First calls to move the country radically to the left

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: EtOH
Sorry but I have friends who can't get their Children insured due to various ailments. Not welfare kids but children of professionals.

I am all for Nationalized medicine. If you can afford better you should have the right to pay to upgrade your services, but everyone should have access to medical professionals.

You can either pay for it via having to fund Hospitals due to emergency rooms or you can just deal with Socialized medicine.

Are they self employed? Most people with jobs have group life insurance wich generally doesn't deny insurance based on an individuals health. link

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

How many part-timers at WalMart have health insurance? How about the part-timers at any of the other discount places like that or the gazillions of fast-food places? Many of them are younger, yes, but no longer eligible to be on their parents' insurance as they are over the age of 19 or may no longer be in school full-time.

Then, take my last job. For me to get insurance for just myself and my daughter, I had no choice but to get a family plan which would have cost me $550/month! Yeah, like I could afford that on the salary I had!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

Looking forward to those answers.

And we're still waiting...

 

[Pandaren]

Originally posted by: HBalzer?Also, please no more "personal hard work and responsibility = prosperity" arguments. Isolated "up by the bootstraps!" examples can always appear to "prove" that, but it is obviously false.? ?Give me a freaking break you have been taking handouts so long you have lost your mind. It is only obviously false to you because you don?t want to believe your lack of hard work is the cause of you having no money. That is what it boils down to people today do not take responsibility for their actions.

Why would anyone in their right mind get up and go to work for 8-10 hours when they could stay home and get money from the fool that does. Socialism does equal Communism and it didn?t work for Russia what makes you think it will improve things for anybody but the person who wants to do nothing here; unless we simply kill the worthless non-producing drags of society, in which case sign me up because from the sounds of it you would be one of the first to go.

A couple comments:

(1) Socialism is not the same as Communism. Communism requires a command economy where the central government dictates all economic activity. Socialism does not.

(2) If you want people to take you seriously, you are going to have to stop using run-on sentences.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

Looking forward to those answers.

And we're still waiting...

Waiting for what? Bowfinger got it right, he just spun it the wrong way. National health care is a pro-corporate initiative. It always has been. GM and Wal-Mart would be absolutely thrilled to have their employee health burdens taken over by the government and the taxpayers. The health care bureaucracy won't go away, that's the stupidest statement on earth. The government will just be pushing that paperwork, and we all know the government's skill at that. The profiteers won't go away, as doctors, hospitals, suppliers, pharmas, etc. will remain private businesses, except then they will get to suck at the massive government teat, which has raised countless mega-rich.

Do you deny this?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
(1) Socialism is not the same as Communism. Communism requires a command economy where the central government dictates all economic activity. Socialism does not.

This is not accurate. The communist ideal is stateless.

It would be more proper to say that socialism is a diverse set of philosophies and ideologies, of which communism represents a small part.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

Looking forward to those answers.

And we're still waiting...

Waiting for what? Bowfinger got it right, he just spun it the wrong way. National health care is a pro-corporate initiative. It always has been. GM and Wal-Mart would be absolutely thrilled to have their employee health burdens taken over by the government and the taxpayers. The health care bureaucracy won't go away, that's the stupidest statement on earth. The government will just be pushing that paperwork, and we all know the government's skill at that. The profiteers won't go away, as doctors, hospitals, suppliers, pharmas, etc. will remain private businesses, except then they will get to suck at the massive government teat, which has raised countless mega-rich.

Do you deny this?

Your so far off the mark it isn't even worth my time to argue with you about it. If national health care was pro-corporate as you claim we would have had it long ago.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

And we're still waiting...

Waiting for what? Bowfinger got it right, he just spun it the wrong way. National health care is a pro-corporate initiative. It always has been. GM and Wal-Mart would be absolutely thrilled to have their employee health burdens taken over by the government and the taxpayers. The health care bureaucracy won't go away, that's the stupidest statement on earth. The government will just be pushing that paperwork, and we all know the government's skill at that. The profiteers won't go away, as doctors, hospitals, suppliers, pharmas, etc. will remain private businesses, except then they will get to suck at the massive government teat, which has raised countless mega-rich.

Do you deny this?

