palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
I would rather receive the best possible services and treatments on the planet, than save money. I also refuse to put up with 3-month waiting lists for a simple check-ups... call me selfish... I don't care.
Do you realize how many Canadians cross over to the U.S. and pay cash for our medical treatments?!
If you are in charge of implementing policy for a nation, you should do what is best for the nation as a whole.
This is clearly socialized medicine. Not through theoretical conjecture, but through empirical evidence that can be collected from countries across the globe. It works, and it has been proven to work. To continue with our current system is insane.
Believe it or not, a 3 month waiting list for everyone is way better then some going without those checkups at all. If you have health insurance, or if you ever visit a hospital... trust me, you are paying for those people that didn't get something easy checked out and ended up with multi thousand dollar problems. You just pay for it in wildly higher health care premiums.
To be fair, you missed the point of my post. While individual cases may vary, on the whole Canadians are receiving BETTER care then we are (as evidenced by demographics), for LESS money. A lot less money.
This is clearly socialized medicine. Not through theoretical conjecture, but through empirical evidence that can be collected from countries across the globe. It works, and it has been proven to work. To continue with our current system is insane.
Believe it or not, a 3 month waiting list for everyone is way better then some going without those checkups at all. If you have health insurance, or if you ever visit a hospital... trust me, you are paying for those people that didn't get something easy checked out and ended up with multi thousand dollar problems. You just pay for it in wildly higher health care premiums.
To be fair, you missed the point of my post. While individual cases may vary, on the whole Canadians are receiving BETTER care then we are (as evidenced by demographics), for LESS money. A lot less money.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
that is absolutely false. The treatments, and the Dr's performing them, are below U.S. standards across the board. The only reason the U.S. continues to be on the leading edge of medicine is because of the capitalistic nature of the services and providers. The best Dr's in the world study, live, and work in the U.S.
If you succeed in socializing medicine, you will, in effect, be limiting the availability of those superior services and treatments to my family, simply in order to benefit others who cannot afford it. That is not acceptable... The lives and health of my family will always trump the lives of those who cannot afford healthcare.
selfish? In this case, you're g'damn right.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,839
- 8,430
- 136
without profit, there can be no progress. take it or leave it.
it's what happens when the corporate mindset takes over basic, essential humanitarian services.
it's what happens when the corporate mindset takes over basic, essential humanitarian services.
Are you doing without something?? Yeah, I didn't think so.
The REAL facts are the US doesn't have the best health care in the world, but we do have the most expensive and still the number of unisured people keeps growing. The GOP had better sit up and take notice or your going to get really "thumped" 2 years from now. Praise the Lord and pass the ammuntion.
There is nothing wrong or evil with someone making a "reasonable" profit. The $64,000 question is how to slice the pie.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Because Republicans, while lazy and clueless recently, aren't power hungry micro managing control freaks like the Democrats are. The more you are concerned with controlling every little thing, the more you crave the broad power to do so, and the more you get frustrated when it doesn't go your way.
The serious problem is with things like anti-gun legislation, welfare, the formation of new agencies, etc. that the dems push have long lasting effects that are hard to undo down the road. (And yes, the Republicans are guilty of the creating more agencies crap. Homeland security is a joke, and its already built into the constitution anyway)
Taxes can always be raised and lowered, and wars can always be started and ended depending on who gets elected. The things I pay attention to are the things that become permanent. Things like gun bans and welfare programs tend to never get re-visited once they are passed, which is total BS. This means they can chip away little by little with each slice of power they get.
We should always review and revisit existing legislation before adding more to it. It's total bullshit that once agencies and laws are created that they can never be disbanded when they have served their purpose. If memory serves me well, there was/is still a government committee on the payroll today, which was created a LONG time ago to study wood for battleships hulls...
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
No problem with profit here either. I'm a conservative who fully embraces the idea of personal responsibility and free market.
I do want to saythis though, to all the fellow free market capitalists here:
I do have a problem with oil companies claiming they have to raise prices due to increased costs of oil when they are making record profits. If they were only passing on the higher oil costs their profits would remain the same, not sky rocket proportionally to the price increase.
And as far as higher oil costs in the first place are concerned, OPEC arbitrarily cutting supply to control prices to 'stick it to America' (ie: Chavez and friends), esp after claiming they couldn't make enough before, is unacceptable. It is the same ****** as DRAM price fixing and the OPEC cartel needs to be smashed to ****** and strung out and left to rot.
If oil followed the laws of supply and demand it would be dirt cheap, as the demand is high and lots and lots would be produced by lots and lots of competing suppliers. *laugh* yeah right. However that demand is inelastic and the supply is controlled by a few, and thus people are manipulating the system and screwing the rest of us.
