.I already said that expense was a problem. (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)
The point being that you don't have the best healthcare in the world. But you do have one of the most expensive healthcare systems. Other countries have all the same advances and treatments you do, but instead of only being available in the top 10 hospitals, and at extreme cost, they're available to everyone, and much cheaper.I already said that expense was a problem. (How many more times do I need to repeat this?)
So you don't think the fact that your prohibitivly expensive system also being comparably innefficient, inneffective, unsafe is a problem either?
See i know you said expense was a problem, but what I did was I pointed out that the reason you don't have the best healthcare in the world (as you seem to think) is more because it's not as good as other countries in many other areas. The fact that it's expensive too just makes it more ridiculous.
(Note, I know i said the word expensive in this comment, please try to read all the other words too and not just post a reply to that one word, thanks)
And while you keep stating that it is a problem, you don't appear to be realising that the issue is absolutely fundamental to the system working properly. It's not a problem, it's an utterly fatal flaw.It is a flaw, but I don't think Federalizing it is the solution. I think each of our States can approach this problem with a solution and work out all the kinks to find a solution that works for the greater benefit of everyone...
Here: http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
America has the top 25 hospitals in the world... now don't lose me here... it might be expensive to get yourself to one of them... and it might be expensive to have the procedure you need done... but it doesn't mean that those 25 hospitals don't do the best damn work in the world. Are you following along here? If you are fatally ill and you need treatment... and expense is no issue... where would you go? Would you go to the hospital ranked number 1 or the one ranked number 42 because France happens to top the list you provided?
The US has the top 118 of the top 200 hospitals in the world... As I said earlier... it's expensive, but it's the best.
Are you still following along?
Now, I'm not opposed to giving as many people access to this care as possible and I never said it wasn't a problem. I get the idea that you think that's where I'm coming from... and you are blanket attacking me because you think I'm somehow totally opposed to giving people access to this...
Lol you didn't read what that web-page was about did you? Did it take you long to find? Because that ranking page you linked too ranks hospital web pages, not their quality of service, efficiency, safety, or anything else to do with how good a hospital is. Thats what the WHO and commonwealth fund rankings look at. Remember how the US didn't come first in either of those? But don't let me get in the way of you being a patronizing ass.I see that... I'm still looking for a free resource for top hospitals that's a little better resource... sorry.
If I was fatally ill, and expense was no issue, I'd build my own damn hospital. I'd be the only patient, and every doctor in the world would work there working on finding me and me alone a cure.
See, we're talking about the US healthcare system, not the top 25 hospitals. Even if those rankings you linked too were concerned with hospital quality, and not their webpage rankings it lists over 5000 hospitals as being in the US. Do you think having 25 good ones is a good ratio?
I'm not attacking you (well maybe a little, but only because you just copy-pasted a reply to one word of my comment without adressing the rest :P), I'm pointing out that the USA doesn't have the best healthcare system in the world. Not that its expensive, thats a moot point, but that it just isn't the best. Top ten maybe, yeah, but not the best.
(and disagree with the World Health Orginization and the Commonwealth fund)I disagree with it because it evaluates coverage and expense. It basically ranks countries by the health care system as a whole, to which I say it is probably true... but I fully believe that it's the expense and distribution factors alone that push it down as far as it is... I did see a list at one time ranking hospitals by mortality rates and such, but I can't seem to find it now. The US was top in that list as well. I mis-interpreted the above link as this same report before I went in to read the methodology of the list... so I admit to being wrong on that... but I do know for a fact that our hospitals rank above the rest in treatment success and mortality rates.
(and disagree with the World Health Orginization and the Commonwealth fund)I disagree with it because it evaluates coverage and expense. It basically ranks countries by the health care system as a whole, to which I say it is probably true... but I fully believe that it's the expense and distribution factors alone that push it down as far as it is... I did see a list at one time ranking hospitals by mortality rates and such, but I can't seem to find it now. The US was top in that list as well. I mis-interpreted the above link as this same report before I went in to read the methodology of the list... so I admit to being wrong on that... but I do know for a fact that our hospitals rank above the rest in treatment success and mortality rates.
Edit: Gah... running out of time. I have to travel today so I'm going to have to pick this up later.
Now, I'm not opposed to giving as many people access to this care as possible and I never said it wasn't a problem. I get the idea that you think that's where I'm coming from... and you are blanket attacking me because you think I'm somehow totally opposed to giving people access to this...
How can everyone have a chance of being successful, declare bankruptcy when that happens and have no worries in life? That's what you're asking for. If nobody has to worry about starving to death or being able to afford a lifesaving operation, where's the motivation to continue doing things that you may not like doing but must be done?
Well, you missed the sarcasm... basically, if factory workers can manipulate the world economy in order to keep themselves employed all the time, you can surely do something simple like become president. Many of these people did everyone they could to avoid unemployment, but became unemployed anyway, and are gonna suffer due to America's current healthcare system. But it HAS to be their fault, right? And they deserve to die for whatever it is they did wrong.Andir - stop whining. You failed to prevent a "socialist" government from coming to power, therefore you deserve everything you get from them. If you're annoyed about it, go and become president. If you don't, you're just lazy and shiftless.I'd never get elected because I'm an atheist and I'd also never get a Democrat or Republican nomination. I've covered that in the other thread. Our country is so screwed up when it comes to that. When religion trumps education as far as issues are concerned there's not much you are going to be able to do. Also, I didn't "fail" to prevent it. I voted and did everything in my power to stop it. I even voted, just this week, in the primaries for the local and government officials that best fit my ideals. Also, it's funny that you consider this conversation whining... no, it's sad really. You are so diametrically set in your way that any alternative view is considered whining.
Well, you missed the sarcasm... basically, if factory workers can manipulate the world economy in order to keep themselves employed all the time, you can surely do something simple like become president. Many of these people did everyone they could to avoid unemployment, but became unemployed anyway, and are gonna suffer due to America's current healthcare system. But it HAS to be their fault, right? And they deserve to die for whatever it is they did wrong.Andir - stop whining. You failed to prevent a "socialist" government from coming to power, therefore you deserve everything you get from them. If you're annoyed about it, go and become president. If you don't, you're just lazy and shiftless.I'd never get elected because I'm an atheist and I'd also never get a Democrat or Republican nomination. I've covered that in the other thread. Our country is so screwed up when it comes to that. When religion trumps education as far as issues are concerned there's not much you are going to be able to do. Also, I didn't "fail" to prevent it. I voted and did everything in my power to stop it. I even voted, just this week, in the primaries for the local and government officials that best fit my ideals. Also, it's funny that you consider this conversation whining... no, it's sad really. You are so diametrically set in your way that any alternative view is considered whining.
Also, saying "America has the best if money is no object" is useless. I mean, if money is no object, you could just hire a personal team of doctors to give you round the clock care whenever you wanted it. Money is, and will always be, a factor.