Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tumor on January 26, 2002, 11:19:27 AM
-
Ya, I know many of you figure Rush going to far was being born lol, but I've always enjoyed listening to Rush Limbaugh and agree with allot of what he has to say and many of the points he makes. It helps being an avid leaner-to-the-right.
HOWEVER
He actually went so far the other day to ask a general question...(paraphrased).... "Why shouldn't people who have more money deserve better medical care than people who don't"
....Ok, liberals and democrats, fire away. I'm on your side here. I didn't hear the entire broadcast so maybe I didn't get the gist of his question but, the very thought that rich pukes should "deserve" better medical care than poor folks is despicable. He also ACTUALLY SAID poor folks usually cause thier own medical problems....GEEZUZZZ!! So I guess rich guy who smokes like a chimney and gets lung cancer should also be denied medical care...riiiiiiiiight. :mad: What??...all rich people have spent thier whole lives busting their butts to get wealthy? So..what about lottery winners?? lol. I can't believe this garbage.
-
Is this guy for real????
He should get an baseball bat to his forehead...
-
No maniac, you may cause him more brain damage.
-
Rush is a moron, but he is a careful moron. If you were to check the stats for cause of death among socio-economic classes, I think you will find the data he bases that statement upon.
As for the rich deserving better medical treatment, I doubt he said exactly that, but I know what his point was. Turn it around: If I can pay for something better than what is available for free, shouldn't I be able to do so? Or should the best available be the limited to what anyone can get for free?
-
IMHO, everyone should be able to get the absolutly best medical care there is, it shouldnt matter how much $$ you have.
-
Would you want FREE medical care to cover tummy tucks, nose jobs and breast augmentation?
On the other hand, would you deny these procedures to people willing to pay for them?
What Limbaugh said, taken out of context sounds extreme, but there might have been a valid point in there somewhere...
-
Would you want FREE medical care to cover tummy tucks, nose jobs and breast augmentation?
theres no reason why those procedures should be covered in basic (gov't provided) health care, but no one shouldn't have to decide wether son #1 gets medical atention or rent gets paid so the whole family has somewhere to live, and it happens every day.
even worse is the people who get labled as deadbeats because if the stay on welfare there kids get free medical but if they go to work they lose the medical coverage while most lower paying (entry level) jobs don't provide healthcare.
i've been lucky enough to have insurance for my kids, but i've met many people on public asistance who really are being kept there because the have a child with cronic health problems and if they worked they would lose the medical benifits
-
Would you want FREE medical care to cover tummy tucks, nose jobs and breast augmentation?
I dont consider the above mentioned to be "medical care".
-
I don't know what Limbaugh was talking about... or what he actually said, but...
I'm against socialized medicine. I believe there should be a very, very basic safety net for people genuinely unable to provide for themselves.
This basic safety net probably would not cover heart transplants, for example.
However, a working person with good insurance might be able to afford it.
Giving away the best medical care money can buy to every non-productive jobless alchoholic living under the overpass, every criminal and crack addict for example, would collapse under its own weight.
-
I have to go with the liberals on this one. The American medical profession is the highest paid profession on the planet. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. The trouble can be found with the insurance industry.
I don't care if rich folks buy a limo. Or if they pass out loner cars to the poor. But there should be an affordable Chevy around for the Middle class. And there is NOT.
-
Just a perception...
My wife grew up poor... welfare and all of that. I've noticed that some of her family, the one's that haven't worked their way out of government subsistance, thoroughly abuse the medical system and medicare.
Even with medical insurance, I typically evaluate my children's conditions before electing professional help. The biggest reason is money. The second reason is time. I assume that every parent does the same, for the same reasons.
There's no triage by most welfare recipients I know. Got the sniffles? Run to the doc. Got a stomach ache? Run to the doc. Head hurt? Run to the doc.
Medicine in this country IS socialized. Who do you think pays for these excesses?
-
Easymo,
"The trouble can be found with the insurance industry."
I'll go ya one further:
The real trouble can be traced to LAWYERS :D
-
You have a point.
-
i used to listen to rush on my way home from the night shift for yeeeeears.
he would have a good point sometimes but he often engaged in the same logical fallacies he protested against.
i hated hearing so many people call in bamboozled by him and if it weren't for him they'd be bamboozled by someone else.
it sucks that the premier voice for the silent majority is so wrapped up in tricks and taking things out of context and veiled attacks.
they need a better spokesperson because a lot of the issues need to be out there in a responsible way and the regular hypno-core media will never shed that bias.
-
O'rielly no spin zone. at fox news channel.His constant self promotion does get tiresome at times. But he does take a common sense approach to things. In spite of having the number one news show on cable, The bush people avoid going on his show, like the plague. The Clintons despise him, as do most liberals. He must be doing something right.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Rush is a moron, but he is a careful moron. If you were to check the stats for cause of death among socio-economic classes, I think you will find the data he bases that statement upon.
As for the rich deserving better medical treatment, I doubt he said exactly that, but I know what his point was. Turn it around: If I can pay for something better than what is available for free, shouldn't I be able to do so? Or should the best available be the limited to what anyone can get for free?
well, I gotta disagree with that statement. There are inherently more poor than wealthy. My guess is the numbers will even out based on that assumption. Drug abuse, alcoholism, smoking etc is just as rampant among the have's as the have nots. (hmm...I'm drifting left..heeeelp meeeee)
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
Rush is a moron, but he is a careful moron. If you were to check the stats for cause of death among socio-economic classes, I think you will find the data he bases that statement upon.
As for the rich deserving better medical treatment, I doubt he said exactly that, but I know what his point was. Turn it around: If I can pay for something better than what is available for free, shouldn't I be able to do so? Or should the best available be the limited to what anyone can get for free?
Whatever needs to happen, quality medical care should be available to all, anytime, anywhere. Sure, cosmetic surgery and such is fine for the elite's but in the end....money should not be a sole extender of one's life expectancy. Perhaps doctors should re-visit thier so-called oath?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Would you want FREE medical care to cover tummy tucks, nose jobs and breast augmentation?
On the other hand, would you deny these procedures to people willing to pay for them?
What Limbaugh said, taken out of context sounds extreme, but there might have been a valid point in there somewhere...
As stated above...he asked the question. It was a question with a very insenuating (sp?) tone.
-
Far be it for me to defend Rush, but I have always seen him as a comedian first and a legitimate comentator second. He uses half truths and fuzzy logic to make amusing points, and I always get a kick out of the idiots calling in to "ditto" all over his fat self.
O'reilly is no better. His maximum spin zone is a joke at times. Smug SOB thinks he is making a point when he is just being trite.
OTOH I enjoy both shows (what can I say, I'm a sick puppy
:D )
I like the fact that a doctor can get rich in this country. This is incentive for the best and the brightest to enter the medical profession. Imagine if teachers could get rich?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
theres no reason why those procedures should be covered in basic (gov't provided) health care, but no one shouldn't have to decide wether son #1 gets medical atention or rent gets paid so the whole family has somewhere to live, and it happens every day.
even worse is the people who get labled as deadbeats because if the stay on welfare there kids get free medical but if they go to work they lose the medical coverage while most lower paying (entry level) jobs don't provide healthcare.
i've been lucky enough to have insurance for my kids, but i've met many people on public asistance who really are being kept there because the have a child with cronic health problems and if they worked they would lose the medical benifits
My cousin's daughter got hit by a car when she was only 6yrs old. This was a number of years ago, the insurance company (drivers) didn't even come close to covering her medical costs, they ended up being forced into bankruptcy.
I guess...as bad as this sounds, I think there needs to be some serious overhauling of our medical system, including legislation. The pharmaceuticle companies (of the world) are completely out of control. ie: My wife has to take a certain medication that, due to my insurance costs me nothing (military is nice). When I re-enlisted, the "insurance" system didn't update and I had to buy a bottle of 60 of these pills. $1200!!! Needless to say, I didn't buy them. I don't give a DAMN what went into production, paying scientists..whatever. $1200 dollars for a bottle of 60 little white pills is highway robbery. Colleges and Universities, end up forcing medical students to pay HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars for thier "MD" status....Doctor's are in debt up to their ears and then get faced with lawsuits costing them millions (frivolous) so THIER insurance (another example of the fleecing of america) costs them way too much so....the WEALTHY get the best medical treatment.
