 |
The debate in Congress is how to penalize people who choose to not sign onto an insurance plan . They have threatened fine and or imprisonment for people who refuse .
Now ;if this plan they propose is so great then why would they need to threaten people to participate. You would think the uninsured would rush to sign up... no ?
:d
And once again---Congress itself will not be using the public plan they're coming up with.
They'll stay with their nice, cushy, special service medical and dental coverage that they've already got.
It's official . RINO Olympia Snowe is breaking ranks . Now the Dems can claim any Senate bill as bi-partisan.
We've been Snowed again.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Elliot
Defeating bad policy that will cost trillions to the taxpayor, and none of the proposals cover 100% OF AMERICANS.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
By the way, you never answered why YOU DON'T GO TO THE VA? Why do you want government dictated healthcare for others but don't participate in it yourself?
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
This isn't about me. I thought we covered that in the gay marriage debate. I ain't gay, but that doesn't stop me from doing the right thing.
excon
Avoiding the question?
Is the right tihing to subject the American people to British NICE results [ poorer cancer results - a true measure of a healthcare system ] or to VA style mishaps like hiv from colonoscopies, higher surgical mortality in some cases, medical information breaches?
Is the right thing MORE government intervention - the type of which led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [ the root of the housing collapse ], gas rationing and shortages like in the 70s? This is the same government that is printing money so fast that you advise to buy gold.
Is that the right thing?
How about all the things that ET has mentioned
Regarding REAL reform?
G&P
Hello again, in:Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
You guys talk about tort reform as though that's the panacea - the magic bullet that will SOLVE the problem... You say the cost of malpractice insurance drives up the costs REAL high. You may be surprised to find out that I agree.
But, instead of limiting the amount of money a maimed person gets from the INSURANCE company, why don't we make malpractice insurance illegal? If we did that, then a maimed person can only sue for what a doctor has. That'll END all the ambulance chasing trial attorney's you hate so much. That'll end the monstrous awards - OK it won't end them - but WE won't be paying for them - the doctor will, and what's wrong with that?
And, if it's INSURANCE that costs soooooo much, that it drives up the costs sooooo much, just imagine how much we'll save if we eliminated it altogether. Besides that, why should EVERYBODY pay for a doctors mistakes??
excon
Why should I pay for insurance for all these years while someone gets a free ride until they get sick?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
First of all, as I have mentioned before, the Tort Reform that I prefer is similar to the Texas model in which there are no limits on awards. The reform is in creating a board that determines whether a case has merit BEFORE it ever hits the court system. Frivolous cases are thrown out immediately, and meritorious cases move forward inimpeded, and without any limitations on awards. So there's your entire argument right down the crapper. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Second of all, what about the other 9 items I mentioned? No comments on them? No issues?
Well, you know what? I'd be willing to give up on tort reform if I got the other 9 items on my list. If tort reform is such a non-starter, I'll take the other 9 in exchange for giving that one up.
Oh, and I got a number 11 for my list... Tom mentioned it earlier in this thread, so hat tip to him.
11) Eliminate the Health Insurance Company exemption from the anti-trust laws, thus increasing the potential for competition industry-wide.
Any comments, excon? Got anything to say about the other 10 items on my list? Or are you stuck on tort reform, which would NOT limit or cap awards to injured parties as you claim?
Elliot
Tom's right. Seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If nationalized health care is good enough for the uninsured guy, it ought to be good enough for you. And Congress, for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
After all, you're the proponent of a single-payer government health system. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and use the VA system? If government health care is good enough for those not currently insured, and if you are pushing it for EVERYONE ELSE too (single payer proponent that you are), why not step up and show us how wonderful the system is.
But we know you won't because the VA system sucks. You know it and we know it. It's been well documented in the MSM, though right now most of the MSM is hoping that you'll ignore that little point. You wouldn't go to a VA hospital to VISIT someone there on a bet, much less trust your health to that system. You are elligible for full coverage as a war vet, and it wouldn't cost you a dime. Free health care for the rest of your life (as long as it lasts). And you STILL wouldn't touch it... because YOU know as well as we do how long you would last in the VA system.
But that's the system you are pushing for poor people... and the rest of us if you get your way.
