so you disagree that power corrupts ?
and yes i am a foreign douchebag to your north
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Hmmm… So the same upper 5-10% that will be paying the brunt of the country’s ‘universal healthcare’ costs will need to fly to another country to get quality healthcare for themselves? Sounds like a great system.
[/quote]
Need? No. Decide to? Maybe, it’s a free country.
If you choose to believe that Wright was preaching hate and division, then I can see how it would concern you. However, grabbing a couple clips and characterizing his “career” and the church that way is a bit of a stretch.
The guy had an alternate viewpoint, but short of promoting terrorism there used to be something known as freedom of expression. Now, if you could show me where he asks people to do anything more serious than reasonable civil disobedience I’ll take a look…
I take it everyone assumes Obama has a plan to actually pay people to do nothing… as opposed to implementing a more progressive taxation policy?
[quote] vroom wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Hmmm… So the same upper 5-10% that will be paying the brunt of the country’s ‘universal healthcare’ costs will need to fly to another country to get quality healthcare for themselves? Sounds like a great system.
Need? No. Decide to? Maybe, it’s a free country.
[/quote]
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
[/quote]
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
[quote]vroom wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
[/quote]
You know, in the good old days, most workers were in so called “friendly societies” where they took care of their own so that noone lost their home and starved when a family member got sick.
Evil capitalist even contributed!
That was highly efficient and voluntary and is one of the many examples how government action destroys private initiative and replaces it with BS.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/social_justice/sj0022.html
An article on private charity in Victorian England, let go of the idea that people would starve without the government, it is untenable.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Oh come on guys what’s wrong with taking more of your money and giving it to people who sit on their asses all day and expect the government to help them?
It’s called redistribution of wealth, or as obama puts it change.[/quote]
You are one of the people getting that “wealth”. So how hard do you work?
moron.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
There needs to be a single follow-up question to most of his ideas/plans: At what cost?
“We will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.”
Great. At what cost?
“We will drastically reduce/remove American forces from Iraq.”
Great. At what cost?
“We will develop a health care system that will provide accessible, affordable coverage for all.”
Great. At what cost?
“We will invest in alternative fuels and renewable energy, including a plan to increase America?s energy efficiency and create 5 million new ?green? jobs.”
Great. At what cost?
“We will remove tax breaks for all companies that send jobs overseas.”
Great. At what cost?
“We will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit.”
Great. At what cost?
The ‘Obama Factor’ is baffling. For some reason, there are very intelligent people who completely lose their analaytical faculties with this guy – believing is seeing, words speak louder than actions, ambitions speak louder than realities.
[/quote]
And yet McCain adds more to the debt.
Odd that fixing problems costs, but costs less than the McCain approach of not fixing problems.
So clearly, not so baffling—analytically speaking.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Hmmm… So the same upper 5-10% that will be paying the brunt of the country’s ‘universal healthcare’ costs will need to fly to another country to get quality healthcare for themselves? Sounds like a great system.
Need? No. Decide to? Maybe, it’s a free country.
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
[/quote]
Uh, you/we already bear that burden. The point is to do it better.
[quote]100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Hmmm… So the same upper 5-10% that will be paying the brunt of the country’s ‘universal healthcare’ costs will need to fly to another country to get quality healthcare for themselves? Sounds like a great system.
Need? No. Decide to? Maybe, it’s a free country.
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
Uh, you/we already bear that burden. The point is to do it better.[/quote]
No, the point is not to do it at all id we don´t wan´t to.
You may use your money any way you wish to use it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
[/quote]
I don’t think you do know how it works.
My point isn’t that those truly in need should be S.O.L. – it’s that ‘greedy capitalists’ do it better than inefficient governments ever will. Why? Because I’m not going to write a check for $x,xxx and forget about it. It’s my hard-earned money, and I’m going to make DAMN SURE it’s reaching its intended recipient as efficiently as possible. And while you’ll never come across someone looking to INCREASE their income tax because it will benefit their neighbors, you will find thousands upon thousands of Americans who voluntarily send their money to organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – because those greedy capitalists do it better.