Hey, I lived in the U.K. and am married to a Brit. They have a model that could be studied, improved upon and implemented in the U.S. Hey....it's not the greatest thing to have to "wait your turn" but it works. My wife had a serious illness while we were over there, so she was immediately moved to the top of the list and spent a couple weeks in the Hospital. Cost?....$0 not counting the gas I went through traveling back and forth. Quality?....hey she's alive, no complications so I'd say the quality was fine.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Just a perception...
My wife grew up poor... welfare and all of that. I've noticed that some of her family, the one's that haven't worked their way out of government subsistance, thoroughly abuse the medical system and medicare.
Agreed. Being in the military I see this all the time. There is NOTHING that gets me as pissed off as going to the emergency room (at a military base) and walking in to find dozens of rampaging little bastards running around "with a tickle in thier throat". ....THAT is when they should charge these dorks.
-
Tumor said in his first post:
He actually went so far the other day to ask a general question...(paraphrased).... "Why shouldn't people who have more money deserve better medical care than people who don't"
What day was this and why do you use quotes? If you have access to Rush 24/7 you could relisten to the show and report accuratly the question he posed. I have a feeling that this question was part of a larger picture and illustrated a point you completely missed. I will need to know what day and which hour you are referencing so I can have accruate information before I make a judgement!!
-
I agree that many abuse the medical system. At least here in Oregon those on public assistance have fairly good care in most cases, those that get screwed are the poor who try to be self sufficient, those who get up every day and work long hours at low paying jobs, I have people in my neighborhood who work 3 part time jobs (over 70 hours per week) and have no health insurance (many companies only provide healthcare for full time employees, so they don't hire full time employees) they also have the added benefit of no overtime pay since they don't go over 40 hours for any one employer. These are the people who fall through the cracks, they aren't lazy, they aren't looking for a handout, they just want a job where they can earn a living wage and they bust their bellybutton every day to try to provide for their families, and they fall short and so does our public assistance. These people can't get help (they make too much money. is there such a thing?) the women who's only job is a bar-fly/baby factory who trades her foodstamps for cigarettes can get all the free health care she wants (free dental too, better healthcare than my insurance buys actually) but the working poor get screwed by democrats and republicans alike.
Apathy
(er, well not so much apathetic on this issue)
-
The guy sits in a chair and talks for thre hours a day.
First off: More power to him
Second off: Who cares
====
Money will buy you almost anything (except immortailty, only Jesus will get you that, or so Im told) and the more of it you have (money) the more stuff you can get and better quality too.
Thats the way it has always worked and Im afraid (for better or for worse) thats the way it will always work.
Sure, everyone should have access to free medical care but there will always be a market for higher quality for those who can afford it. Dont like it? Get an education then go get a job that pays well.
Y
-
This Rush Limbaugh [sp?] sounds like a stirrer. He makes a comment designed to generate debate, (and judging from the responses above with some sucess), and lets "the public" pursue the argument to a conclusion. I don't live in the United States and I'm one of "the great unwashed masses", yet I can't be the only person that sees the irony in having a self-appointed spokesman for the silent majority. I therefore appoint myself the spokesman for the silent minority, (i.e. Me).
Everyone should receive all the necessary health care to maintain a reasonable quality of life. Achieving that goal is subject to the whims of politicians and the ability of the tax base to support it.
Gunthr and Maniac state that breast augmentation and nose jobs are not necessary. I'd suggest they talk to any woman who has had a breast removed in cancer surgery or a child born with a deformed palate whether they consider this type of surgery necessary.
Defining healthcare on an ability to pay takes Darwinism to an extreme. It's like saying we should have no health care because poor sick people won't survive to breeding age so we will have less sick people. We actually just end up with poor people resistant to stronger bugs attacking a progressively weaker and in-bred rich population. This economic bigotry is repugnant and can only lead to the debt slavery found in the middle ages when people were treated like cattle and sold at whim.
I can't see a solution other than to legislate "community service" for healthcare professionals. The problems occour with elective medicine drawing the talented healthcare professionals into private industry with money and reducing the available pool of resources for "basic" healthcare. If health insurance was banned then only the rich could afford treatment. With health insurance only the rich get the expensive treatment.
Anyone have a better suggestion for equal treatment?
-
I view it as the head of my family as my responsability to provide the best healthcare that I can. If this were a universal idea, there would be no issue.
-
If you're talking about above and beyond care for more dollars, there is no better way or more efficient way to subsidize costs for low income health care.
Unless you would rather health care in general suffer just to make sure someone isn't having it better.
-
Cant say if anybody deserves better care if theyt are rich, but the rich and well connected will always have better health care.
Even in any wild idiotic socialist utopia, actually then it willl be worse.
-
Originally posted by 1776
Tumor said in his first post:
He actually went so far the other day to ask a general question...(paraphrased).... "Why shouldn't people who have more money deserve better medical care than people who don't"
What day was this and why do you use quotes? If you have access to Rush 24/7 you could relisten to the show and report accuratly the question he posed. I have a feeling that this question was part of a larger picture and illustrated a point you completely missed. I will need to know what day and which hour you are referencing so I can have accruate information before I make a judgement!!
It was thursday I believe...and I use quotes because, well I was quoteing as best I could. Like I said before, his tone and direction pointed to his belief that the wealthy OUGHT to deserve better medical care than the ..."average"...it's roadkill and I'll go to my grave saying so.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Iwomen who's only job is a bar-fly/baby factory who trades her foodstamps for cigarettes can get all the free health care she wants (free dental too, better healthcare than my insurance buys actually)
I see this allot. Along with people spending foodstamps on food then turning around and buying a dozen lottery tickets and such. If I even thought I wouldn't go to jail I'd follow them to thier cars and slash thier tires.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The guy sits in a chair and talks for thre hours a day.
First off: More power to him
Second off: Who cares
====
Sure, everyone should have access to free medical care but there will always be a market for higher quality for those who can afford it. Dont like it? Get an education then go get a job that pays well.
Y
..hmmm...did you bust your butt through college while on welfare or did mom and pop pay for college? That attitude just sucks yeager. Not everyone has the opportunity to get that education early on. It's easy to get all "better than thou" and spout off. Just an example of another elitist who doesn't give a crap about anyone but his or her self. How nice.
-
lol - this reminds me of my days in highschool as a pizza deliverer.
we were the only place that would deliver to the ghetto and tenements. i took the job because it paid more even though there were murders there every few weeks.
the 1st and 15th were our biggest nights by far. it didnt take long to find out why.
i always wondered how someone on public assistance could blow $20 for a pizza??? i mean if you are down to that you oughtta be buying rice and potatos or something.
i remember a friend of mine on assistance showing me her nail job once....her and her two kids lived in temporary hotels.
its a damn shame.
-
"and walking in to find dozens of rampaging little bastards running around "with a tickle in thier throat". .."
Tumor, I have to say thats over the top. I have never known a young mother to not over react to a sick child. The only thing that might stop this behavior is education. And if they had an education they would not need welfare in the first place. I just feel grateful for the ones that recognize the limitations of there knowledge. And take the child to the doctors. It is the ones that assume that nothing is wrong, and the child dies, that get my jaw tight.
-
Okay, let's assume that everyone agrees it is wrong to have the quality of goods and services determined by how much money you have. Heath care definitely falls under the category of services, so what is the alternative to health care based on the patient's (customer's) financial resources?
Unless the goverment taxes the hell out of us, any "free" health care program will still have very limited resources when it comes to major operations requiring specialists, especially organ transplants depending on very limited organ donor supplies. So, who gets the priority? First come, first serve? Who decides who lives and dies? The government or some goverment appointed doctor? How many people are going to be willing to become doctors once it becomes a goverment run profession with relatively low pay compared to the sacrifices required to become a doctor (like the military)? What will be the quality of these doctors?
If you want the best health care in the world, you don't go to a country where the health care is provided to everyone for free. You come here where the doctors are rewarded financially for their exceptional skills.
While Rush's choice of words makes it sound harsh and evil, I still think the greed-driven capitalist framework our country was founded on is the best system for distributing limited resources such as good health care. Good health care is not a right, it is a luxury. The fact that a child of some poor family with no health care coverage will die because they cannot afford surgery while some rich fat old man gets his third heart bypass surgery is an inherent part of the system we live in.