So... put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Either get in line at the VA hospital and prove how wonderful, efficient, and effective government-run medicine is, or admit that it sucks and that you wouldn't use the system if you had another choice, and stop pushing it for everyone else.
Oh, but of course this isn't about YOU. You're just being the benevolent provider of health care to the poor on everyone else's dime.
:cool:
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Let's not bring Americans who died in a (useless) war into this - has nothing to do with the subject at hand and while there were a few protests, mainly by College students, the protests were not on any large scale. People most definitely were not protesting in the streets on a daily basis. Very much like the current war a LOT of people were NOT against the war.
Maybe the news in the UK didn't make this clear.
Why are you - in the UK - so interested in this subject to begin with? Aren't there enough problems in the UK to worry about so you have to worry about problems in the US?
This is another subject in the category of "here's the problem." Now if only somebody had the solution!
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2029047Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Elliot
Clever answer - but, again, I see a lot of what if and nothing clear cut.
Everyone has a theory/solution - but none of them appear to be acceptable or working.
That's it, this individualistic attituide, that America and its subjects have is exactly why you deserve your reputation!
We do not receive american news - instead we take a more cultural approach to the world, and learn what is happening outside our borders as well as inside
Judy are you saying I can't understand what someone from a different country thinks about something just because I am not an american??
Excuse me?Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
I listed 10 concrete, REAL steps to lower the cost of health care and make more accessible to those who cannot afford it.
Which of those was "what if"? Which of them was not clear cut?
In fact, the first one I listed, making all medical care and medical insurance expenses pre-tax, would cause an immediate decrease in costs to the consumer of 15-30% as soon as it is implemented.
You don't consider that a concrete step toward making health care more affordable and more accessible?
Elliot
That individualism is a large part of what makes America great. And by the way, we kind of take exception to being called "subjects" around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Where are you, NK? Canadians are speaking out...
Oh... so you think that the community-based approach... the community comes first, the individual only a distant second... is the way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Yeah... the Soviet Union thought that was the way to go too. For that matter, so did those who lived under feudalism. So did those who lived in slave societies. The 'national good' was more important to them than individualism too.
The USA celebrates individualism. Our Constitution ENSHRINES it. The rights and privlidges of the individual are what make us the most prosperous nation in the world... even in the throes of the worst recession we've seen in 60 years. Our poor people have cell phones, color TVs, microwaves, and many of the same trappings that our richest have, if more modest. Can any other country say the same? Our poorest people live lives of relative luxury when compared to the poor of other countries.
And yet, despite this relative wealth, and despite our rugged individualism, the USA is still the most charitable nation on Earth. Aside from what the government gives in aid to other countries ($22.7 billion in government aid in 2007) the people of the USA, those hopelessly individualistic people, give more charity than any other nation on Earth.
The world's 10 most charitable nations - Giving- msnbc.com
Your nation is a distant 2nd, giving less than half what we give as a percentage of GDP.
(The actual dollar or pound amount you give is much lower than half of ours since our actual GDP is significantly higher than yours.)
Let's hear it for individualism.
Elliot
Wolverine, You guys are sound wrapped up with communism that you can't see that a simple gesture of helping your fellow human is a good thing without thinking it is the fall of democracy.
You are going to be taxed for every dollar you earn then some, So spare that dollar for some kid in Africa to receive free healthcare and give it to your neighbour
If you really want to make this an American vs England thing then please start a new thread, lets see how much the colonialists have learnt in 200 years!
No offence to anybody else, except wolverine :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Obviously I don't or I wouldn't have responded in the fashion I did.
You have finally got to the nub of the debate on health care in the US; paranoia about communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
The right in the US equates socialism as being communism and therefore un-american as if being un-american is necessarily a bad thing. These guys are more brainwashed than the Russian communists used to be.
Let's face it the US doesn't spend many dollars for a kid in Africa to have health care because they believe that kid should pay its own way the same way they expect their own people to pay their own way. The Darwinian anthem of survival of the fittest is sung in the US every day and being fit equates to having money. Even if all the money they spend on foreign aid were diverted to paying for health care in the US it would make no difference at all, because it is the system and the thinking behind the system that needs reform and it starts with the premise that the rights they so fervently espouse include a right to health care
Hello again, clete:
**greenie**
excon
Well said Paraclete!! See the Commonwealth isn't dead :)
Anyway, just read The Senete Committee has voted in favour of the Health reform
Can anybody here explain how a law becomes a law in America - short and brief please :) In otherwords, what happens now after the Senete Committee
To repeat Tom's question, where is the benevolence in being FORCED to give charity?Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Or to put it another way...