[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Hmmm… So the same upper 5-10% that will be paying the brunt of the country’s ‘universal healthcare’ costs will need to fly to another country to get quality healthcare for themselves? Sounds like a great system.
Need? No. Decide to? Maybe, it’s a free country.
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
Uh, you/we already bear that burden. The point is to do it better.
No, the point is not to do it at all id we don´t wan´t to.
You may use your money any way you wish to use it.[/quote]
Uh, yeah… but we live in America, which last I checked was a part of the real world. In fantasy land “not doing it all” might be an option, but not so much in a civilized and currently functioning society.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
I don’t think you do know how it works.
My point isn’t that those truly in need should be S.O.L. – it’s that ‘greedy capitalists’ do it better than inefficient governments ever will. Why? Because I’m not going to write a check for $x,xxx and forget about it. It’s my hard-earned money, and I’m going to make DAMN SURE it’s reaching its intended recipient as efficiently as possible. And while you’ll never come across someone looking to INCREASE their income tax because it will benefit their neighbors, you will find thousands upon thousands of Americans who voluntarily send their money to organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – because those greedy capitalists do it better.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
[/quote]
Uh, no.
Govt. run healthcare is vastly more efficient than the “greedy capitalist” options. Mostly because of the “greedy capitalist” part, which involves a lot of “administration costs” that get eaten by folks like me.
In short I get crappy expensive care for myself AND I still have to help pay for the lazy, unhealthy, uncovered folks.
[quote]100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
I don’t think you do know how it works.
My point isn’t that those truly in need should be S.O.L. – it’s that ‘greedy capitalists’ do it better than inefficient governments ever will. Why? Because I’m not going to write a check for $x,xxx and forget about it. It’s my hard-earned money, and I’m going to make DAMN SURE it’s reaching its intended recipient as efficiently as possible. And while you’ll never come across someone looking to INCREASE their income tax because it will benefit their neighbors, you will find thousands upon thousands of Americans who voluntarily send their money to organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – because those greedy capitalists do it better.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
Uh, no.
Govt. run healthcare is vastly more efficient than the “greedy capitalist” options. Mostly because of the “greedy capitalist” part, which involves a lot of “administration costs” that get eaten by folks like me.
In short I get crappy expensive care for myself AND I still have to help pay for the lazy, unhealthy, uncovered folks.[/quote]
LOL!! That’s funny as hell.
So let me get this straight; you think that handing health care off to a government run bureaucracy, will improve the administrative efficiency of health care in the US?
Tell me you didn’t just suggest that. seriously.
[quote]100meters wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
Hmmm… So the same upper 5-10% that will be paying the brunt of the country’s ‘universal healthcare’ costs will need to fly to another country to get quality healthcare for themselves? Sounds like a great system.
Need? No. Decide to? Maybe, it’s a free country.
Sounds good. So how about this: I’m free to spend MY money on MY own form of health care, preventive or otherwise – eating clean, staying fit, avoiding excess, and paying for whatever consequences / misfortunes come my way.
Likewise, those citizens who live off fast food, lead sedentary lives – let alone abuse drugs/smoke/drink excessively – can do the same. Because, you know, it’s a free country. Is that unreasonable? Or is it unreasonable that I should have to bear the burden of their laziness?
Uh, you/we already bear that burden. The point is to do it better.
No, the point is not to do it at all id we don´t wan´t to.
You may use your money any way you wish to use it.
Uh, yeah… but we live in America, which last I checked was a part of the real world. In fantasy land “not doing it all” might be an option, but not so much in a civilized and currently functioning society.
[/quote]
See Sinister ministers reply above.
Or Bastiat´s:
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
[quote]100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
I don’t think you do know how it works.
My point isn’t that those truly in need should be S.O.L. – it’s that ‘greedy capitalists’ do it better than inefficient governments ever will. Why? Because I’m not going to write a check for $x,xxx and forget about it. It’s my hard-earned money, and I’m going to make DAMN SURE it’s reaching its intended recipient as efficiently as possible. And while you’ll never come across someone looking to INCREASE their income tax because it will benefit their neighbors, you will find thousands upon thousands of Americans who voluntarily send their money to organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – because those greedy capitalists do it better.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
Uh, no.
Govt. run healthcare is vastly more efficient than the “greedy capitalist” options. Mostly because of the “greedy capitalist” part, which involves a lot of “administration costs” that get eaten by folks like me.
In short I get crappy expensive care for myself AND I still have to help pay for the lazy, unhealthy, uncovered folks.[/quote]
First of all I live in a country with socialized healthcare and second, I live in a country with socialized health care.
Nice try though.
And you are wrong, because the real cost of socialized health care lie in the lack of competition, lack of innovation, political intervention, bureaucracy, and so further and so on…
The actual administrative overhead is pretty small though.
Like the brain of a dinosaur.
http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/c/c/ccd80-1821255.jpg
This is the first time Americans can choose a black president
[quote]orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
I don’t think you do know how it works.
My point isn’t that those truly in need should be S.O.L. – it’s that ‘greedy capitalists’ do it better than inefficient governments ever will. Why? Because I’m not going to write a check for $x,xxx and forget about it. It’s my hard-earned money, and I’m going to make DAMN SURE it’s reaching its intended recipient as efficiently as possible. And while you’ll never come across someone looking to INCREASE their income tax because it will benefit their neighbors, you will find thousands upon thousands of Americans who voluntarily send their money to organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – because those greedy capitalists do it better.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
Uh, no.
Govt. run healthcare is vastly more efficient than the “greedy capitalist” options. Mostly because of the “greedy capitalist” part, which involves a lot of “administration costs” that get eaten by folks like me.
In short I get crappy expensive care for myself AND I still have to help pay for the lazy, unhealthy, uncovered folks.
First of all I live in a country with socialized healthcare and second, I live in a country with socialized health care.
Nice try though.
And you are wrong, because the real cost of socialized health care lie in the lack of competition, lack of innovation, political intervention, bureaucracy, and so further and so on…
The actual administrative overhead is pretty small though.
Like the brain of a dinosaur.
[/quote]
uhhh nice try you goon. anyone with the slightest clue knows that us health care is being tanked by administrative costs. public health 101 buddy.
even back in the early 90s our hospitals were reaching 25% administrative costs. And now were up to 31%, in California its reaching 45%. And no its not the lack of competition or any made up answers you can think of. It’s tied into the huge amount of paper shuffling, oversight, advertising, and underwriting.
(so actually no, competition, which is high, is actually doing nothing to reduce costs, HMO/managed care down the drain…)
More than DOUBLE that of Canada.
Reason why?
Because Canadian hospitals only deal with 1 insurance provider, instead of 150 like the US, the provincial government. GASP!!! Which means Canada’s system isn’t even socialized!!! Hospital workers are not government workers, they are employed under private practice.
and put together the 1000+ dollars we spend per capita on each person (750+ more than Canada) and we get savings enough to cover the 41 million Americans with no care, and at no additional cost to people with care…
AND an AMA(who shot down Trumans attempt at socialized care) study showed that Canada’s private health care organizations are spending more on overhead than we are lol.
were the last rich industrialized nation to have private care as a main system, we can easily switch to nationalized care and do even better than the euros and canadians.
and before anyone ASSumes, im not voting for obama, nor mccain, i wish there was at least someone from a second party running for prez instead of two from the same.
Its odd that you have no clue about your own health care system which means you A) dont live in Canada and just make things up or B) you’re a goon who knows nothing and makes things up.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
orion wrote:
100meters wrote:
SinisterMinister wrote:
vroom wrote:
Look, I know how it works.