So the best solution is to your own health care problems is to find a way to be financially successful, which is usually good for the ecomomy as well as you (basic capitalist theory :)). If you cannot do this for some reason (lazy? lack of talents? ), feel free to become a citizen of one of the many countries that offers "free" health care.
The idea of government here is that it protects your right to pursue happiness, not to guarantee or protect your happiness. It is your responsibility as an individual to make the decisions and take the actions necessary to be happy.
P.S. I hope that this country didn't just waste over 40 years of defense money winning the Cold War only to decide that it is better to be red than dead. I would rather die because I can't afford health care than give up the American way.
-
OMG!
Streak are you trolling?
Heath care definitely falls under the category of services, so what is the alternative to health care based on the patient's (customer's)
Customers? toejam this world is getting colder and colder, soon we dont have _ANY_ compassion left... customers??? try human beings in need of help.
You come here where the doctors are rewarded financially for their exceptional skills.
Are you saying that there are simply no doctors with exceptional skills in an country with free medical care? :rolleyes:
-
If you want the best health care in the world, you don't go to a country where the health care is provided to everyone for free. You come here where the doctors are rewarded financially for their exceptional skills.
i'm not saying that private DR's should be outlawed or even that you shouldn't be able to pay for a more luxerious hospital.
but necisary healthcare should be provided to everyone regardless of income. if you can afford a private room or your personal physician(instead of clinics) then great.
i just don't think anybody should have to try to figure out how to fit healthcare into the budget and realize they just can't afford it.
btw just incase you're not rich enough to send your kids to private school. those kids who's parents can't afford to take them to the Dr. are going to bring that disease with them when they go to school with your kids
and that poor minimum wage adult who has no health care or money for medicine and is too poor to take the day off when he's sick probable made your hamberger at lunch
-
I've heard rumors of the medical insurance system in the US that you may get sick once or twice but then you lose your benefits..
Is that true? So if you get an accident or chronic illness after using your insurance earlier you have to pay the huge sums from your own pocket and go bankrupt?
-
never heard of that. actually it usually works just the opisite. you pay the first $500 before insurance will pay anything then you pay 20%. that way they don't have to pay out as much as many people can't afford to even pay the deductable(2 weeks pay for fulltime minimum wage) however in a catistrophic illness they are much better off than the uninsured.
as a side note. there are also the people that have the high deductable insurance that are worse off than those with no insurance. (the charity clinics wont see you if you have insurance, even if you are too poor to pay your deductable)
-
Is there a right to health care?
An excerpt from an interesting article about the "right to health care":
"Health care does not grow on trees or fall from the sky. The assertion of a right to medical care does not guarantee that there is going to be any health care to distribute. The partisans of these rights demand, with air of moral righteousness, that everyone have access to this good. But a demand does not create anything. Health care has to be produced by someone, and paid for by someone. One of the major arguments offered by supporters of a right to health care is that health care is an essential need. What good are our other liberties, they ask, if we cannot get medical treatment for illness? But we must ask, in return: why does need give someone a right? Fifty years ago, people whose kidneys were failing needed dialysis every bit as much as they do today, but there were no dialysis machines. Did they have a right to protection against kidney failure? Was Mother Nature violating their rights by making their kidneys fail without a remedy? It makes no sense to say that need itself confers a right unless someone else has the ability to meet that need. So any "right" to medical care imposes on someone the obligation to provide care to those who cannot provide it for themselves."
http://ios.org/articles/dkelley_right-to-health-care.asp
-
...(paraphrased).... "Why shouldn't people who have more money deserve better medical care than people who don't"
umm, he probably said it because it true ....
Just like ppl with money get better cars, lawyers, houses, etc .... than ppl without money...
think ur court appointed lawyer would stand a chace against a high dollar one? If you do, think again... tis money that makes the world go round, right or wrong ...
-
If my local BMW dealers started giving their cars away for free right this instant, there would be none for me by the time I got there.
Its nice to say give everyone free health care but who will pay for it, who will get priority, how will it be distributed?
-
Tumor dribbled in pain:
"Just an example of another elitist who doesn't give a crap about anyone but his or her self. How nice."
Yeager dribbled in response:
"I feel your pain (then bites lower lip with comnpassion)"
The company I work for forces me to donate a portion of my salary
to the less fortunate. Hell Im not so fortunate myself. Tumor, give me some money!
Just remember, in the end -wealthy people have to die just like the rest of us so it all eventually works out.
:D
-
Having a free medical care system doesn't mean there wouldn't be also private clinics.
There's always an option to choose. Most finnish doctors run their private clinics after doing their hours at the public side..
The private clinics offer queue free operations, special treatments, plastic surgery etc..
Your comments above are like free public transportation would mean the BMW dealers would go out of business.. That is just not so. I'd still rather drive a BMW at my time of choice instead of waiting for the bus to come.
The idea is to provide medical care to everyone who needs it and if someone wants or affords a special treatment in luxury conditions, they can pay for it at the private side.
The way I see it is that the right for medical care is a part of general human rights.. It's inhumane to not treate a sick person simply because he/she has no money.
-
the kicker is we already have "FREE" medical, just go to an emeregency room any Friday or Saturady night. $50 says over half the ppl sittiing in there do not have ANY health insurance and another 25% have gov plan that only covers 100% if they go to an emergency room .... it's a scam, NO One is refused medical treatment NOW.
All this crap does is raise the rates for those of us who DO Pay, and dilute our services and benefits .... get a job, get a life and get out of my face
-
I have no knowledge of the real situation there because I haven't had the chance to see it.
If things are so fine and dandy there with medical health care, why are ppl whining about it then?
-
hate to be the one to point it out to you eagler but you're talking out your ass.
the emergancy room will not see you for every illness, many times comon sicknesses are turned away "go to your family dr. , or a clininc" emergancy rooms only have to treat indegent(sp?) patients for imediatly life threatning problems.
and even if you are seen they hand them a perscription and they leave, no money in their pocket so the perscription does nothing
then there's the problem with cronicly sick, the only will be treated for the imediate (acute) problem then released, next time the simptoms peak they go back to the hospital and again just get treated for symptoms they never get healed, and we pay emergancy room prices several times a year instead of providing free health care and drugs to heal the problem. they don't get well and in the long run we pay more. lose lose situation
-
Originally posted by Eagler
...(paraphrased).... "Why shouldn't people who have more money deserve better medical care than people who don't"
umm, he probably said it because it true ....
Just like ppl with money get better cars, lawyers, houses, etc .... than ppl without money...
think ur court appointed lawyer would stand a chace against a high dollar one? If you do, think again... tis money that makes the world go round, right or wrong ...
Hmmm... think a U2 line just about captures it...
The rich stay healthy.
The sick stay poor.
-
Customers? toejam this world is getting colder and colder, soon we dont have _ANY_ compassion left... customers??? try human beings in need of help.
I didn't make the world a cold place, I just live in it. One of the worst days I ever had in the Navy was when the Captain of my submarine, under a general order from the Navy, assembled the entire crew on the pier to inform us how the Navy has adopted Total Quality Leadership (based on private industry's Total Quality Management) and that our sole job in the Navy was to provide superior customer service. Officers are no longer leaders of men, they are managers of human resources. If defending the nation with your life can be reduced to "serving a customer" (want some fries?), then certainly the health care industry can be treated the same way since it only exists to make profits as typified by the current hospital/HMO system.
Free medical means cheap doctors. If you have a magic formula for making people work harder for less pay, the rest of the world sure would like to know it. Rush didn't say people without money couldn't have health care, he said wealthy people are entitled to better health care since they can afford to pay the cost.
In the Soviet Union, there were certainly people who were exceptional at their jobs, whether they were aerospace engineers or doctors. But those individuals were usually compensated in someway. In a society where supposedly all people were treated equal, some were "more equal than others". I can assure you that the line for major operations was quite long in the USSR. I can also assure you that the politically affluent people never knew there was a line for anything. Rush's statement is not radical or inflamatory, it is a sad fact of life.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
lol - this reminds me of my days in highschool as a pizza deliverer.
we were the only place that would deliver to the ghetto and tenements. i took the job because it paid more even though there were murders there every few weeks.
the 1st and 15th were our biggest nights by far. it didnt take long to find out why.
i always wondered how someone on public assistance could blow $20 for a pizza??? i mean if you are down to that you oughtta be buying rice and potatos or something.
i remember a friend of mine on assistance showing me her nail job once....her and her two kids lived in temporary hotels.
its a damn shame.