There is the story of the Conservative and the Liberal who were walking together when they passed a homeless person on the street. The Conservative reached into his wallet and handed the homeless person a $5 bill. The Liberal was very impressed with this show of kindness and resolved to be charitable as well.
They continued to walk along the same road when they passed another homeless person. Immediately the Liberal reached into the pocket of the Conservative, grabbed the Conservative's wallet, pulled out a $100 bill and handed it to the homeless person.
That's the difference between YOUR gesture of "kindness" and the ones WE undertake. Ours are by choice based on what wish to contribute, while yours are mandatory and way too expensive. And not particularly charitable when you are doing it with other people's money.
And yet, despite our belief that the government has no place in giving charity FOR us, we STILL give more charity than you do... even with your government chipping in your money for you. By a factor of more than 2:1.
Ain't that something... we "greedy" Americans, who are "too stuck" on "avoiding communism" because we are "too individualistic" are more charitable in the real world than you more liberal, open-minded, even-handed Brits. Or the French. Or the Canadians. Or pretty much anyone else on Earth.
See, it isn't a USA vs. UK thing. It's a capitalism vs. socialism thing. Yours is a socialist country in all but name. (So is France and most of the rest of the European world. Canada too.) And yet despite that socialist attitude, you guys end up LESS charitable than us "greedy capitalists" by an order of magnitude. And then you claim that we should be even MORE charitable by having the government FORCE it on us. Nice of you to be so charitable with OUR money.
But we ain't buying what you are selling.
Well... excon is, but then he's excon.
Elliot
Hello again, p:Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
I'll make it as short as I know how. There will be a conference in the senate to reconcile the two bills. The other one already passed its committee. Then they'll send the reconciled bill over to the house where they have 3 or 4 bills of their own. They'll be reconciled down to one, and then it's back to the senate for a final reconciliation. Then it'll be sent to the president.
excon
Funny isn't it... the people who seem to agree with Phlanx (from the UK) are NK (Canadian), Paraclete (Australian) and excon (from whatever planet he's from).
I don't see very many American's joining up with phlanx's point of view. Again, with the exception of excon.
The people who agree with his point of view seem to be the people who already LIVE under socialist systems.
Wonder why that is...
Elliot
You realize that Canada and the US are so incredibly similar - that must mean that you are already socialist - welcome!
Firstly Excon - that's brief and just right - thanks mate
Secondly, Wolverine, you are calling our country Solcialist, WOW, need a history book there I think
WWII broke us, and it took our entire Empire, to hold back Hitler before someone else decided to bring in some help, since then we have been rebuilding our country, to where we share the table on every global issue, not bad for a country that has a land mass of an ant in comarison
While Germany, France, and Japan too name a few were being set up and rebuilt after WWII, it was the victors who had to do it themselves
What England has been great at doing is setting up trade routes, so when we give to charity it is to teach a man to fish, not just give him a fish and ask if he is grateful
Socialist are we? We are the grandfathers of trade pal!
France and germany though - hell yeah there socialist up to the eyeballs!
Well, under Obama we're getting there. But there is still One HUGE difference... we don't have socialized medicine. We haven't nationalized that particular 20% of our economy. And we're working on getting the auto manufacturers out of the hands of the government, and the banks, investment houses and insurance companies too.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The biggest similarity between us is language. Unfortunately under Obama the similarities are becoming more and greater.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
No it isn't. It's a which socialist program you CHOOSE not to like. You're certainly happy with our socialistic fire department, police department, military and highway departments. It's fine with you that we, together, socialistically own and control our water and electricity. We combine together in a SOCIAL contract to have the city remove or trash and clean our streets.