Your so far off the mark it isn't even worth my time to argue with you about it. If national health care was pro-corporate as you claim we would have had it long ago.

I think that's exactly why we will wind up with some sort of nationalized health program, because corporate interests are going to overrule the ideologues as health costs continue to spiral out of control. Twenty years ago, health costs were manageable. Today, they're becoming crippling. The only reasons the switch hasn't happened already is inertia and FUD.

Speaking of FUD, consider Vic's comments above, specifically the dig about government inefficiency. It's a common assumption, but it is exactly backwards. The fact is that Medicare's administrative overhead is a phenomenally low 2%, a fraction of the average private sector insurance company cost (I've heard 14%, but don't have anything I can cite). As I understand it, that insurance provider overhead is on top of the internal administrative overhead of care providers who must shuffle paperwork for dozens of different insurance companies.



In general, I think the dogma about the inherent inefficiency of government is misdirected. The problem isn't nearly so much government per se as it is a problem of size. With size comes bureucracy, and with bureaucracy comes waste and inefficiency. In my career, I've worked for both government and a Fortune 100 insurance company. Both were nightmares of bureaucracy, occasionally punctuated with individual departments or small work units that somehow managed to run effectively in spite of being tangled in red tape.

The single most consistent difference I've found between the two environments is money. The purse was smaller and the strings much tighter in government. That is a double-edged sword. It was easier to waste money at the insurance company, but it was also easier to make smart expenditures to improve efficiency, service levels, etc. The private sector is potentially more able to respond quickly to changing circumstances. Unfortunately, that potential innovative edge is often buried in the bureaucracy, just as it is in government.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

Looking forward to those answers.

And we're still waiting...

Waiting for what? Bowfinger got it right, he just spun it the wrong way. National health care is a pro-corporate initiative. It always has been. GM and Wal-Mart would be absolutely thrilled to have their employee health burdens taken over by the government and the taxpayers. The health care bureaucracy won't go away, that's the stupidest statement on earth. The government will just be pushing that paperwork, and we all know the government's skill at that. The profiteers won't go away, as doctors, hospitals, suppliers, pharmas, etc. will remain private businesses, except then they will get to suck at the massive government teat, which has raised countless mega-rich.

Do you deny this?

What healthcare cost burdens does WalMart have? The great majority of their employees are part-timers w/o access to company-paid benefits.

As for your baseless rant against gov't inefficiency, yes, I deny that. Medicare has low administrative costs. Where the waste comes into play is fraud from medical community. With proper oversight, a nationalized healthcare program will work very well *and* relieve most of the healthcare costs from corporations (there *will* need to be some payroll tax increase to cover it but it will benefit all of America to do so).

Trouble is, corporatists such as yourself want ZERO regulation. No wonder you love seeing the rampant corporate fraud out there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

And we're still waiting...

Waiting for what? Bowfinger got it right, he just spun it the wrong way. National health care is a pro-corporate initiative. It always has been. GM and Wal-Mart would be absolutely thrilled to have their employee health burdens taken over by the government and the taxpayers. The health care bureaucracy won't go away, that's the stupidest statement on earth. The government will just be pushing that paperwork, and we all know the government's skill at that. The profiteers won't go away, as doctors, hospitals, suppliers, pharmas, etc. will remain private businesses, except then they will get to suck at the massive government teat, which has raised countless mega-rich.

Do you deny this?

Your so far off the mark it isn't even worth my time to argue with you about it. If national health care was pro-corporate as you claim we would have had it long ago.

I think that's exactly why we will wind up with some sort of nationalized health program, because corporate interests are going to overrule the ideologues as health costs continue to spiral out of control. Twenty years ago, health costs were manageable. Today, they're becoming crippling. The only reasons the switch hasn't happened already is inertia and FUD.

Health care costs have been running rampant for more then 20 years IMO, they just started to get unmangelable 20 years ago and so they got noticed. Companies didn't seem to care that much, they didn't see it as their problem and just raised detuctable's, out-of-pocket expenses and started requiring the employee to start carrying part/more of the premium costs.

Coporations didn't want national health care then because they felt they might get stuck with a disproportionate amount of the bill. Remember what happened to Hillary when she tried to bring the matter to the limelight.