:confused: I ...agree... with mrfish ...iiiiick! :D
-
Originally posted by easymo
"and walking in to find dozens of rampaging little bastards running around "with a tickle in thier throat". .."
Tumor, I have to say thats over the top. I have never known a young mother to not over react to a sick child. The only thing that might stop this behavior is education. And if they had an education they would not need welfare in the first place. I just feel grateful for the ones that recognize the limitations of there knowledge. And take the child to the doctors. It is the ones that assume that nothing is wrong, and the child dies, that get my jaw tight.
hehe... Maybe I had a heck of a good teacher, I dunno but most of my general health knowledge dates back to my eighth grade health class.
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
So the best solution is to your own health care problems is to find a way to be financially successful, which is usually good for the ecomomy as well as you (basic capitalist theory :)). If you cannot do this for some reason (lazy? lack of talents? ), feel free to become a citizen of one of the many countries that offers "free" health care.
Well yeah but..... The very amount of money floating around in this country should negate the very need for this entire thread. Capitalism produces greed on a grand scale, can't argure that but, why should it PRODUCE apathy?
Better red than dead? I wonder if party members got better health care?
How about the Queen and rest of the royal family (figuratively speaking... oh and I'm all for free cosmetic surgery for those folks hehe)
I don't think this argument has to be based on type of government. We have the type of society to make healthcare good and available to all. If some greedy bastard doesn't want to share...oh well.
-
The type of government and economy has everything to do with this argument. Government and economy is by definition determined by who owns the means of providing goods and services. If the government owns it, that's communism. If private companies or individuals own it, that's capitalism.
Someone has to pay for the health care. If the government provides it, they have to get the money from somewhere. If the poor people don't have money, that means the government has to get the money from the rich people. But the rich people own the government, so you know it is not going to come from them. Final answer: tax the crap out of the middle class to provide 2nd class health care no better than what we have now.
Charity should not be mandated. Plenty of rich capitalists donate quite a bit of their money. The Shriners help children for free. Churchs generally get 10% of their people's income.
As it is. with the exception of transplants where the supply of donor organs is critical, someone can almost always find a means to get health care. I am still against expanding the role of our government. If anything, it needs to revert back to what it was before the Great Depression. Every time the government enacts a temporary measure (such as all the social programs created during the Great Depression), somehow it becomes a permanent fixture even after the original problem is long gone.
-
If the government owns it, that's communism
Another one who doesn't know what communism is. The army is owned by the (elected) government, by your definition everyone who is in the army is communist.
But the rich people own the government, so you know it is not going to come from them.
Uh, I always thought the people who elected the government 'own it' not the 5-10% of the 'rich people.' What you just said is far more communist like than having public social services. Communist dictatorships had this aspect: the power was distributed to the small elititist class. I guess in your case it should be called fascism though.
Final answer: tax the crap out of the middle class to provide 2nd class health care no better than what we have now.
BWAHAHAHAH! One tenth of a percent of your country's arms budget would be probably enough to provide free medication for your people. You sir, are full of toejam.
It's always funny to see the american discussion.. In first sentence you brag about being the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world. Then in the second sentence you already whine that you can't pay same tax from your gasoline like euro's do because you can't afford it. You can't pay taxes for healthcare like euro's do because you can't afford it. You won't give a cent from your own pocket to someone who needs it, because you CAN'T AFFORD IT. ..
All I can say is that I hope you someday catch hepatithis from the guy you shared your needle with. Then you can run to the charity hospitals when youre broke, unemployed and homeless only to find out that several millions of others thought your (selfish) way and paid them nothing.
It's a short way to the gutter from the chair you're posting from.
Intel Pentium III 1 GHz
Asus CUV4X motherboard w/1024Mb RAM
3dfx Voodoo 5500 AGP w/1.04.01 beta driver
Saitek X-36 USB Joystick & Throttle
Windows 98 SE w/DirectX 8.0a
Btw your computer is old POS can't you afford a decent one? Funny that you found it appropriate to post it too.
-
I didn't make the world a cold place, I just live in it. One of the worst days I ever had in the Navy was when the Captain of my submarine, under a general order from the Navy, assembled the entire crew on the pier to inform us how the Navy has adopted Total Quality Leadership (based on private industry's Total Quality Management) and that our sole job in the Navy was to provide superior customer service. Officers are no longer leaders of men, they are managers of human resources. If defending the nation with your life can be reduced to "serving a customer" (want some fries?), then certainly the health care industry can be treated the same way since it only exists to make profits as typified by the current hospital/HMO system.
So you dont have your own oppinions? djust because your Navy Captain and his leaders choose to have this aproach you have to have it too?
Real Communism (sp?) is dead, start living in 2002....
-
strange
why is it then, if every other country that has such a wonderful FREE medical system in place, finds its citizens, who are financially able, going to the US when they really need something fixed ???
-
I don't listen to Rush, but I do love Rush, you know why? Because the Left wing wackos take him seriously. Rush is about entertainment to me. If you believe more than 50% of what he's saying, you've been duped. :)
-
Eagler I have never heard any case like that which wasn't from some medically underdeveloped country.
-
I enjoy listening to Limbaugh - but I do listen critically because of his bias. He isn't always objective. I will listen to any talk show that deals with the "issues", liberal or conservative. And we do have some liberal ones in the market I live in. Some you've got to hold your nose while listening to, ie Randy Rhodes - ugh.
On the problem of good health care insurance not being affordable for many people, and not covering enough, and the high cost of medical care in general:
I have heard that in China, there is sort of a division of labor in health care. Not all health care is delivered by fully trained "doctors" as it is in the USA.
I understand that many of the less complicated surgical procedures are performed by technicians trained to perform only that particular procedure, under the supervision of a doctor. For instance, if you needed a tonsilectomy, you would go to a place where technicians trained to do only tonsilectomies do thousands of them, day in -day out. Their protocals are written by a doctor who oversees the program. Because the technicians are not doctors, and only have limited training, the cost should be cheaper.
I havn't verified whether its true or not, but it makes sense. There are a lot of people that are blessed with excellent eye-hand coordination and a knack for doing detailed work with their hands, yet do not have the wherewithal to become full fledged medical doctors. It could help cut the cost of medical care...
Then again, the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association may not be too thrilled with the idea.
-
why is it then, if every other country that has such a wonderful FREE medical system in place, finds its citizens, who are financially able, going to the US when they really need something fixed ???
I have never heard about this either (i live in Sweden).
-
Canadian's consistently come to the US for major surgeries, or cancer treatments due to the superior doctors, procedures here.
-
ya, but our poor who can't get decent treatment here don't have the money to travel to other countries to get healthcare they can afford.
seems to me that many think that the ability of a very small minority to have better care is more important than the masses having access to decent care. prety messed up veiw IMO especially when the 2 goals are not mutualy exclusive.
do you guys really think that we would have to give up high quality care for the rich inorder to take care of the less fortuante?
the rich really have had no trouble making sure they are well cared for throughout history
-
Gunthr said:
I enjoy listening to Limbaugh - but I do listen critically because of his bias. He isn't always objective.
Yeah, but at least Rush admits he's biased, unlike our so-called "objective" mainstream media :rolleyes:
(http://www.tektalk.net/right2.gif)
-
Another one who doesn't know what communism is. The army is owned by the (elected) government, by your definition everyone who is in the army is communist.
Another one who hasn't served in the U.S. military. It operates almost identically to communist theory. You give up most of the rights you are protecting when you volunteer to serve and live in a system that is almost identical to the one which we are supposed to be fighting against:
Everything is provided to you: clothes, food, shelter, health care.
In return, you are required to "do your part" including sacrificing your life if need be (in all reality you fit the definition of an indentured servant: one step above slave because after you reach a certain time limit you are free again).
Everyone is "equal"... except just like Communism with a capital "C", there is a rank structure, so some are more equal than others.