So, it's not the "ism" thing you would have us believe. It's how you Pick which part of government to fawn over. Because as has been established, you ARE a lover of government services.
excon
Because Elliot some of us enjoy the benefits of such a system particularly in health care where the worry of how we are going to meet the bills is taken away for the average person and placed on a government that actually does have the welfare of its citizens in mind and I speak for myself but yes we do LIVE and LIVE very well. It has taken a long time to get here but my standard of living is very good and I can afford all that I need and my society has less violence and no need of a gun toting populace to have securityQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You don't travel much do you? There's a whole world outside of New Jersey, you should get out and visit it, you might learn something instead of being wrapped up in your bitterness and depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
History lesson huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Remember the Great Depression? We were trying to rebuild our country before we ever got involved in WWII. And we did it without resorting to socialism. Actually we did it DESPITE FDR's attempts at socialism in the New Deal. The New Deal was a complete failure, and ended up drawing the Great Depression out for an additional 10 years more than it had to exist. So you Brits decided to copy FDR's failed model for yourselves after the War. And it has served you not at all well. YOU guys, by all rights, should have been the Superpower that we became, at least economically. You were more established, had the financial systems in place, etc. But it was us that became the superpower. Why do you think that is?
As for being the "grandfathers of trade"... first of all, you weren't. That would be the Jews of the Middle Ages... my people, as a matter of fact. WE were the merchants and money lenders. We propped up your economies when you needed capital and liquidity that you really didn't have. Because WE had developed the banking system that you wouldn't understand for generations to come.
Second of all, "trade" doesn't mean "capitalist". There was plenty of trade going on in feudal societies. Trade PREDATED capitalism. So yeah, you might have been good a trade, but you weren't the capitalists you think you were. Capitalism, REAL capitalism began with the industrial revolution, and the move AWAY from an agrarian society. It began with the Cotton Gin, invented by Eli Whitney in the good ol' USA. WE invented capitalism.
So if you want to give a history lesson, especially one about ECONOMIC history, you're going to have to bone up a bit.
Oh, did I tell you my degree is in economics and I have been in finance for over 15 years professionally? As an analyst, moreover. You are free to try to top me in economics and finance, but others here have tried. Only excon, who is a major glutton for punishment keeps coming back for more. He and I have been going at it for over 10 years now. But feel free, if you feel up to it.
Elliot
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Chrchill
Basically Wolverine, nobody here is arguing whether we are communist or socialist, rather what we expect from our governments and ultimatly from our fellow man
It is such a shame you cannot see the benefits from providing help to those that are poor, needy and tired, whatever happened to the ideology of what America has been founded on?
Feed a man a fish and he will live for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will live for years to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
You see the benefits of having your government give a man a fish. I see the benefits to teaching him to fish for himself.
You want to give people health care. I want to give them the ability to get it for themselves.
You see benefit in GIVING a man what you see as his due. I see greater benefit in giving him the tools to go get it himself.
It must be all that rugged individualism.
Elliot
Industrial Revolution - let me think mmmmm, that would be us again, with the manufacture of steel, first done in a place called Irongorge Shropshire, - 20 miles down the road from me
The shipping lanes, longitude, latitude, hell even timekeeping is ours, GMT and The military Zulu Time
At our height we ruled over 2/3 of the map, traded with every country, and when they didn't want to trade we went to war and won
The empire put into place a network of communication that emcompassed the world
As regards banking systems, yes it was the Jews who came up with the basic idea, but never for one minute think we didn't have our own money, If we ever needed some cash, we would just send out two ships, a privateer and a merchant, one to nick the gold, the other to set up a trade route so we could bu the goods with the stolen gold :)
I will certainly bow to your knowledge of Economics to some degree, but please don't try me on History that is outside of your neighbourhood, the world is a bit bigger than a few blocks
14% of americans can't read and write - some tools you are providingQuote:
You see benefit in GIVING a man what you see as his due. I see greater benefit in giving him the tools to go get it himself.
14 Percent of U.S. Adults Can't Read | LiveScience
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Ah we have dragged out the great depression as an excuse for doing nothing. Self Inflicted injury. Just like our current great financial crisis you (US) caused the great depression with your largess and over reliance on the "market". If you are an economist you should have learned the lessons, not sat on your pedistal and glowered down at the lesser mortals. But then that's what economists do rather than thinking up original solutions to the problems they create. You didn't invent capitalism but you certainly perverted it
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 AM. |