Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
LOLZ I have racked up a ton of posts just by debating history with Dixie...
Racing Past the Constitution
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
LOLZ I have racked up a ton of posts just by debating history with Dixie...
apple0154
MEOW
You must have your head in a very dark place.
The US school system, for decade after decade, produced the very people who made the US a leader in the world. The socialist run school system, that free-for-all institution, must be given due credit.The current disintegration of the school system can be squarely placed on the Conservatives but that's a whole other topic. Yes, we have discovered some new way to medically care for patients. That's exactly the point. What medical technologies or knowledge was in place when the Constitution was written? If the Founding Fathers were aware of medicine that could extend ones life by decades, if not scores of years, do you not think they would have addressed that? Would any mentally competent individual writing a document/plan referring to governing a country not take into consideration the ability to extend the life of each citizen, if they knew about it?
The human life span has been growing dramatically. A person born in 1776 could expect to live 35 years. By the year 1900, the average life span was only 47 years. Today, a female born can expect to live 79 years, and a male 72 years. Those who live to older ages than these have a greater life expectency! A woman over 65 could very likely expect to live another 18 years on average. A woman who lives to 85 will average another six years of life! http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/seniors/healthyaging.html
(Maybe that's why it's stipulated the President must be at least 35 years old. The Founding Fathers figured most people would be dead!)
As new discoveries through genetics become available every citizen must have equal access.
Take note this is the first time you contradict yourself. Keep reading for more details.
That's just the ravings of a lunatic.
If you have a riding mower and a few beer on ice I'd help you out.
This is the second contradiction. Keep reading.....
We've arrived! Ultimately, rich people will still receive exceptional care, they can afford to hire the doctors who don't want to work for the government. But...but you said we can't go back. It will be over. All gone. But if people will still be able to pay for a doctor and if the people find out that paying for a doctor is better than universal medicare then more people will continue to pay for doctors until universal medicare is no more. Why hasn't that happened in all those countries I mentioned? Why hasn't that happened in just ONE of those countries?
That's why your rebuttals aren't rebuttals at all. That's why I don't "get" them.They're nothing more than contradictions. Illogical, irrational.
Let's hope so.
I'm a glass-half-full type of guy. I don't see the Republicans as having gave up. I prefer to believe the Republicans finally saw the light after their constituents gave them the proverbial slap upside the head last election. They, like you, kept giving nonsensical replies to the electorate's questions concerning the war, the economy, foreign policy, medicare.....well, you get the idea. Some people refer to it as talking out of ones a$$ but I certainly don't have to teach you anything about that.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Personally, I wouldn't use American public education as a shining example of how socialist systems provide the best quality. I think our teachers are probably among the most incompetent compared to the rest of the world. In fact, schools are a prime example of a system being run by government, (in the very socialist way you want to run medical care), which would be markedly better off in a capitalist system where competition would be introduced and would ensure improvement in quality of education.
Now you are attempting to use an example of capitalism vs. capitalism with advanced technology. We've not discovered some new way to medically care for patients here. What you are advocating, is the government take over of an entire capitalist enterprise, at the displacement of the people who work in that field. There's really no precedent for this in American history.
*sigh* You keep running back to this tired old argument to support your point. I have already agreed with you, and thanked you for reminding us all of the finality involved in this. Yes, it's true, once socialist policy is entrenched, it is almost impossible to ever change it! You keep assuming, since no one has "gone back" it means they must prefer the socialist system! That's bullshit, because the fact is, you can't go back! You have destroyed the infrastructure which supported the capitalist system, it's gone! After hospitals close and doctors decide on different careers, it's too late to "change back" to what you had, you must live with the consequences of what you established. That's why these places never go back, not because they wouldn't LOVE to... hell, they are selling everything they own to come here for medical care, instead of using the systems in their own country, what does that tell you? I already posted the report about the Brits, and how they suffered through decades of socialized medicine, before finally introducing some capitalist initiatives, out of desperation to improve their deplorable medical conditions.
They spewed the same socialist propaganda to people, and played on their emotions, duping them into believing there was a better way. Hitler was a great speaker, and he simply mesmerized his country into supporting his socialist ideas, even while he was incinerating other human beings. Chamberlain was a pinhead like you, who wanted to suck up to socialism, in the false hope it would lead to a better life for all.
I already pay medicare tax, and a host of other taxes to fund socialist programs, for that matter. I don't think it is greed, so much as a fundamental disagreement in principle. I don't want to chip in the pot and get lost, that sounds a little like common robbery to me. I don't agree with the idea you have, that I am somehow obligated to take care of your medical needs, and if I don't want to, it's because I am greedy. I think it is your obligation to take care of your own needs, not mine. When I see you out in my yard mowing my lawn, because you just felt the need to help me out, I may start feeling that way toward you, but as it stands now, go fuck yourself.
And you keep failing to miss my rebuttal to that, socialism is very difficult to dislodge, once it has been established. People don't change back, because there is nothing to change back to! You've destroyed that! It's GONE! What part of that are you not comprehending, because this makes the fourth time I've posted it, and you continue to act like a retard who can't read.
Virtually everything in the Socialist playbook, depends on envy of the rich. You illustrate this very nicely. You admit we are basically turning medical care into the local free clinic, and that's fine with you, as long as we stick it to the rich. As long as that rich sick person has to sit in the waiting room next to a homeless person, you're fine with it. Yeah... bring it on baby!
But here's the catch... and it's something that plagues socialism, really... no matter what you do, there are always the 'haves' and 'have nots' and those who control power in a socialist model, are the ones who have the most. Ultimately, rich people will still receive exceptional care, they can afford to hire the doctors who don't want to work for the government.
Of course, just as we all can't afford to have a butler, a maid, and a private doctor, some of us will be relegated to sitting in the crowded waiting rooms to see a doctor, if we can find one who will see us before we die.
Now really, Apple, we can go back and forth about it all day, the bottom line is, we will probably live to see the consequences of socialized medicine, it's the Democrats baby, and this time they are keeping it. Republicans have already pretty much given up on trying to stop it, we'll get some form of socialized medicine, like you are advocating, like you want. We will get to see how well it works, and who was right. Of course, when it all falls apart, and we have 3rd world health care, you will have changed your pinhead name, or moved on to stir shit elsewhere, you won't be around to admit you were wrong.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, that is not another topic, it's a bald-faced liberal piece of shit LIE! Where in God's name do you get "the current disintegration of the school system can be squarely placed on the Conservatives?" Nothing could be further from the truth... it's physically impossible to be any more removed from truth! The public school system, operated by the powerful teachers lobby, who votes and supports Democrats 95% of the time, have fought tooth and nail for the past decade, against the REPUBLICAN suggestion to implement a competitive vouchers system!
No, we haven't discovered a new way to medically care for patients. You are sniffing glue, or something. Doesn't matter what medical technology was in place when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers made the federal government's role abundantly clear, and it never was intended or designed to provide cradle-to-grave entitlements.
There is no contradiction, you are just a pinhead moron who can't seem to grasp context. The capitalist system, hospitals all over the place, doctors filling up medical parks, competitive options for the consumer, regarding where to go for medical care... that will all be a thing of the past, gone forever, never to return again. Rich people, who can afford to hire their own personal physicians, will not suffer. Now, what fucking part of that is a contradiction? Middle class people who CAN afford to go to the medical park and make an appointment with one of thousands of doctors now, will simply not have deep enough pockets to pay for a personal physician, independent of the government socialist system, it will not be something they could afford, even if they wanted to.
You're a Socialist, is what you are. Anything a Republican says, you are opposed to. Doesn't matter if you have to grow a fucking little mustache and wear a crooked little cross on your arm, you aren't going to side with a Republican. You want to yack about "nonsensical replies" but that's all you've had in this thread! John McCain practically pissed his pants in excitement over the chance to side with Democrats on health care reform, it's probably one of the reasons he couldn't get enough support from his conservative base to beat a full-fledged Socialist. Where you get that the electorate gave R's a "slap" for not supporting health care reform, I do not know. If anything, McCain got a slap for sucking up to every Socialist Liberal entitlement program he could, in his idiotic attempts to try and win over some "moderate" support. ....But, you (not being an extremist) are one of those moderates he was trying to appeal to, and you don't even seem to realize he was in support of socialized medicine.
apple0154
MEOW
I see. In that case would you be kind enough to describe the average operating room back in 1776? Perhaps mention some medical equipment in use then. Surgical instruments. Medications. Twenty-five words or less will be sufficient.
There wasn't any medical technology in place. That's the whole point. They couldn't address the issue because it wasn't an issue. Also, universal medicare is not a cradle-to-grave entitlement. It is for the benefit of society, as a whole. A healthy population results in a more productive citizenry. It is to the benefit of all, not just the individual.
The more you write the more it's obvious you know nothing about universal medicare. (There's an old saying, "It's better to say nothing and thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.)
People can and do choose their own doctor and hospital under universal medicare. The beauty is one can choose any doctor regardless of cost because cost is not a factor.
If you visit one doctor and they recommend a certain treatment and you don't want that treatment you can go and see another doctor and get their opinion. You can see as many doctors as you like because it won't cost you anything to see them. That is freedom. That is choice. That is what people don't have under the "pay or suffer" system because they can't afford to see a number of doctors so they suffer, needlessly.
I wouldn't trust McCain to look after my fish when I go on vacation. Although I disagreed with his political stance over the years I did respect him until I saw that infamous picture of him hugging Bush.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1188858/posts
Check out the link and the comments under the picture. It was all downhill after that. McCain would sell his own mother or wife for a shot at the Presidency.
He wouldn't have instituted universal medicare. He wouldn't have cared for anything except to sit his ass in the President's chair. And most likely he would have kept the Bush war-mongering buddies close like Cheney and Wolfy and Rumdumb and all the rest of those failed Nostradamus wanna-bees who couldn't predict rain if the sky was filled with clouds.
I'm sure you recall the predictions about the Iraq war. Jon Stewart did a marvelous summary of them a while back. "It will be over in six months. It will be over once we catch Bin Laden, once we catch Saddam, once we do this or that." Six years of failed predictions.
The GOP is a disgrace! Incompetent, out of touch, a 19th century political party. McCain is just one of the group. He'd say anything to win the Presidency and would have continued the same old, failed policies.
Remember Obama commenting on bi-partisan talks and telling the Repubs not to come to the table with the same worn out arguments? That's the problem with the Republican Party.
We see evidence of it daily. All they did was criticize Obama's budget/bailout without offering one of their own. They couldn't come up with anything new if their life depended on it.
Either make things worse or do nothing. That's their platform and the "moderates" finally saw through it. Eight years of failure. No leadership. No initiatives. Nothing.
Times have changed. The time for talk is over. Obama is implementing his policies. As he so eloquently put it, "We've waited long enough. We can't wait any longer."
If the Repubs had used their time properly they could have come up with solutions but they did nothing. They had eight years to implement some form of medicare policy but they wasted all that time. It's too late to cry about it now. They blew it just like everything else they touched.
Is it any wonder people are going along with Obama? After eight years of Repub governing anyone would look "God-like".
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
People practiced medicine in 1776, and much of the procedure for examination and diagnosis has not changed. The founding fathers didn't include medical care in the government's responsibilities, because that has never been the purpose or function of a government. It doesn't matter what you personally think is a benefit to society, that also wasn't determined to be government's roll.
Again, you make the pinhead assumption, if we have universal health care, we will have less sick people in America, and there is no data to support that theory. As I stated earlier, people avoid going to the doctor for a variety of reasons. Howard Hughes was one of the richest people to ever live, and he essentially died from lack of medical care. Just because you provide a service, doesn't automatically mean people will use it. Oh, you'll have plenty of people using and abusing this new "right" we'll have, hangnails, moles, psychotherapy... every hypochondriac imaginable, clogging up every doctor's office in America with their bullshit. Meanwhile, the really sick people are still sick, and those who didn't want to go to the doctor before, are certainly not going now. So, you've done more harm than good. But it was the thought... it's always the thought, that counts.
And YES, universal medical care from the time you are born until the time you die, is CRADLE TO GRAVE ENTITLEMENT! Which of those words are you having trouble with?
Cost is ALWAYS a factor! You're a nitwit who thinks, because government is paying for it, there is no cost! Government doesn't earn an income!!!!!! The Government isn't going to pay for anything, they are broke! We The People, through excessive taxation, are who will pay for this. But not only are we going to pay, we're going to pay and get shittier service for the money!
This is where your utter stupidity comes into play. Is it not clear to you, that when you remove any financial barrier, and tell 300 million people they are free to see as many doctors as they wish at no cost, the subsequent demand will not be able to be met? Is it not clear to you that government can't afford to open the doors to the candy store, and tell America to help themselves? Couple this dramatically increased demand, with people taking advantage of the government freebie to have every little ache and pain seen about, and the fact that the doctors will no longer be able to simply submit the claims to an insurer, who will pay the bulk of the charges, but instead, a government agency which will require mundane hoop-jumping, and redundant bureaucratic red tape to maybe pay a portion of a claim, if the doc is lucky... and you will likely have far fewer practicing doctors, to meet this tsunami of new patients. I personally know of two doctors who say they will close their practice, when we get universal health care. Now, I have not surveyed all the doctors I know, I really don't know very many, but when I hear doctors telling me, they have enough trouble getting paid from the insurance companies, they don't need to deal with the government. From their perspective, the concern is government control of medicine, they fear the government mandating how they care for their patients.
McCain Who?
No, he had already gone on record as being favorable toward some sort of comprehensive health care reform. Did you miss the debates? McCain would have caved on whatever the Democrat congress put on his desk, and you would have gotten universal health care either way. In fact, McCain was such a pushover, you may have actually gotten more than with Obama and a majority. This has always been a weak issue, because most Republicans actually do want some reform, it's just in different ways than the socialists on the left.
Let's stick to health care. I know it's disappointing Obama didn't bring the troops home in 6 months like he promised, you don't have to bring that up here.
McCain Who?
The Democrats have suspended the rules of debate in Congress. Republicans are released from their shackles for lunch and bathroom breaks, and are only allowed to speak when spoken to by a Lib..err.Dem! Offering one of their own? WTeverlovingF are you talking about? The minority party does not get to submit an alternative to the president's budget, when the president is part of the majority party. What would be the congressional point of that?
Obama has never planned to have "bipartisan talks" with republicans! He is not interested in listening to republicans, or working together for anything other than his socialist liberal left-wing agenda. It's funny you continue to use the term "failed policies" when your president has adopted some of those very same policies.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
...Why are the Liberals Soooooo Angry????
apple0154
MEOW
That explains why you are against universal medicare. You have no idea what you're talking about but I suspected that.
You're right. It wasn't a function of a government because there wasn't anything to call "medical care". A few leaves and ground up bark didn't require a universal plan.
So what is the government's roll? Tell us in your own words
Of course there is. The US spends more on medical services than any other country and still has a high rate of disease and infant mortality, for starters.
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Th government has plenty of money. At least it did before the Repub buffoons got in there. And it will have plenty of money again once the whacked out policies of the Repubs are slowly thrown on the scrap heap.
Sure, it's going to take time but once the budget is under control the extra money will be allotted to things like medicare and alternative energy and education so in the future another bunch of conservative buffoons won't have the opportunity to say things like the crackpot Cheney said, "War was an option so we chose it."
When our children and grandchildren are paying taxes they will be receiving medicare and low cost education instead of paying taxes to get the opportunity to have their arms and legs blown off because some jackass decides to throw away the extra money on a war.
The money wasted on the war could have paid for almost all those defaulted mortgages. Just think about that. Millions of people could have got a free house instead of thousands of them dying or being injured for life.
Wake up, man!!!!
All I can suggest is for those doctors visit other countries and see how it works. As for you, I'm not sure what to suggest.
They had eight years to reform medicare. As usual, they did nothing.
Sure he wanted their input and a healthy discussion but he warned them not to come to the table with the same worn out, failed ideas and false beliefs. In a sense I suppose they're similar to you. You keep talking about a major doctor shortage and having no choice and government interfering with treatment when none of that happens under a universal medicare plan.
There's no point in discussing those things because those things do not happen. I gave you the names of half a dozen countries you can check out.
Actually Liberals are quite happy and not just in the US. Obama was the breath of fresh air the world needed.
Change. It was long overdue.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
The world needs Obama to give them a stronger position, yes.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So there weren't any sick people in 1776? Seems to me, if there were sick people, and the founding fathers had thought our government should be obligated to provide care for them, it would have been articulated in the Constitution. The fact is, even though we had plenty of sick people in America in 1776, the Founding Fathers were not so compelled.
It is not to provide free health care for every American! Our government in particular, is designed to give us the capitalist freedom to solve these problems on our own, without government intervention or interference. In a sense, socialized medicine does just the opposite.
??? How does that prove anything, other than the fact I've been slapping you upside your head with all along? Throwing taxpayer money at the problem is not suddenly going to make people get well! It will exacerbate the problem, by increasing public demand on a service industry already struggling to meet demand.
You know what, Pinhead, you can keep repeating this over and over again, it doesn't really bother me, I am used to it here. The bottom line is, you have not demonstrated you know what the hell you are talking about, and instead of admitting you don't, you want to make that charge about me. My case has been laid out clearly, concisely, and to the point. You are off in La-la-land, where doctors are just going to jump for joy over getting to work for the government instead of private enterprise, and money is something that just grows out there on trees behind the Capitol building! You are an insane nut job, who doesn't have the first clue about how capitalism works, or why it's better than socialism.
The government at present, is about $10 trillion in debt, and counting. This is largely due to LIBERAL policies over the years, not Republicans. The Government itself, has NO money, it OWES money, to China and elsewhere. It doesn't currently even have the money we gave it to hold and keep for our retirement, it has spent that money. Very important thing you need to absorb into your pinhead, the Government doesn't earn an income. It depends solely on taxes, fees and tariffs. Most of these are paid by rich people, who you have soaked to death already, so you have a little problem here. How do you pay for health care for 300 million people?
I fail to see how the two things relate, but whatever. It still sounds like you are angry at Cheney, and this is somehow vindication for that? Is that the case?
Our grandchildren will be working for the state, as all people do in a Socialist society. There will be no "taxes" really, the state takes all of what you make and provides all you need. That's how Socialism works, or did you not know that?
Oh yes.... and all the money we spent fighting WWII... My God, it cost us a fortune to develop the nuclear bomb and stop fascist tyranny from sweeping the globe. Just think of all the lost money from those hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died! We could have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we had just caved in to socialism back then!
Yes, and I gave you the report on the UK system, which was first adopted in 1948, and which had to eventually be reformed to introduce some capitalist initiative, in order to restore reasonable quality health care. In that example, the socialist system failed. In the other examples, you cite places like Sweeden, who's total population is less than the number of doctors and nurses in America, and who's GDP and GNP is less than some of our major medical groups in America. These isolated arctic socialist havens are NOT America! They are nowhere near the size of America, the people are nowhere near as culturally diverse, and in their own little corner of the world, socialized medicine is better than the alternative of what they had before. THAT doesn't prove socialized medicine is right for America, it doesn't make your case, it makes you look like a complete mental retard who can't understand why socialism does not work in large urban industrialized nations. IT NEVER HAS!
No, liberals are quite pissed off. In virtually every thread on this board, they are being bitter and vitriolic little smart asses, calling conservatives and republicans every name in the book, being completely unreasonable and unwilling to debate the issues, and arrogantly proclaiming themselves victorious in every argument, based on the fact Obama won the election.
Yeah, skippy.... the world really needed for the President of the United States to travel around bowing to kings, calling us arrogant and apologizing for us. The world need to hear our president say, we are just one nation of many, one voice of many... that's what they all needed to hear! You and your president are idiots! You've sold out America and you have no concept of American exceptionalism. But in your pea-sized pinhead brains, you honestly believe this weak-kneed lily-liver approach, is going to garner worldwide cooperation. Two words for you.... Neville Chamberlain.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Did you also note that he went to Cuba for the surgery?
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, October 04, 2007 --(PR.com)-- Unable to cope with physical discomfort and wait for 16 months to have his orthopedic surgery done in Canada, a Winnipeg man will fly to Cuba on Monday (Oct. 8) to have his treatment performed there next week.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/54883
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, October 04, 2007 --(PR.com)-- Unable to cope with physical discomfort and wait for 16 months to have his orthopedic surgery done in Canada, a Winnipeg man will fly to Cuba on Monday (Oct. 8) to have his treatment performed there next week.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/54883
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
apple0154
MEOW
There wasn't any "care" to provide. There wasn't any medicine. People became ill and died shortly after just as people, today, would die if denied medicine/medical care. The government never mentioned it because there was nothing to mention.
Quite the contrary. We can solve the problem the same way we solved the problem of schools. Everyone chips in and everyone gets to go to school.
Once again, it shows you don't have any idea what you're talking about. (Are you sure you're not slapping your own head?) Countries with universal medicare spend less per person than the US. It is the US that's throwing money at the problem.
Do a google on universal medicare. LEARN! I've given you the names of a number of countries. For crying out loud educate yourself.
Your ignorance is becoming tiring. There was a surplus when Bush entered office so it wasn't due to Liberal policies.
The government does earn an income. They work for us. Similar, in some ways, to an accountant or a Domestic Engineer (housewife/house hubby). We pay the government to look after things we either don't want to or are unable to look after ourselves.
Defense, schooling, medical care.....would you have time to sit on a local committee and plan the construction of a school? Decide how many tanks we need in Afghanistan?
Does your health insurance policy cover treatment for Ankylosing Spondylitis or Zollinger Ellison Syndrome? What about Maple Syrup Urine Disease? Are those diseases sufficiently common or are there genetic markers which might predispose one to contract one of those diseases? Do you know if your insurance covers them? According to your philosophy capitalistic people are supposed to know that. They don't require government assistance.
How do you rate?
What's that got to do with universal medicare?
School systems work in industrialized nations. Interstate freeways work in industrialized nations. Why wouldn't medicare work?
It's more a case of frustrated than pissed off. As Obama said don't come to the table with the same old, worn out arguments.
You had 8 years of Bush. What didn't go wrong? Compare the situation today to the situation 8 years ago. What are you defending? What is better today?
That's the frustrating part. What, exactly, are you defending? Bush's policies/programs/beliefs/leadership.....all failures. That's what Obama tried to get across to the Repub congress. Bush's ideas were tried and failed. Why discuss them further? They were tried for 8 years.
It's expected that not all ideas and plans will be successful. No one is perfect but when taking an overview one has little choice but conclude there is an underlying, corrosive philosophy at work.
Maybe it worked well when home ownership required riding a horse as hard as one could and then driving a stake in the ground. Maybe it worked well when one could just wander onto a piece of land and start panning for gold. Maybe it worked well when folks got their corn from a jar.
and the price of a braised rabbit dinner was the cost of the ammo. It's all about change, Dixie. Change we can believe in because all hope was lost under Bush and the Repubs. From a lack of summer jobs to enable youth to continue their education to retired folks' income being slashed due to stock decline/company bankruptcy to wars draining the economy.....surely enough is enough.
The craziness has to come to an end.
Change. It's long overdue.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The Internets are a wonderful thing....
Benjamin Franklin is regarded as the Founder of the hospital, and his autobiography famously describes how he fast-talked the legislature into matching the donations of the public, not mentioning to them that he had already collected enough promises to see the project through. This seems in character; Franklin's biographer Edmond Morgan summed up that,"Franklin doesn't tell us everything, but what he does tell us, is straight." The idea for the hospital was that of Dr. Thomas Bond, whose house is now a bed and breakfast on Second Street, , but it was characteristic of Franklin to be the secretary of the first board of managers of the hospital. In Quaker tradition, the clerk of a meeting is the person who really runs the show. It thus comes about that the minutes of the founding board were recorded in Franklin's own handwriting, among them the purpose of the institution, which is to care for the Sick Poor, and if there is room, for Those Who can pay. This tradition and this method of operation continued until the advent in 1965 of Medicare, when charity care was displaced by concepts which the nation had decided were better.
So, there indeed WAS medicine in 1776, because the Philadelphia Hospital was established in 1755 by one of the Founding Fathers. And indeed, there was concern for the care of people who were sick and poor at the time, the minutes in Franklin's own handwriting confirm this.... STILL... in 1776, when Franklin and the other Founding Fathers sat down to pen the Constitution, they did not include anything about Government being responsible for funding universal health care.
You have been officially schooled.
Uhm... again, I would refrain from using public schools as a shining example to bolster your point. For the record, because of Indigent Care Laws in America, everyone already gets to have emergency medical care. In every state, there are dozens of free public health clinics, provided specifically to give medical care to the poor and needy. We are already funding this on a state level, everywhere in America.
This is more false propaganda. First off, you are comparing apples to oranges, because US medical care is far more advanced than any socialist country. Naturally, it would cost more. Secondly, the US taxpayers are paying far less per person, for socialized medicine, than the Europeans. Facts can always be manipulated to illustrate your point.
I've already Googled it! The first time around, I came up with the name of one of your cited countries, (UK), and how they were forced to implement capitalist initiatives into their failing socialized medical system, in order to maintain some level of decent medical care. The other examples you gave, are isolated and thinly-populated arctic regions, which have little or no GDP to speak of, they are not comparable to the US in any way, and to form an argument with these countries as your basis, is ludicrous and silly.
Again, you can keep calling me names, it doesn't bother me, nor does it make your points valid. There was no surplus. Because the Social Security Trust Fund was allowed included into the General Fund, and because the GAO overestimated the tax revenues from the Dotcom's (which never materialized), it appeared we had a budget surplus under Clinton. We have been a nation in debt since the days of Andrew Jackson. In the modern era, welfare entitlements and persistent budget deficits, have pushed the National Debt to over $10 trillion.
Nowhere is this articulated in any founding document, as the function or purpose of government.
I've got news for you, if you expect Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid, to know these things, you are out of your fucking mind.
Because that is Socialism.
We already have Medicare.
Whatever.
apple0154
MEOW
The wheels of the bus go round and round........once, again, what medical equipment and drugs did they have? Their version of a "hospital" was little more than what we, today, call a flop house or a shelter for the homeless. The best that can be said is they may be roughly equated to a hospice and that's a really rough comparison.
There was no medical care because there was no medical equipment or medication. How much medical knowledge did the average doctor have 200 years ago? There was no intervention that could extend an individual's life so what could the government claim required money? What surgical procedures were taking place then? What medications were available? The answer is none.
Exactly. What is the benefit of insisting on a person becoming indigent before offering medical care? What twisted, convoluted way of thinking results in one claiming it's fine that society will allow a fellow citizen to lose everything, including their home, and be on death's bed before offering assistance?
Paying less taxes, yes. Paying less for medical treatment, no. And I'm not talking about rare, expensive procedures. The average person/family spends more in the US for medical services than almost anywhere else on earth and that's for regular services. Why do you think the majority of people want something done? It's because they're tired of paying crazy rates for medical insurance and still being denied coverage because some HMO wants to make a profit.