But just because people are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to serve under this system does not make the individuals serving any more communist than the German people were Nazis. Likewise, quite a few love the system and abuse it to the fullest as so many Germans did under Nazi rule. Either way, I agree 100% with anyone who assesses that the U.S. military's organization fits the definition of communism.
In high school, there was a mandatory course called "Problems of American Democracy". It was basically a leftover from the 1950s propaganda which taught the evils of Communism. It provided very clear definitions of capitalism, communism, and "Communism". It made it all too clear that in an ideal world, unselfish people helping each other get through life as best as possible makes communism the clear choice compared to the cruel unforgiving history of capitalism. But, in the real world where people compete for limited resources, capitalism spanks Communism's bellybutton every time. Communism ensures that almost everyone gets equally bad food, shelter, and health care. Whereas the majority of the people in the U.S. live in conditions far superior to all but the most politically affluent under Soviet style Communism. Of course, a portion of the U.S. population lives in poverty conditions worse than many "third world" countries. Which system had to build walls to keep people in? Which system has to use barbed wire fences, border patrols, and the Coast Guard to keep people out? Propaganda aside, I served for 8 years under a system I hated to protect the system I love. Now, I want to enjoy the system I protected, not help convert it into the one I hated.
I don't vote for what I like or don't like, (i.e. personal opinion, especially over the short term), I vote for what I think will be best (based on logic, especially over the long run, as in long after I am dead). I would rather "waste" billions of dollars developing the ability to populate other planets than feed and clothe a bunch of people that can't figure out having kids is a bad idea when you can't even afford to take care of yourself. Both rich and poor will all die when this overcrowded planet exhausts its resources. But, in all probability, no one living today will ever benefit directly from such expenditures. Instead, lets see if we can keep everyone alive for 150 years or more even if they can't walk, talk, or eat or enjoy any aspect of life.
So go ahead, lets create one more goverment program which will consume more of an already overburdened budget to "help" people by keeping them healthy for free. Bad health is no accident. It comes from a combination of bad genetics and/or bad environment, both of which come from bad decisions made by the parents of the unhealthy individual.
Both nature and capitalism are cruel for a reason: rewarding good decisions and punishing bad decisions leads to improvement.
Beauracracy, liberals, and communism reward bad decisions and punish good decisions which leads to everybody suffering in the end.
I don't see the these two statements as opinions. I make them based on observations both from my own life and history in general. Of course two people can look at the same "facts" and draw very different conclusions. The place to resolve our differences in this country is at the voting booth. So far, despite 8 years of being ravaged by the liberal Clinton era with goals of a national health care system and banning guns completely, our government has done neither. Either the government is failing to respond to the will of the people, or the will of the people agrees with me. I'll keep my gun and pay for my own medical care :D
"It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees!"
-
Hi Koala, :)
Yeah, I agree. Its the insiduous, sneaky bias practised by a lot of news outlets these days that you really have to watch out for...
There's currently a book on the best sellers list that exposes that very thing. The news aint just the news, anymore.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Hi Koala, :)
Yeah, I agree. Its the insiduous, sneaky bias practised by a lot of news outlets these days that you really have to watch out for...
There's currently a book on the best sellers list that exposes that very thing. The news aint just the news, anymore.
No argument, the news is biased, always has been. I guess I'm just wondering when it wasn't? Go look up the "yellow press" of the late 19th century. Nothing new to the news. Just need to use your head and get your news from as many sources as possible.
-
"I guess I'm just wondering when it wasn't?" - Tahgut
It seems to me that the news at 6pm and 11pm 25-30 years ago was far less sensational in its presentation. I don't recall hearing the sarcastic tones, for example, or the innuendo that you might hear now. Of course, some stations are worse than others when it comes to the news.
The delivery now seems so much more dramatic, with much more opinion leaking through. I think the ideal reporting would be more or less nuetral in delivery, presenting the facts while going to some lengths to avoid opinion.
The trend is obvious. As far as I'm concerned, its a shift from hard news to "info-tainment"
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
I didn't make the world a cold place, I just live in it. One of the worst days I ever had in the Navy was when the Captain of my submarine, under a general order from the Navy, assembled the entire crew on the pier to inform us how the Navy has adopted Total Quality Leadership (based on private industry's Total Quality Management) and that our sole job in the Navy was to provide superior customer service. Officers are no longer leaders of men, they are managers of human resources. If defending the nation with your life can be reduced to "serving a customer" (want some fries?), then certainly the health care industry can be treated the same way since it only exists to make profits as typified by the current hospital/HMO system.
Free medical means cheap doctors. If you have a magic formula for making people work harder for less pay, the rest of the world sure would like to know it. Rush didn't say people without money couldn't have health care, he said wealthy people are entitled to better health care since they can afford to pay the cost.
In the Soviet Union, there were certainly people who were exceptional at their jobs, whether they were aerospace engineers or doctors. But those individuals were usually compensated in someway. In a society where supposedly all people were treated equal, some were "more equal than others". I can assure you that the line for major operations was quite long in the USSR. I can also assure you that the politically affluent people never knew there was a line for anything. Rush's statement is not radical or inflamatory, it is a sad fact of life.
"TQM is DEAD" Commandant, NCO Academy Lackland AFB TX, Summer 01.
Thought I'd brighten your day :)
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
The type of government and economy has everything to do with this argument.
..yes but, what I was elluding to in my (a) previous post was this argument happens with EVERY type of government. The only difference is people aren't sent to the gulag or concentration camp or even the gallows for MAKING the argument.
As I stated previously. With the right people leading the charge, this government has the "capability" to negate this argument. Greed and Apathy keep that from happening.
:D
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
It's always funny to see the american discussion.. In first sentence you brag about being the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world. Then in the second sentence you already whine that you can't pay same tax from your gasoline like euro's do because you can't afford it. You can't pay taxes for healthcare like euro's do because you can't afford it. You won't give a cent from your own pocket to someone who needs it, because you CAN'T AFFORD IT. ..
lol, I guess if you don't live with the best, you whine like the rest.
This is about improving on what we have, not insulting other countries.
Who said we can't afford it? Why should we let our government tax us blind?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I understand that many of the less complicated surgical procedures are performed by technicians trained to perform only that particular procedure, under the supervision of a doctor. For instance, if you needed a tonsilectomy, you would go to a place where technicians trained to do only tonsilectomies do thousands of them, day in -day out. Their protocals are written by a doctor who oversees the program. Because the technicians are not doctors, and only have limited training, the cost should be cheaper.
Uhhh....you know if the AMA Gestapo finds you out your in real trouble lol
;)
-
Dr.s don't much care who pays them, the government, or insurance co. This is no doubt why the AMA backed clintons half hearted attempt at national health care. On the other hand, Insurance co. post Billions of dollars, in profit, annually. Health care insurance would vanish overnight. It is easy to figure this one out.
-
Greed brought this country into existence. Greed will be the death of this country. Greed is an inherent part of human nature that will never be eliminated. But as long as it is here, might as well harness it by using a system that turns greedy, selfish objectives into some form of common good, however harsh it may seem compared to nicer approaches that are doomed to failure.
My friends still in the Navy informed me of the death of TQL, but there is always some sort of leadership training under whatever name that will promote similar ideas. I wonder what they call the new leadership program and if it requires "Customer service is number one" banners hanging from everywhere. Those banners turned my stomach, even when I was going to a submarine tender as a "customer" needing "service". Almost as "fun" was the training on procedural compliance: "obey or be punished".
-
Tumor: The point is that by moving tax funds from military budget to healthcare for example, you'd get free hospitals without paying a single cent more. You're not worried about the effect of the defence budget on your taxes are you?
And please save the 'defence is necessary' stuff because the medical expenses would be a drop in the bucket in that sum. You'd still get the same quality of defence..
The price of a single nuke will buy a lot of doctors to work for 1 year.
I'm not whining about your system, I couldn't care less. I'm only wondering why YOU whine about it. I'm only trying to bring a different point of view..
Like I said earlier, it's not logical that you should not afford to provide certain basic services to your countrymen if you're so wealthy.
But I guess in the end it's the american mentality; everyone for themselves, who cares about the rest. Afterall there are charity organisations for that.
I'd just like to see the chronically ill old eagler or streakeagle spewing these comments when he's paying the expenses from his pension :)
Streak: I guess it's easy to talk like that when you're 19 (was my guess right?) and you feel immortal. Humans have a big flaw however.. We get old.
-
I'd just like to see the chronically ill old eagler or streakeagle spewing these comments when he's paying the expenses from his pension :)
Streak: I guess it's easy to talk like that when you're 19 (was my guess right?) and you feel immortal. Humans have a big flaw however.. We get old.
I wish I was still 19, because back then I had a much brighter view of the world and the future it holds for humanity.
I am turning 34 this Valentines day. I served on submarines for 8 years. I have a brother who had his appendix burst before the 90 days of employment required for health coverage at Disney was met. It is costing him about $30,000. I know what the price of medicine is. I also know that when I get old enough to need medical expenses there is a good chance our wise and wonderful government won't even be able to afford to pay me back via social security or medicaid programs despite all of the tax money I have already dumped in those programs to support the huge population of senior citizens we presently have. These "comments" of mine which you find so disaggreeable are based on all the crap I have watched going on around me.
Have you ever seen the results of military medicine? I.e. navy families being cared for at government facilities for "free". The quality and speed of service was/is atrocious. The price is not "free". As it stands, the cost got so high when it was free that the government decided to "improve" military health care benefits by making military families pay for coverage the same as other health insurance policies at normal companies. The government will tell you just how much annual health care costs and that it did take a significant chunk out of the military budget by covering the spouse and children of all service members. Who is a naive 19-year old here? To say health care is cheap and could come out of the military budget without even making a dent is ludicrous.
Try serving in the military and find out just how effectively goverment money is spent. Despite the money already being spent, the military is vastly underfunded. The aircraft are all approaching 30 years or more of age with no affordable replacements in sight, the most dangerous being the helicopters that crash on a daily basis. The crew of a ship may be away from homeport (and the wives and kids) for over 11 months of every year because there aren't enough ships to cover the commitments we have. In submarines, they frequently have to borrow crewmembers from other subs to have a large enough crew to go to sea. Incidents like Afghanistan only make a bad situation worse. I am willing to bet if you ask someone serving on an aircraft carrier, they will tell you how 3 or 4 more aircraft carriers with the people and aircraft to man them would really make their life a little more tolerable (i.e. get a chance to pull into homeport, maybe even get their long overdue tour of shore duty). Aircraft carriers cost billions, each aircraft on them cost millions, the crew costs millions, the training to enable the crew to operate a carrier costs millions. Retiring one aircraft carrier without a replacement saves a lot of money, but it also stretches our national security pretty thin.
Feel free to continue to support politicians that are willing to trade defense spending for social programs. But a nation without a defense won't have any social programs for very long. Not to forget how expensive health care gets everytime you fight a world war. Though, dead people don't need health care, so I guess it actually saves some money. Then again, dead people don't pay taxes and buy goods, so it is not quite the economic blessing it would appear to be.
Believing that high quality national health care could be achieved without a significant tax increase and/or compromising other equally or more important federal programs is ludicrous. If it could be done without significant drawbacks, congress would have already done it.
One other consideration for those who always point out how other countries somehow find a way to afford national health care programs: Most of them fall under the protective umbrella of the U.S. They have not and never will spend what we did on defense of not only our own country, but the entire free world. Without even totalling the numbers, I am quite certain that our Navy during its peak power at the end of the '80s could maintain control of the sea even if it had to oppose all of the remaining navies of the world. Given that other countries have downsized their militaries as much or more as ours, our Navy still may be more powerful than everyone else combined. The money these other countries saved by relying on our defenses is no small amount. Despite these savings, they still have to tax the hell out of their people to pay for health care. Successful people from these countries usually move here to pay lower taxes and get better health care ;)
I am so far from being a 19-year-old who doesn't know how the real world works. I am a very cold and cynical person at this point when it comes to believing that the government is here to help and that wishful thinking will make everything better. The only person that can ensure I have adequate health care is me. I decide where and how I work, which determines how much money I make, which determines how much health care I can afford both now in the form of health insurance, and later in the form of retirement savings. I decide what I eat and drink, how much I exercise, and how much rest I get, which all contribute to how healthy I will be 40 years from now. If I choose to live it up now, I will suffer greatly later. Even if I make all the right choices, DNA or bad luck could still throw some nasty health problems my way. If such is the case, I will do as humans have done for centuries: deal with it as best I can or die.
If people want the government to provide them with everything, all they have to do is join the military or get a government job. Either one will give you a good taste of what letting the government take care of you costs: lower pay, ever shrinking benefits, and in the case of your military, your freedom and life.
-
I have served in the army and I know well that it can't ever be compared to the civilian side. Everything there is fubar from a civilians point of view.
Army = army. Civilian services = just that.
Army provides very spartan services and I would never expect to get a treatment similar to civilian side from an army hospital.
Just for curiosity: which are the countries that could significantly reduce their army budget because they were under the protective umbrella of the US?
-
NATO and any country near it, plus most of Southeast Asia and South America :p I don't see anyone else fielding even one nuclear powered supercarrier (much less 10 to 14). We have enough land forces to have been simultaneously protecting NATO, Korea, and our own country all at one time plus pit stops in South America and the Middle East. Do the Germans have tanks and troops they can spare to help out all over the world? The Japanese are a special case because by their own laws they are not allowed to have a strong military, which we happen to agree with, so we help protect them to ensure they don't feel the need to "expand their assets" ;) I don't really want to pick on the British, because despite their small numbers, they are close allies and help us as much as they can, but the fact is, they were barely able to take the Falklands/Malvinas back from Argentina. No other country in the world can forward deploy the forces we can, not in size, quality, or speed. This capability has been expensive to maintain, but has ensured that almost every other country even remotely allied to us doesn't have to worry about wasting their money to do the same. Why was even one U.S. dollar or soldier needed to defend Kuwait? They are a very wealthy country. The "free" world counts on us to protect them and make their national budgets based on that assumption.
Against most current countries we have numbers and technology on our side. The West German Army and British Army have nice equipment and well trained people... but could France, Germany, and Britain combined defeat our all-round land/air/sea power combined? If we had to fight the combined might of Europe, their comparable technology would be a problem that we have yet to face, but in terms of numbers, we own the air and sea, and probably have them outnumbered on land as well. Only the former Soviet Union and current China are serious threats, primarily due to their numbers. German Tigers beat Shermans something like 4 to 1, too bad we were shipping them over at a 5 to 1 ratio. I fear that the Chinese manpower would require tactical nuclear options to be considered if we had to fight them on their land. Though, they couldn't invade us if they wanted to. Almost no Navy worth mentioning.
Maybe we should make a deal with the world: we continue doing everything we can to ensure "free trade" and the flow of oil and in return, they pay for us to have a national health care system comparable to their own?
-
That only proves my point, your military budget is aimed for world domination and could shead a nice piece for healtcare.
None of the Nato members cut their defence budgets because of Nato that I'm aware of.. Quite the opposite from what I've heard.
Your country just happens to have a hugely oversized military and sticking your nose to everywhere. Other countries have normal militaries which are there only to protect the country from any immediate threats.
Kuwait had no chance to defend itself because it was facing an enemy who had been building its army extensively in the irak-iran war. That's why the alliance was actually needed.. Irak was so powerful that any single country would have had major problems with defeating it alone. Kuwaitis had a minimal army, despite its wealth its a relatively small country.
-
Back to 'the rich deserve better health care'.
Only a brainwashed lemming can have a problem with this statement. 'Health Care' is just a namby-pamby way of saying 'medical goods and services'. Your great-grand pappy and mine lived their entire lives with little to no 'health care' expenses. They were delivered by a mid-wife, when they got sick their moms did the best they could to nurse them back to health, when they broke a bone they had it set by someone who had done it before. Their medical bills were cheap because medical science was almost completely useless, so there were no medical services to buy. Life expectancy was what, 55 years? A century later, there have been major medical advances, life expentancies are up to 75+ years. Those new medical services, be they drugs, surgery, whatever, cost money, as do all goods and services.
The rich have more money, that's what rich means. People with more money can buy more, and better, goods and services.