Some folks, and I’m not trying to convince you of it, actually think that leaving families under the constant threat of financial ruin due to circumstances that are often beyond their control (even if they do try to be healthy) is not acceptable in todays day and age.
You know, some children have their loser parents die off early and their lives suck. I realize it’s not our responsibility to do anything for them as their parents should have planned better, but hey, lots of people have bleeding hearts.
I’d say put a special consumption tax on really unhealthy products/habits, but that is probably going to raise another series of bugaboos for people to complain about.
I don’t think you do know how it works.
My point isn’t that those truly in need should be S.O.L. – it’s that ‘greedy capitalists’ do it better than inefficient governments ever will. Why? Because I’m not going to write a check for $x,xxx and forget about it. It’s my hard-earned money, and I’m going to make DAMN SURE it’s reaching its intended recipient as efficiently as possible. And while you’ll never come across someone looking to INCREASE their income tax because it will benefit their neighbors, you will find thousands upon thousands of Americans who voluntarily send their money to organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – because those greedy capitalists do it better.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/2004/0448_philan.pdf
Uh, no.
Govt. run healthcare is vastly more efficient than the “greedy capitalist” options. Mostly because of the “greedy capitalist” part, which involves a lot of “administration costs” that get eaten by folks like me.
In short I get crappy expensive care for myself AND I still have to help pay for the lazy, unhealthy, uncovered folks.
First of all I live in a country with socialized healthcare and second, I live in a country with socialized health care.
Nice try though.
And you are wrong, because the real cost of socialized health care lie in the lack of competition, lack of innovation, political intervention, bureaucracy, and so further and so on…
The actual administrative overhead is pretty small though.
Like the brain of a dinosaur.
uhhh nice try you goon. anyone with the slightest clue knows that us health care is being tanked by administrative costs. public health 101 buddy.
even back in the early 90s our hospitals were reaching 25% administrative costs. And now were up to 31%, in California its reaching 45%. And no its not the lack of competition or any made up answers you can think of. It’s tied into the huge amount of paper shuffling, oversight, advertising, and underwriting.
(so actually no, competition, which is high, is actually doing nothing to reduce costs, HMO/managed care down the drain…)
More than DOUBLE that of Canada.
Reason why?
Because Canadian hospitals only deal with 1 insurance provider, instead of 150 like the US, the provincial government. GASP!!! Which means Canada’s system isn’t even socialized!!! Hospital workers are not government workers, they are employed under private practice.
and put together the 1000+ dollars we spend per capita on each person (750+ more than Canada) and we get savings enough to cover the 41 million Americans with no care, and at no additional cost to people with care…
AND an AMA(who shot down Trumans attempt at socialized care) study showed that Canada’s private health care organizations are spending more on overhead than we are lol.
were the last rich industrialized nation to have private care as a main system, we can easily switch to nationalized care and do even better than the euros and canadians.
and before anyone ASSumes, im not voting for obama, nor mccain, i wish there was at least someone from a second party running for prez instead of two from the same.
Its odd that you have no clue about your own health care system which means you A) dont live in Canada and just make things up or B) you’re a goon who knows nothing and makes things up.[/quote]
Well, A) I live in Austria, which B) can be seen right under my avatar, the picture on the left of my posts which C) makes me shudder when I think that all your opinions and responses are as well researched as this.
Then, the notion that you could do it better than the Europeans and the Canadians is a pipe dream, not only because the US are huge and diverse, which makes central planning harder and not easier, but also because we steal from you.
So, who will you steal your ideas, innovations, new technologies and drugs from, when you too have finally socialiced medicine?
And yes, our private hospitals charge 1/3 to 1/2 of what government clinics do.
Our biggest government clinic also cost about trice the amount it was planned to cost, the corruption surrounding its building was, and still is, legendary and unsurpassed.