Now they finally see that the system isn't working (after over 20 years of double digit inflation) and I think they have decided that something needs to be done to curb the runaway costs. They made their half-hearted effort and the only thing left that can reign in the costs is some kind of goverment interference/control. They will lose some control over their employees (imagine, no "company doctors to contend with) if we have a universal health care system based on what a person can afford to pay, but if has gotten to the point that something has to give.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think coporations previouslyu didn't want national health care because they wanted the control it gave them over people, but health care has become such an expensive propostion that I think they now look at it differently.

Speaking of FUD, consider Vic's comments above, specifically the dig about government inefficiency. It's a common assumption, but it is exactly backwards. The fact is that Medicare's administrative overhead is a phenomenally low 2%, a fraction of the average private sector insurance company cost (I've heard 14%, but don't have anything I can cite). As I understand it, that insurance provider overhead is on top of the internal administrative overhead of care providers who must shuffle paperwork for dozens of different insurance companies.



In general, I think the dogma about the inherent inefficiency of government is misdirected. The problem isn't nearly so much government per se as it is a problem of size. With size comes bureucracy, and with bureaucracy comes waste and inefficiency. In my career, I've worked for both government and a Fortune 100 insurance company. Both were nightmares of bureaucracy, occasionally punctuated with individual departments or small work units that somehow managed to run effectively in spite of being tangled in red tape.

The single most consistent difference I've found between the two environments is money. The purse was smaller and the strings much tighter in government. That is a double-edged sword. It was easier to waste money at the insurance company, but it was also easier to make smart expenditures to improve efficiency, service levels, etc. The private sector is potentially more able to respond quickly to changing circumstances. Unfortunately, that potential innovative edge is often buried in the bureaucracy, just as it is in government.

I agree, the goverment does many things efficeintly and it wouldn't suprise me if they were quite a bit more effifeint then a insurance company bureacracy. More importantly I think is that they will do things more fairly.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bravo! That's the key point the ideologues miss. We are already spending the money; the debate about national health care is simply shifting those expenditures directly to tax funding. Will taxes have to go up? Of course, but it will be offset by reductions in employer and individual out-of-pocket expenses. This will be a tremendous boon for business. It helps level the playing field both between small business and big business, and between American companies and foreign competitors. The big losers will be the health care bureaucracy and the profiteers.

That said, I don't see the Democrats pushing this in the near future. I don't think they have the political courage, not do they have the marketing savvy to sell it to Americans who have been brainwashed into shrieking in terror whenever the concept is mentioned.

I spent ~700 bucks last year on healthcare. Please do tell me how going to a nationalized system that will have me shelling out 6000 a year in taxes will save me money.

First, I didn't make any claims about whether national health care would save you -- or any other specific individual -- a dime. Individual mileage will vary depending on personal circumstances. Second, what did your employer pay for your health care? I know at my company, we pay about $7,000 per employee for health insurance and related expenses. That is in addition to the employee contribution and out-of-pocket costs. Again, the amount will vary by company, but it is thousands of dollars per employee.

Now, would you care to address what I actually said, or are you going to stick to straw men?

Looking forward to those answers.

And we're still waiting...

Waiting for what? Bowfinger got it right, he just spun it the wrong way. National health care is a pro-corporate initiative. It always has been. GM and Wal-Mart would be absolutely thrilled to have their employee health burdens taken over by the government and the taxpayers. The health care bureaucracy won't go away, that's the stupidest statement on earth. The government will just be pushing that paperwork, and we all know the government's skill at that. The profiteers won't go away, as doctors, hospitals, suppliers, pharmas, etc. will remain private businesses, except then they will get to suck at the massive government teat, which has raised countless mega-rich.

Do you deny this?

Heard that on NPR tonight. Big Three is meeting wth Bush and one of the things they will bring up among others like cutting steel tarrifs is wanting National HC. How Japs and Germans cost of labor is so much lower etc. Retireesfor GM adds $1600 to a cost of car in just Heath care. Active employees adds $900. So that's $2500 in just HC is in cost of every car. Not to mention pensions. It's bleeding GM/Ford.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry HBalzer, you're simply wrong. Did you read the entire sentence that I wrote? Wait, I'll answer that for you. No.

I responded to a complaint about wait times by saying that they were irrelevant because while you have to wait longer in a socialized system, overall national health is improved. That's the whole point of what I wrote... and it is factually indisputable.

Secondly, you are speaking from a place of profound ignorance about my financial situation. I have never received a handout in my entire life... and chances are pretty good (by national averages) that I'm worth a good deal more then you are. Thanks for playing though!

If you truly believe that people today are poor because they are lazy, then you are simply ignorant. Take a few hours and learn about how the world works and you will see how completely, utterly wrong you are. It's not hard... the only hurdle you will have to overcome is your own preconcieved bias about how hard working and singularly capable you must be in order to be in your current situation.

Finally, learn a little about modern socialism. Every single western country is at least moderately socialist. If you are still using the marxist definition of socialism from the 1800's to describe modern governmental systems, you are again... ignorant. Trying to compare a modern western socialist state to communist Russia is one of the stupidest things that I've heard in quite some time. Sadly enough, that distinction is probably the only thing that made your post worth reading.

Read someone's entire post before you reply, read a few books before you decide to lay down a defining statement of global socioeconomics, and finally wait a few more posts before you decide that someone who DOES know what they are talking about is a shifless deadbeat. You will save yourself a lot of embarassment that way.

 

[gpgofast]

I recently spent 3 weeks in New Zealand. They are on of the most "socialist" free country's in the world and of course, they have a national medical system.

There were a LOT of pluses to their system. First and foremost, since EVERYONE was covered, you were NOT allowed to sue ANYONE for personal injury. Therefore, insurance on automobiles was VERY inexpensive. Their living standard was different than the USA's because fo this. When you rented a car, you didn't NEED liability insurance. You could rent motorcycles inexpensively, the list is long.

But what was WRONG was enlightened by a conversation we had with a local 50 year old man in Queenstown. He was an ex-rodeo cowboy with a bad knee. He was already on his first knee replacement. Oh, and he was also nearlly completely blind. He had walked into town(he couldn't drive-he was blind!) with his dog to meet his local representative so he could be put on the list to get a new knee. There system said the knees had a ten year life span and until his was ten years old, he couldn't get a new one.

I don't look forward to visiting my local US Representative or Senator so I can get a needed medical procedure. Socialized medicine has some good points, but their bad points are REALLY bad.

GP

 

[1EZduzit]

He walked into town with a knee tht needs repalced? Maybe since he has to walk everyplace his knee isn't going to last as long as normal?

I would think they would have an appeal process in the system and if you can show a reason for the need and have a doctor or two back you up with their medical opinions that you could bet one sooner. I just don't believe that something like that would be set in stone.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
He walked into town with a knee tht needs repalced? Maybe since he has to walk everyplace his knee isn't going to last as long as normal?

I would think they would have an appeal process in the system and if you can show a reason for the need and have a doctor or two back you up with their medical opinions that you could bet one sooner. I just don't believe that something like that would be set in stone.

so, in other words, you want even MORE beaurocracy involved in this man getting his new knee replacement?! How can you justify that with a straight face? ... bah.. that's f'n ridiculous!

What if it were your knee and you were told, even after an appeal, to wait several more years because the gub'ment deems your procedure unnessecary? That's ok with you?

New Zealand = population of just over 4 million.
U.S. = population of roughly 300 million, give or take a few million illegals.

so ya... socialized medicine would work just swell here!

"Need new contact lenses, sir? how does June of the year 2012 sound? is that good for you? yes? super!"

bah.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
He walked into town with a knee tht needs repalced? Maybe since he has to walk everyplace his knee isn't going to last as long as normal?

I would think they would have an appeal process in the system and if you can show a reason for the need and have a doctor or two back you up with their medical opinions that you could bet one sooner. I just don't believe that something like that would be set in stone.

so, in other words, you want even MORE beaurocracy involved in this man getting his new knee replacement?! How can you justify that with a straight face? ... bah.. that's f'n ridiculous!

What if it were your knee and you were told, even after an appeal, to wait several more years because the gub'ment deems your procedure unnessecary? That's ok with you?

New Zealand = population of just over 4 million.
U.S. = population of roughly 300 million, give or take a few million illegals.

so ya... socialized medicine would work just swell here!

"Need new contact lenses, sir? how does June of the year 2012 sound? is that good for you? yes? super!"

bah.

All the insurance I have experience requires a second opinion and then has to go to the insurance company to be reviewed and approved before any surgery can take place. If not they don't pay for it. Same difference, but your too blind/stubborn/ignorant to see it. Take your pick, maybe all of the above??

Now show me one f'in country where you need to wait 6 years to get contacts. I dont't think you can, you just being a blowhard, as usual.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
All the insurance I have experience requires a second opinion and then has to go to the insurance company to be reviewed and approved before any surgery can take place. If not they don't pay for it. Same difference, but your too blind/stubborn/ignorant to see it. Take your pick, maybe all of the above??

As for the insurance requiring 2 opinions and a review, about how long do you imagine that might take? Two weeks? A month? Now imagine a process run by our over-burdened gub'ment... we're talking YEARS of appeals and other obnoxious processes.

no f'n way... our population of 300milion cannot handle a national HC system.

Now show me one f'n country where you need to wait 6 years to get contacts. I dont't think you can, you just being a blowhard, as usual.

it was a joke, so take a chill pill phil.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
All the insurance I have experience requires a second opinion and then has to go to the insurance company to be reviewed and approved before any surgery can take place. If not they don't pay for it. Same difference, but your too blind/stubborn/ignorant to see it. Take your pick, maybe all of the above??

As for the insurance requiring 2 opinions and a review, about how long do you imagine that might take? Two weeks? A month? Now imagine a process run by the gub'ment... we're talking YEARS for appeals and other obnoxious processes.

no f'n way... our population of 300milion cannot handle a national HC system.

Now show me one f'n country where you need to wait 6 years to get contacts. I dont't think you can, you just being a blowhard, as usual.

it was a joke, so take a chill pill phil.

Is fear mongering the only thing your good at?

Now get your overpaid, underworked, civil servant ass back to work and earn you pay for a change. I want my goverment employees to EARN there insurance/benifits instead of sitting around bad mouthing tax payers on the internet.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Now get your overpaid, underworked, civil servant ass back to work and earn you pay for a change. I want my goverment employees to EARN there insurance/benifits instead of sitting around bad mouthing tax payers on the internet.

woot! for personal insults! "overpaid" and "underworked"? don't I wish...

 

[fskimospy]

There is no reason why the size of our population would preclude us from having effective socialized medicine. Why is the size of the population relevant? The only thing that matters is the size of the supporting tax base as compared to the population receiving benefits... and we're fine in that respect.

 

[extra]

Man this thread really devolved into a lot of personal attacks. I think we need to not attack other members unless they take what you say and twist it around. ;\ While I think there are a lot of lazy government workers, there are also tons who are wayyyy overworked because their department just doesn't have the finances necessary to hire all the people they need. Lets assume the best about any government workers we have posting here. For all we know they could be posting on the only real lunchbreak they've had all week. We don't know.

I don't know how this thread got to be all about socialized medicine, but since we are talkign about it we should keep to the facts...

The fact is the current system is very bloated. I cannot understand supporting the current system one way or another.

The other fact is our government pays MORE per capita on health care than many countries with totally socialized medicine does.

This can be taken two ways.

ONE: We should give socialized medicine a try. It can't hurt. It could be done for less government spending than we have now. Everybody wins.

TWO: The government, PERIOD, shouldn't be providing socialist-type services in this country. Medicare, medicaid, etc have been expensive mistakes that have driven costs up for everyone. Private industry can take better care of it. Abolish the current system. Implement rules that promote real competition, not monopolies for big corporations. This is supposed to be a free country where we make our own decisions.

You don't need to support socialized medicine (I'd like to see it tried, but I am skeptical) to hate the current system. The current system taxes and spends like socialized medicine but doesn't provide the same benefits.

Both sides should be fed up with the current system and all options should be on the table for serious discussion. Somewhere a brilliant plan may pop up.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: extra
Both sides should be fed up with the current system and all options should be on the table for serious discussion. Somewhere a brilliant plan may pop up.

I agree with that completely.

 

[TravisT]

I am expecting to see the Democrats help my pocket book some after being hurt by some of the Republican moves. If the Democrats try to pull a sly one and go on their far left agenda that many of them hope to do, then I will quickly pull my support for them for 2008. However, if they can keep the moderate approach then they have my support going into this presidential candidate to help what I consider to be a mediocre economy.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Now get your overpaid, underworked, civil servant ass back to work and earn you pay for a change. I want my goverment employees to EARN there insurance/benifits instead of sitting around bad mouthing tax payers on the internet.

woot! for personal insults! "overpaid" and "underworked"? don't I wish...

You working for the goverment, that is the US goverment correct? The same goverment you just claimed take years to do what private industry does in weeks.

As much time as you have to dick off on this message board I can see where you would think that.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm sorry HBalzer, you're simply wrong. Did you read the entire sentence that I wrote? Wait, I'll answer that for you. No.

I responded to a complaint about wait times by saying that they were irrelevant because while you have to wait longer in a socialized system, overall national health is improved. That's the whole point of what I wrote... and it is factually indisputable.

Secondly, you are speaking from a place of profound ignorance about my financial situation. I have never received a handout in my entire life... and chances are pretty good (by national averages) that I'm worth a good deal more then you are. Thanks for playing though!

If you truly believe that people today are poor because they are lazy, then you are simply ignorant. Take a few hours and learn about how the world works and you will see how completely, utterly wrong you are. It's not hard... the only hurdle you will have to overcome is your own preconcieved bias about how hard working and singularly capable you must be in order to be in your current situation.

Finally, learn a little about modern socialism. Every single western country is at least moderately socialist. If you are still using the marxist definition of socialism from the 1800's to describe modern governmental systems, you are again... ignorant. Trying to compare a modern western socialist state to communist Russia is one of the stupidest things that I've heard in quite some time. Sadly enough, that distinction is probably the only thing that made your post worth reading.

Read someone's entire post before you reply, read a few books before you decide to lay down a defining statement of global socioeconomics, and finally wait a few more posts before you decide that someone who DOES know what they are talking about is a shifless deadbeat. You will save yourself a lot of embarassment that way.

Please indulge me, why are people poor these days? Bad luck, lack of opportunity, the white man keeping them down, etc.

You don?t supply a lick of fact, just your opinion. I think you think all this up and perceive it as fact. For example, you claim:

?I responded to a complaint about wait times by saying that they were irrelevant because while you have to wait longer in a socialized system, overall national health is improved. That's the whole point of what I wrote... and it is factually indisputable.?

What support do you have for that? Why is it factually indisputable? I supplied first hand experience in the German national healthcare system with a supporting link. You simply decided to ignore it.

You assume your definition of socialism is the only one when in fact socialism is very broad. Some socialist ideas are closer to communism than others I admit. However, was likening socialism to communism in the sense of redistributing wealth as that was the topic we were discussing. I did not make that clear and apologize. Let me now clarify, redistribution of wealth did not work for Russia and in my opinion was the main downfall of Communist Russia.

As for me assuming you take handouts, I do apologize there is no reason for me to personally bash you for a disagreement in opinions. I thought with your apparent knowledge in regards to ?Handouts? you must have some experience in their success. Since you did not support your opinions I assumed it was first hand knowledge.

 

[fskimospy]

The factual basis for my support of socialized medicine can be found anywhere in which you compare the health demographics between countries with socialized medicine and those without. Also, earlier in the thread I posted several facts comparing Canada to the US in respect to infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. I then correlated it to the amount spent per capita in both countries on health care. I'd have to look up my old post.. it's probably a few pages back. It was what I was referring to though.

I think everyone can agree that wealth or poverty is partially based on personal initiative, but is STRONGLY related to social and environmental factors. Hundreds of millions of people are in desperate poverty in Africa, but I don't think it's because the whole continent is just too lazy to not starve.

As far as the redistribution of income goes, that's way too long a discussion to get into here. It's safe to say however that countries with extremely large disparities between the rich and poor are inherently unstable. If for no other reason, we might want to redistribute some of our income to stave off the revolution.. haha.