If you think that Rush was saying 'the rich deserve better health care because they are more important than the poor' you may as well crawl up Hillary's skirt and die, you are already brain dead. Rush was obviously going against the PC grain by pointing out that medical services are not some God-given right that our benevolent politicians distribute to us. We pay for it, one way or the other.
You pay for all the health care you can afford, anything more you receive above and beyond what you can afford is, in effect, charity. In countries with socialised health care a healthy person pays more into the system than he receives, an unhealthy person receives more from the system than he pays in (charity). No socialized system would continue to function unless some people went to their graves having paid more into the system than they drew out.
Here's an analogy for those of you too brainwashed to see health care as a product you must pay for: The devolpment of the entire automobile industry was, is, and will continue to be motivated by the desires of the rich for better cars. An average guy can afford a car with air conditioning, automatic transmission, radio/cd, power windows, and many other luxuries that were developed over the decades purely for the rich. A 1930's socialist may have looked at a Hollywood movie star and said "20 workers could have bought Model T's for the money that rich fart spent on that one Dusenburg". But socialists are idiots, and he would have missed the fact that the rich fart was priming a pump which would make better and better cars available to everyone later down the road. In fact, automobiles themselves were originally impractical toys for the rich hobbyist.
Medical science requires the same kind of money pump, rich people like Michael Jackson throwing money at some quack to butcher his face yet again. This money makes more kids want go to medical school, keeps pharmacuetical companies experimenting with new drugs, keeps food producers looking for a fat-free chili dog. Almost all medical breakthroughs come from the rich countries, were the medical industry receives an injection of cash by the rich. You don't see too many new drugs or procedures coming out of Ghana. My dirt-poor neighbor had a heart attack and required a triple-bypass. He got it, I doubt very much he paid for most of it. In any socialist country he would have been put in a 2-meter hole.
Arguing of the 'equitable distribution' of any resource or product is just rusty old socialism. It only makes politicians more powerful, the common man gets shafted in the long run.
ra
-
"Other countries have normal militaries "
Yes. We know. Thats why we are constantly hearing. "Save us. Save us!"
-
Umm.. there aren't too many countries crying that in the world. Even then your country goes to fix the regions which you have your own interest in. Oil for example..
You're doing it all for your own benefit so don't play the world saving card here.
ra: I think the major discussion here was if poor people deserve basic health care as opposed to rich people deserve better health care.
I think it sums up to the fact that both DESERVE equal level of healthcare since both are human. The rich folks go to their morning dump just like others. Only difference is that the rich can afford to buy services and quality the poor can never afford. This is crystal clear..
But if you think that a rich brat who inherited a few millions from his gold-digging daddy deserves a better care than his poor brother who was left out of his will.. well you can figure it out yourself. They both deserve the same.. The other just can't afford it.
-
Mrsid,
I don't know what you mean by 'deserve', and I don't think you do either. In a perfect universe there would be no illness.
ra
-
Do the social darwinists here want to get rid of medicare also?
-
Originally posted by ra
Back to 'the rich deserve better health care'.
Only a brainwashed lemming can have a problem with this statement. 'Health Care' is just a namby-pamby way of saying 'medical goods and services'. Your great-grand pappy and mine lived their entire lives with little to no 'health care' expenses. They were delivered by a mid-wife, when they got sick their moms did the best they could to nurse them back to health, when they broke a bone they had it set by someone who had done it before. Their medical bills were cheap because medical science was almost completely useless, so there were no medical services to buy. Life expectancy was what, 55 years? A century later, there have been major medical advances, life expentancies are up to 75+ years. Those new medical services, be they drugs, surgery, whatever, cost money, as do all goods and services.
The rich have more money, that's what rich means. People with more money can buy more, and better, goods and services.
If you think that Rush was saying 'the rich deserve better health care because they are more important than the poor' you may as well crawl up Hillary's skirt and die, you are already brain dead. Rush was obviously going against the PC grain by pointing out that medical services are not some God-given right that our benevolent politicians distribute to us. We pay for it, one way or the other.
You pay for all the health care you can afford, anything more you receive above and beyond what you can afford is, in effect, charity. In countries with socialised health care a healthy person pays more into the system than he receives, an unhealthy person receives more from the system than he pays in (charity). No socialized system would continue to function unless some people went to their graves having paid more into the system than they drew out.
Here's an analogy for those of you too brainwashed to see health care as a product you must pay for: The devolpment of the entire automobile industry was, is, and will continue to be motivated by the desires of the rich for better cars. An average guy can afford a car with air conditioning, automatic transmission, radio/cd, power windows, and many other luxuries that were developed over the decades purely for the rich. A 1930's socialist may have looked at a Hollywood movie star and said "20 workers could have bought Model T's for the money that rich fart spent on that one Dusenburg". But socialists are idiots, and he would have missed the fact that the rich fart was priming a pump which would make better and better cars available to everyone later down the road. In fact, automobiles themselves were originally impractical toys for the rich hobbyist.
Medical science requires the same kind of money pump, rich people like Michael Jackson throwing money at some quack to butcher his face yet again. This money makes more kids want go to medical school, keeps pharmacuetical companies experimenting with new drugs, keeps food producers looking for a fat-free chili dog. Almost all medical breakthroughs come from the rich countries, were the medical industry receives an injection of cash by the rich. You don't see too many new drugs or procedures coming out of Ghana. My dirt-poor neighbor had a heart attack and required a triple-bypass. He got it, I doubt very much he paid for most of it. In any socialist country he would have been put in a 2-meter hole.
Arguing of the 'equitable distribution' of any resource or product is just rusty old socialism. It only makes politicians more powerful, the common man gets shafted in the long run.
ra
Ahh, well ok. So, maybe someday for some reason when your broke and sick... You'll be ok with "sorry, you don't have insurance", now go away and die quietly like a good little peasant?
-
"Strangely, I think our best hopes for healthcare lye in campaign reform.
The poor already have national health care. Its called welfare. The rich don't need it. It is the middle class that cant afford to go to the doctor. As long as insurance companys are allowed to give millions in campaign contributions we are screwed. Any one who thinks that it is one man, one vote. Should try giving a buck to a campaign. while the other guy gives a few thousand. See who the politician listens to.
-
ra: deserve means that the rich and the poor man have equal human rights. But I guess you wouldn't know anything about that either.
Seems like you're a social racist. Born with a golden spoon in the mouth.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Do the social darwinists here want to get rid of medicare also?
LOL. Hey...that got me to thinking. Ya know, I do want to get rid of social security. I'm 35. The way I see it, my grandparents generation created a nice little nest egg by billing thier future grandkids lol. And OH my COD the baby-boomer's? They are going to spend every last penny of it...(first by mismanaging it, then by abusing it...then by sucking it dry, most of this has already started). You watch.
-
Everyone understands that in order to have a functioning nation-state you need to pay taxes. Some people will always feel that they pay too much taxes, others will always feel envy towards others (most often richer people), and demand that others pay more taxes. Some people will always try to milk the system. And some people will always try to screw the system. This all comes with living in a democracy. Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech sometimes gives you the opportunity to listen to the most absurd drivel. Sometimes it gives you the opportunity to listen to something really wise. There are ups and downs of living in a democracy. But then again, we all want to have it that way, because sometimes we all want to say whats on our mind, and when that time comes, we want people (who may or may not think we are complete idiots) to listen.
My personal opinion is that free health care is good for a nation. Just like free education. Why? Because a nation always benefits in the long run to have healthy (think free health care) and well educated (think free education) citizens. It really is as simple as that. If you dont want to listen to "normal" reasons as to why each and every living individual has the same "worth", then you should be able to listen to that socio-economic-reason. Personally I would like to ask you "hard liners" if you really want to live in a society where some people cant afford to get medical treatment if they are ill? And if you answer that question with a "yes" then my next question would be "Why?" What kind of society is that? I know how easy it is to sit in a forum like this and talk hard about how people get what they deserve, etc. But have you even tried to imagine what it would be like for that other guy? The poor one I mean. There is an old saying, before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Think about that for just one minute.
I live in Sweden, and here we have free education and free health care. And I have yet to hear about anyone having to travel to the US in order to get "better" medical treatment, or better education. Nor have I ever heard about any of our medical doctors who moved to the US in order to make more money. Perhaps some people value other things in life than money? Heck, some people actually might want to work as a doctor just to help other people. Imagine that huh...
-
Free health care does not have anything to do with the original topic. It is about whether or not people are allowed to spend money.
-
LOL Fatty!
Are you really saying that someone told you won't be able to spend your money where you want to spend it?
:eek:
As long as there are people with money, there are private services offered to be bought. That's not going to change with public services being there or not.
If by miracle all hospitals would start to offer public services in the states and the quality of services would be so horrible like you like to describe as a counter argument.. What's stopping the doctors from starting private clinics and offer a better quality to those who can afford it? Answer is nothing.
That's exactly what's happening also in the nordic countries even though we don't have problems with quality. Private side is there mainly to get instant services instead of waiting a couple weeks in operation queue for example. You can get a heart operation (non acute reasons, the acute ones are operated always immediately also on public side) if you pay $10000 on the private side. Even from that private bill the government will refund 60% after you send the application to the social department.
In addition to that you still can have medicare plans at your job, reducing the possible costs even more.
-
IIRC, it was Sweden that did the most research on just how much tax the society will stand before the high taxes cause diminishing returns to that society.
I believe this study was undertaken because they had basically over taxed their economy to the point of serious damage.
Anyway, I think the number they came up with was ~40%. Above that point people spend more time trying to dodge taxes than making money, thus the economy suffers.
An old biblical passage comes to mind:
"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn." - 1 Corinthians 9
Yes, we have to have taxes. Just don't forget that the one who actually does the work needs some (most?) of the reward. :D
... and Fatty is right.. this thread was about spending your money as you choose.. even if that turns out to be for better health care.
-
MrSid, did you read the opening thread? That's what this thread is about, a percieved outrage over the rich being able to buy expanded coverage and/or care.
-
Of course the people outraged by Rush's statement are the same people that think everyone shoud have the right to the same exceptionally good quality of care the richest people get for one low price: free (courtesy of your tax dollars)--that's why they are outraged.
The cost of health care and how it could or should be paid is inherently intertwined with the topic of the thread. Of course the majority seem to have decided that it should be provided by the government, or by richer people via specialized taxes by the government (same difference). This leads to the spiral away from the topic into government spending practices, which always comes back to military spending.
There is a resounding theme among the national health care proponents that I will change my tune and want free care when I get older and my health begins failing (in all truth, it has already started, just a matter of years before my knees go out). I disagree. I am not the type of person that seeks out only what is in my own best interest. I have in the past and will in the future maintain my integrity by being honest and doing what I believe is right especially when it hurts me. If you change your beliefs to fit your environment, that is your choice. I would rather define a code of behavior based on what I believe is right, then try to live by it as much as humanly possible.
I happen to believe there was absolutely nothing outrageous about Rush's statement. If I am still alive 40 years from now and am suffering terribly because I can't afford better health care, I will still believe and say the same thing. I won't blame my government for failing to take care of me. I will blame the only person I ever hold responsible for my problems: myself.
If more people held themselves accountable for their own problems and took the appropritate actions instead of blaming the world around them and doing nothing to change, there wouldn't be nearly as big a need for welfare programs. If the people who had the means would voluntarily help the people who both deserve and need it just because it is the right thing to do, we wouldn't need government sponsored welfare at all.
Some people do not deserve help. Society should not support "dead wood". Some mistakes are unforgivable, or we wouldn't have "life" prison sentences. I would like to see our laws changed to more strongly promote the idea that when you are convicted of violating someone's rights in a criminal manner, that you forfeit all of yours. Capital punishment is a good start. The term "Prison rights" is an oxymoron. Why do convicted murderers get better healthcare for free than many law-abiding tax-payers? That is where your outrage should be directed.
-
<<>>
"Social racist" :rolleyes:
Very revealing Mrsid. You bloviate about how much you care about the poor when actually you are just trying to look morally superior.
Couldn't bring yourself to call me a Nazi?
ra
-
ra: You just seem to have big time trouble with seeing the poor people as humans just like the rich ones. The fact is that the rich and the poor man are the same in all aspects. The rich man is just more fortunate. You were speaking like the poor would be some grey group who have no human value and can be treated like toejam.
The problem with sickness however is that when you get sick you can no longer work usually. That means you wont have income to pay your medical bills. That means you won't be treated to cure your sickness. That means that you're very much screwed for nothing - even if 2 weeks ago you were the hard working honest guy.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Free health care does not have anything to do with the original topic. It is about whether or not people are allowed to spend money.
No it wasn't. The topic is simple. Do "You" deserve "better" health care because you are wealthy?
Half of ya'll missed the whole point. It's about standards. There's nothig wrong with the wealthy going out and paying for health care, as they should. The key word in the "question" is "DESERVE". My thought is HELL NO. They do NOT DESERVE "better" medical care. My god thats the most egotistical statement I've ever heard! Sorry but I have real problems with self-riteous people, especially when it's thier god "The Dollar" who makes them so.
-
<<>>
MRsid,
You are the one who can't see that having politicians and bureaucrats distribute medical care hurts everyone, including the poor, by screwing up the supply and demand for modern medical services. Doctors, EKGs, and drugs don't come from a government warehouse somewhere. They are the product of a vibrant economy, which includes letting people pursue medicine as a career. I've never met a doctor who didn't like money. If you set too many restrictions on how they can earn it, they can take their talent and hard work to some other field.
Get off your high horse, you aren't morally superior to my ass.
ra
-
Originally posted by Eagler
strange
why is it then, if every other country that has such a wonderful FREE medical system in place, finds its citizens, who are financially able, going to the US when they really need something fixed ???
It's an pretty rare occurence ... it happen for some pretty rare decease ... but if it happen that it's the only way all cost is payed by our SS system (travel ,hotel medic ... all in totality).
so it work :)
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
If more people held themselves accountable for their own problems and took the appropritate actions instead of blaming the world around them and doing nothing to change, there wouldn't be nearly as big a need for welfare programs. If the people who had the means would voluntarily help the people who both deserve and need it just because it is the right thing to do, we wouldn't need government sponsored welfare at all.
[/b]
Oh, I agree completely. But until we reach that place, or rather, until we live in a perfect world, we have to have some basic and fundamental equal rights. No matter whether you are rich or poor, you are still a person, and the value of each human life is 1. At least that is how I was brought up to see the world.
Some people do not deserve help. Society should not support "dead wood". Some mistakes are unforgivable, or we wouldn't have "life" prison sentences. I would like to see our laws changed to more strongly promote the idea that when you are convicted of violating someone's rights in a criminal manner, that you forfeit all of yours. Capital punishment is a good start. The term "Prison rights" is an oxymoron. Why do convicted murderers get better healthcare for free than many law-abiding tax-payers? That is where your outrage should be directed.
[/b]
I find this line of reasoning intriguing (and rather scary) : Society should not support "dead wood". Who decides what the dead wood of society is? The politicians? Yeah, that'll make it easier to sleep at night. "Some people do not deserve help"? Who might that be? If we are talking about rapists and murderers I agree, but somehow I get the feeling that you would like to include other kinds of people into that category too. Anyway, who decides if someone deserves help or not? Since we are talking about government spendings I suppose the politicians needs to be involved somehow. Do you really want that?
The dead wood argument has been presented before you know, but that was in Europe, and in the thirties...
-
ra you must be really stupid to think that medical care would somehow suffer from being funded by the government.
Government funding does also not mean that private hospitals would be somehow regulated, they can remain offering their services as before - maybe for those rich and selected who can now afford to pay $30k for a surgery.
And hint: They pay the doctors a salary also in the public side, sneaky huh?
-
Homer: Don't worry, Marge. America's health care system is second only to Japan, Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, well, all of Europe, but you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay!
-
<<>>
OK, now I understand completely.
-
Tumor, you were tweaked by Rush.
Scenario: Rush wants to argue over limitations on medical services.
Problem: Nobody in their right mind would take the other side.
Solution: Reword statement, substituting deserve instead of should be allowed to pay for. All of a sudden you've got a ton of people arguing against extra and/or private services.
-
Did ya'll see the article in today's paper about the California inmate that got a Gratis heart transplant ahead of 500 others on the list(who presumably could have/would have paid for it themselves(insurance))?
That is why Govt should no be involved in anything other than pure funding for medical expenses, if that.