Oil is NOT free market. It is nice to see though that in light of the OPEC abuse, that new private non OPEC startups are starting to give OPEC a reason to worry. Now THAT is free market at work.
It is of great concern to me that many of these OPEC members out to bring down America by manipulating it's economy with oil, have ties with communism and anti-everything islamic theocracies.
As a side note, on the topic of taking down America via economy, lets see... Mass invasion of socialist free-loaders from Mexico and South America out breeding us and infiltrating our government under the guise of political correctness, Chavez and Castro and friends reviving communism and promoting the fall of America, revival of violent Islamic aggresion and expansion around the world, etc. Yeah, we are being taken over and we are facing serious problems. If politics can't contain the problem and reverse it, we are headed down the path to war on our own soil again here very soon.
I can't believe people, twently years later, still fall for the bullshite "Reaganomics is about smaller government" stuff!!!
It's like they never looked at what the results of his actions were because they were so enamored by the bright lights and big words that they tried to use.
I think that all Repubs are "Reagan Conservatives".....preach one thing and do the opposite.
Hell, even his own VP couldn't deal with the effects of those outrages policies giving them the term of endearment "Voodoo" economics.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
Don't kid yourself, we could stomp China militarily, provided we weren't tied up in watered down airsoft wars with muslims across the globe.
For starters, we have, oh, a navy, you know with ships that can carry people and planes and move them around? Projecting power to the opponents borders helps a little.
We have a far superior air force. The 40 year old F-15 is superior to any production Mig or Su fighter of significance (none of the proposed 'superior' models have ever been put into significant production beyond air show prototypes, much like video card companies paper launch or release limited quantities to testers only to say theirs is better). Don't even get me started on the F-22 which can solo as many F-15s as it can carry missiles, let alone anything any other country has :Q
Our troops are better equipped. Ask the Soviets about quality over quantity and the problems they faced in WWII. They may have outnumbered the enemy, but they were still out gunned. That's quality over quantity. Population counts don't determine military outcomes anymore, as things have changed since the days of Genghis Kahn and friends. For every 20 communist conscripts with stamped SKS's and AK's made in 5 minutes, there is a marine sniper with a multi thousand dollar M-21 or M-82 sniper rifle system that can take them all out in the middle of the night without ever even being seen.
And if the military battle came to a stand still, we'd have 100 million gun owning civilians eager to join the battle vs. hastily trained Chinese civilian recruits who have never even seen a gun before save for on a government authority.
Next, though it would put Wal-Mart out of business, we could fold their economy in less than a day... they need us more than we need them.
And if you are talking nukes, well yeah we would take damage of course, but we have some 10,000 nukes compared to their 400, and we have a head start in anti missile technology.
As for the remarks on government intervention in private matters, I agree 100%. I would prefer that I not be spied on and restricted by my own government, but I also accept that it may be a little harder to move preemptively against terrorists without some of those tools. In other words, while I say "no you aren't allowed to spy on me", I accept that it makes it slightly harder to intercept terrorist attacks and won't hold my government accountable in the limited context of failing to use the tools I deny them. Yes I know it means I could die in a terrorist attack that *could* be prevented with wire tapping, and I accept that, but blame the terrorists, not the government (provided they are doing everything else within their privileged powers). I still won't support empowering the government to that level in exchange for promises of safety.
The republicans cry of "we have to spy on everyone to catch terrorists" is no better than the democrats cry of "we have to take guns away from everyone to stop criminals"
And if you, say, lose your job, it's fine with you that your family will no longer be able to afford to go to the doctor, right?
Right now we let HMOs slice the pie. Socialized medicine is about letting the people slice the pie. That's really it.
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.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
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?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
no matter what happens, I'm a survivor and a provider. I've never taken a handout, and never will. I believe that I alone am responsible for the well-being of my family, not the Government. I've also secured my future by investing in a very good education that I personally worked to pay for; and I happen to work in a field that allows me to pick and choose my jobs at will.
In order for me to be out of work, the U.S. government would have to collapse or be destroyed completely. And, if that happens, a job and health care will be the least of my worries!
so, basically, your "what if" scenarios don't phase me at all. I'm pretty selfish when it comes to the health and well-being of my family, so I'd prefer it if the government stays the hell out of my way in that regard.
kthnx
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
What does he care? He has a miltary socialist US government handout to give him his if he retires, so screw what "ungrateful mettling civilian leeches" think.
In other words, if you want free healthcare: join the army like him then "its legit" and shows his "rugged individulism".
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Reservists only receive TRICARE coverage for themselves and their families while we are on active duty, and for 180 days after coming home from on a tour. We can elect to buy coverage beyond that, but I believe that it's more expensive than most COBRA's.
In my case, I pay for and receive my health insurance through my civilian employer.
So, as usual, you are wrong. GG.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter