StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
What about infant mortality? Does that mean your babies have a fast food diet too? 😉
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
It's time for National Health Care
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
What about infant mortality? Does that mean your babies have a fast food diet too? 😉
No, the US created a dependent class with the welfare handouts. Many of the people on welfare lost all sense of responsibility to themselves and their children. That is one of the causes of the high infant mortality rates.
Infant Mortality Within the United States
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
With freedom comes risk, and unfortunately, irresponsibility. However, I'd rather have freedom and those "bad stats" over oppressive cradle to grave security insured with the loss of my autonomy.
To be honest, it is sad that a few lard assed heart/diabeties patients and inner city gangbangers drive down our average life expectancy. But to say that means we need socialized health care is silly. It will only make irresponsibility WORSE, not better
Man, what is your obsession with freedom? Socialist health care isn't some evil communist plot by the Ruskies. What decade are you from? And the American diet isn't any worse than many other western countries. Big Macs are healthy compared to some of the cr@p served up down here. Fish and Chips covered in sickening amounts of grease is the regular breakfast for half of our population. Heart disease is the biggest killer in New Zealand as well, and I'm sure its the same in many other places.
If you ask me, your style of health care restricts freedom. The freedom to not worry about paying a fortune in health insurance. The freedom to know that your kid will get hospital cover the same as anyone else, regardless of income. Equal treatment for all of society, not just those that can afford it. That's what America is about isn't it? Everyone has access to the basic needs of life? Shelter, healthcare and education? What happened to that philosophy?
There are many ways to measure freedom. Some would see the inane censoring of sex and violence on American television is "big brother" stepping in. Some would say that's just responsible behaviour. Neither is right or wrong. And neither is a communist plot by the evil Ruskies. 😛
Amused
Elite Member
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
With freedom comes risk, and unfortunately, irresponsibility. However, I'd rather have freedom and those "bad stats" over oppressive cradle to grave security insured with the loss of my autonomy.
To be honest, it is sad that a few lard assed heart/diabeties patients and inner city gangbangers drive down our average life expectancy. But to say that means we need socialized health care is silly. It will only make irresponsibility WORSE, not better
Man, what is your obsession with freedom? Socialist health care isn't some evil communist plot by the Ruskies. What decade are you from? And the American diet isn't any worse than many other western countries. Big Macs are healthy compared to some of the cr@p served up down here. Fish and Chips covered in sickening amounts of grease is the regular breakfast for half of our population. Heart disease is the biggest killer in New Zealand as well, and I'm sure its the same in many other places.
If you ask me, your style of health care restricts freedom. The freedom to not worry about paying a fortune in health insurance. The freedom to know that your kid will get hospital cover the same as anyone else, regardless of income. Equal treatment for all of society, not just those that can afford it. That's what America is about isn't it? Everyone has access to the basic needs of life? Shelter, healthcare and education? What happened to that philosophy?
There are many ways to measure freedom. Some would see the inane censoring of sex and violence on American television is "big brother" stepping in. Some would say that's just responsible behaviour. Neither is right or wrong. And neither is a communist plot by the evil Ruskies. 😛
Because in our country, EVERY SINGLE socialized program has brought about a restriction of freedoms. The latest assault against tobacco use and tobacco companies has been justified by the "tobacco's cost to society" argument. In other words, they get to limit what you do and sue perfectly legal companies into bankruptcy because "society has to pay for the consequences."
And that's without a fully socialized health care system in place. I shudder to think of what our lives would be like were we to be forced into a single payer system.
No, I'm not paranoid of "commies." But I will oppose socialism every time it rears it's ugly head. Socialism is anathema to individual freedom. Always has been, always will be. It puts the collective ahead of the individual, which is also anathema to the very spirit of our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights.
And America is NOT about "equal treatment." It's about equality under the law, and equal OPPORTUNITY. And one must remember that equality of opportunity does NOT mean equality of results. In the US you have the freedom to work hard, and buy quality healthcare. What you do not have in the "freedom" to sit on your ass and force others to provide you with entitlements.
In other words, your freedom may not come at the expense of other people's freedom. Is that really all that hard to understand?
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
And here was me thinking access to healthcare was a basic right and not something you should be able to "buy"
I just feel sorry for the kids who suffer because their parents are bums. Or the people who live in ghettos and are condemned to shoddy and poor heathcare for their entire life through no fault of their own. No amount of hard work will get these people health care. I'm surprised you haven't started charging fees for your elementary schools with that attitude. Or have you?
But to each their own I guess. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same.
Amused
Elite Member
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
And here was me thinking access to healthcare was a basic right and not something you should be able to "buy"
I just feel sorry for the kids who suffer because their parents are bums. Or the people who live in ghettos and are condemned to shoddy and poor heathcare for their entire life through no fault of their own. No amount of hard work will get these people health care. I'm surprised you haven't started charging fees for your elementary schools with that attitude. Or have you?
But to each their own I guess. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same.
You cannot have a right to the labor of others, because you then rob those "others" of their rights.
What if I said "I have a basic right to a clean house," and you must either pay for it, or come clean my house? Would that be OK? Would your rights still be secure? Of course not.
Of course I've already covered the "basic right" nonsense. Try reading the entire thread next time. It gets old shutting down the same tired arguments time aftert time after time...
Healthcare for the poor can be covered by charity. What's wrong with voluntary socialism, rather than forced socialism?
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
And here was me thinking access to healthcare was a basic right and not something you should be able to "buy"
I just feel sorry for the kids who suffer because their parents are bums. Or the people who live in ghettos and are condemned to shoddy and poor heathcare for their entire life through no fault of their own. No amount of hard work will get these people health care. I'm surprised you haven't started charging fees for your elementary schools with that attitude. Or have you?
But to each their own I guess. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same.
You cannot have a right to the labor of others, because you then rob those "others" of their rights.
What if I said "I have a basic right to a clean house," and you must either pay for it, or come clean my house? Would that be OK? Would your rights still be secure? Of course not.
Of course I've already covered the "basic right" nonsense. Try reading the entire thread next time. It gets old shutting down the same tired arguments time aftert time after time...
Healthcare for the poor can be covered by charity. What's wrong with voluntary socialism, rather than forced socialism?
Stinky is confusing positive and negative rights. Remember Roosevelt's "freedom from want", the "Great Society". That was a "positive right", a right TO something. The rights you're discussing are negative rights, the rights John Locke promoted, the rights to life, liberty and property...those rights are rights FROM Agression by others. The right to be left alone without interference so long as you respect the equal rights of others, and do not aggress against the rights of others. Stinky's rights DEMAND aggression against positive rights, someone has to pay for someone elses right to food, health care, etc. Positive rights aren't really rights at all, their privilage.
Amused
Elite Member
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
And here was me thinking access to healthcare was a basic right and not something you should be able to "buy"
I just feel sorry for the kids who suffer because their parents are bums. Or the people who live in ghettos and are condemned to shoddy and poor heathcare for their entire life through no fault of their own. No amount of hard work will get these people health care. I'm surprised you haven't started charging fees for your elementary schools with that attitude. Or have you?
But to each their own I guess. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same.
You cannot have a right to the labor of others, because you then rob those "others" of their rights.
What if I said "I have a basic right to a clean house," and you must either pay for it, or come clean my house? Would that be OK? Would your rights still be secure? Of course not.
Of course I've already covered the "basic right" nonsense. Try reading the entire thread next time. It gets old shutting down the same tired arguments time aftert time after time...
Healthcare for the poor can be covered by charity. What's wrong with voluntary socialism, rather than forced socialism?
Stinky is confusing positive and negative rights. Remember Roosevelt's "freedom from want", the "Great Society". That was a "positive right", a right TO something. The rights you're discussing are negative rights, the rights John Locke promoted, the rights to life, liberty and property...those rights are rights FROM Agression by others. The right to be left alone without interference so long as you respect the equal rights of others, and do not aggress against the rights of others. Stinky's rights DEMAND aggression against positive rights, someone has to pay for someone elses right to food, health care, etc. Positive rights aren't really rights at all, their privilage.
Exactly.
Wait, I thought you were an ECB?
FrancesBeansRevenge
Platinum Member
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Foriegn Aid you Hoser!Originally posted by: hagbard
What money you give to other countries??
Americans give a trival amount of foreign aid. Check out how much each country gives in aid relative to their gdp and population:
CIA
I am a tiny country in desperate trouble of foreign aid.
I have the following to offers (stats from your CIA link):
Canada offers me $1.3B in aid... a very generous figure when you factor in GDP and population.
The US offers me $6.9B in aid.... not NEARLY as generous as Canada when you factor in GDP and population.
So, I shake Canada's hand and congratulate them for being so generous, but decline thier offer, and send them on thier way.
The US isn't so pleasant and lovely to have over for dinner but thier checkbook pays a hell of a lot more bills than Canadas.
You can spin the statistics all you want to make yourself feel better but $6.9B vs $1.3B is the bottom line.
Which one do you think buys more food, medicines, etc?
Pure and absolute bull sh!t.
Under the current system I have the FREEDOM to drop my provider for another one if I don't like their coverages. I have the FREEDOM to dump my provider for another one if my current one jacks my rates up on me. I have the FREEDOM to dump my provider for a different one if they raise my deductables.
Under a goverment run system, I have no freedom what so ever. I have one provider. There is no competition. If they raise rates (read: TAXES) I've got to grin and bear it because it's the only plan I have. If they decide that they will no longer cover smokers, then I've got to quit smoking if I want insurance because I can't go over to another company that doesn't care if I smoke.
A national health system would be the absolute definition of the surrender of freedoms.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
And here was me thinking access to healthcare was a basic right and not something you should be able to "buy"
I just feel sorry for the kids who suffer because their parents are bums. Or the people who live in ghettos and are condemned to shoddy and poor heathcare for their entire life through no fault of their own. No amount of hard work will get these people health care. I'm surprised you haven't started charging fees for your elementary schools with that attitude. Or have you?
But to each their own I guess. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same.
You cannot have a right to the labor of others, because you then rob those "others" of their rights.
What if I said "I have a basic right to a clean house," and you must either pay for it, or come clean my house? Would that be OK? Would your rights still be secure? Of course not.
Of course I've already covered the "basic right" nonsense. Try reading the entire thread next time. It gets old shutting down the same tired arguments time aftert time after time...
Healthcare for the poor can be covered by charity. What's wrong with voluntary socialism, rather than forced socialism?
Stinky is confusing positive and negative rights. Remember Roosevelt's "freedom from want", the "Great Society". That was a "positive right", a right TO something. The rights you're discussing are negative rights, the rights John Locke promoted, the rights to life, liberty and property...those rights are rights FROM Agression by others. The right to be left alone without interference so long as you respect the equal rights of others, and do not aggress against the rights of others. Stinky's rights DEMAND aggression against positive rights, someone has to pay for someone elses right to food, health care, etc. Positive rights aren't really rights at all, their privilage.
Exactly.
Wait, I thought you were an ECB?
What's an ECB?
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Foriegn Aid you Hoser!Originally posted by: hagbard
What money you give to other countries??
Americans give a trival amount of foreign aid. Check out how much each country gives in aid relative to their gdp and population:
CIA
I am a tiny country in desperate trouble of foreign aid.
I have the following to offers (stats from your CIA link):
Canada offers me $1.3B in aid... a very generous figure when you factor in GDP and population.
The US offers me $6.9B in aid.... not NEARLY as generous as Canada when you factor in GDP and population.
So, I shake Canada's hand and congratulate them for being so generous, but decline thier offer, and send them on thier way.
The US isn't so pleasant and lovely to have over for dinner but thier checkbook pays a hell of a lot more bills than Canadas.
You can spin the statistics all you want to make yourself feel better but $6.9B vs $1.3B is the bottom line.
Which one do you think buys more food, medicines, etc?
Yet another one that comes into the middle of a conversation. Read it from beginning to end. Its not about the bottom line, its about the "poor American taxpayer having to foot the bill for all this foreign aid, woo is me, and they don't even appreciate it". Humbug.
Linflas
Lifer
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Foriegn Aid you Hoser!Originally posted by: hagbard
What money you give to other countries??
Americans give a trival amount of foreign aid. Check out how much each country gives in aid relative to their gdp and population:
CIA
I am a tiny country in desperate trouble of foreign aid.
I have the following to offers (stats from your CIA link):
Canada offers me $1.3B in aid... a very generous figure when you factor in GDP and population.
The US offers me $6.9B in aid.... not NEARLY as generous as Canada when you factor in GDP and population.
So, I shake Canada's hand and congratulate them for being so generous, but decline thier offer, and send them on thier way.
The US isn't so pleasant and lovely to have over for dinner but thier checkbook pays a hell of a lot more bills than Canadas.
You can spin the statistics all you want to make yourself feel better but $6.9B vs $1.3B is the bottom line.
Which one do you think buys more food, medicines, etc?
Yet another one that comes into the middle of a conversation. Read it from beginning to end. Its not about the bottom line, its about the "poor American taxpayer having to foot the bill for all this foreign aid, woo is me, and they don't even appreciate it". Humbug.
A more interesting statistic for aid would be one that showed the total amount of American money that goes towards aid from all sources, not just taxpayer sources. Traditionally Americans have been quite generous with private charities aiding a variety of causes worldwide. Since I am not really crying about the amount of aid we give worldwide I did not go back through the whole thread to see if the statistics included both types so if they do I stand corrected in advance. 🙂
The complaint was that the American taxpayer was paying for all this aid. If someone does it privately, than that's a different matter. But yes, it would be interesting to compare it, I suppose. I think, again, other countries would come out ahead (I know in Canada, there a lots of charities that deal exclusively with providing development funds in third world countires).
Spencer278
Diamond Member
The reason for rising number of unisuried is health inssurence cost compared to what insurence companys pay out. When a month of insurence for a family of 5 with a large deductiable is 700 dollars why bother. Insureance companys make money pay lost of usless employees, so paying cash will save money.
starwarsdad
Golden Member
We don't need National Health Care, not now, not ever.
What we do need is the end of serious gouging from the medical field which are probably a result of the huge amount of frivoulus(sp?) lawsuits against both the medical and insurance arena's. Recently I broke my wrist, I was amazed at the charges for the individual items used. A plastic splint was $96.80, the Ace wrap used cost $24.75, and I got one Tylenol for $2.60. When they got around to casting it a couple days later the cast material cost me $195. Needless to say the bill for a simple broken bone was in the thousands of $, I ended with my portion of the bill around $1,000.
If we have some form of government regulations on costs I could support that, but the end result of National Health Care is only huge increases in taxes and more than likely a lot less services given. The system in place in Canada is totally worthless, they are closing hospitals and nursing homes at an alarming rate, waiting lines exist based on "need". My brother-inlaw broke his leg skiing and had to lay in his hospital bed for THREE days before they came to fix it because there where people who had greater need than did he.
Farmall
What we do need is the end of serious gouging from the medical field which are probably a result of the huge amount of frivoulus(sp?) lawsuits against both the medical and insurance arena's. Recently I broke my wrist, I was amazed at the charges for the individual items used. A plastic splint was $96.80, the Ace wrap used cost $24.75, and I got one Tylenol for $2.60. When they got around to casting it a couple days later the cast material cost me $195. Needless to say the bill for a simple broken bone was in the thousands of $, I ended with my portion of the bill around $1,000.
If we have some form of government regulations on costs I could support that, but the end result of National Health Care is only huge increases in taxes and more than likely a lot less services given. The system in place in Canada is totally worthless, they are closing hospitals and nursing homes at an alarming rate, waiting lines exist based on "need". My brother-inlaw broke his leg skiing and had to lay in his hospital bed for THREE days before they came to fix it because there where people who had greater need than did he.
Farmall
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