The one thing you do not understand is people whom deal with an HMO can be denied the same medical services the HMO permits others to have. The HMO decides what treatment is appropriate. Not the doctor.
In a universal medical plan the doctor decides. The government does make medical decisions. If the plan covers a specific operation then anyone requiring that operation can have it if their doctor recommends it. The government is not involved in the decision making.
Here we go again. If capitalist initiatives were implemented that means further capitalistic initiatives could be implemented resulting in the termination of the universal medicare plan but that never happens. It has never happened over the 20 or 30 or 40 years of universal medicare. Never! Not one single country. Why, Dixie, why? Ask yourself why.
So, again, I ask you, "What is the purpose of government?" You keep writing "this" and "that" is not their purpose so tell us what you think their purpose is.
No, I don't expect those folks to know everything about everything but I do expect those folks to find people who do. That's what we pay government for.
If my neighbors and I decide we need the road repaired I don't expect one of them to take soil samples to determine what base should be laid under the asphalt. One of us informs the government which is responsible for roads and we pay the government to repair the roads.
The same principal applies to universal medicare. My neighbors and I decide we need a medical plan so we contact the government. Along with other citizens a study is done and the most common illnesses/injuries are covered.
This is not rocket science. Rather than everyone seeking an insurance broker and trying to understand the legal jargon of what's covered and what's not the government makes a standard policy. Everyone has the same coverage and no ones money is going towards the installation of a backyard pool at a broker's home.
apple0154
MEOW
Thank-you, Ice Dancer. However, the fact remains not one country which has/had universal medicare has switched back to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one after 40+ years.
I know politics works slowly but that's two generations. That's people of different cultures and languages and nationalities and religious beliefs and political differences.....the majority in all those countries all agree on universal medicare. That's a fact and what better argument can be put forward?
uscitizen
Villified User
Medical care in 1776. If a limb stinks cut it off.
If you are sick let some blood out.
Dixie Carbolic acid was the first antiseptic in use around the time of the civil war.
google when penicillin was invented.
Lots of patent medicines around the 1900's mostly cocane and MJ contents though.
If you are sick let some blood out.
Dixie Carbolic acid was the first antiseptic in use around the time of the civil war.
google when penicillin was invented.
Lots of patent medicines around the 1900's mostly cocane and MJ contents though.
They have not switched back because once entitlements are put in place they are almost always impossible to remove, no matter the fact that they never accomplish what they set out to do. That said, what they, the government, do remove are services. This has happened in both the UK and Canada where the governments are struggling to meet demands.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Please read and try to absorb this. Maybe then we can talk.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html
The wheels of the bus go round and round........once, again, what medical equipment and drugs did they have? Their version of a "hospital" was little more than what we, today, call a flop house or a shelter for the homeless. The best that can be said is they may be roughly equated to a hospice and that's a really rough comparison.
There was no medical care because there was no medical equipment or medication. How much medical knowledge did the average doctor have 200 years ago? There was no intervention that could extend an individual's life so what could the government claim required money? What surgical procedures were taking place then? What medications were available? The answer is none.
Exactly. What is the benefit of insisting on a person becoming indigent before offering medical care? What twisted, convoluted way of thinking results in one claiming it's fine that society will allow a fellow citizen to lose everything, including their home, and be on death's bed before offering assistance?
Paying less taxes, yes. Paying less for medical treatment, no. And I'm not talking about rare, expensive procedures. The average person/family spends more in the US for medical services than almost anywhere else on earth and that's for regular services. Why do you think the majority of people want something done? It's because they're tired of paying crazy rates for medical insurance and still being denied coverage because some HMO wants to make a profit.
The one thing you do not understand is people whom deal with an HMO can be denied the same medical services the HMO permits others to have. The HMO decides what treatment is appropriate. Not the doctor.
In a universal medical plan the doctor decides. The government does make medical decisions. If the plan covers a specific operation then anyone requiring that operation can have it if their doctor recommends it. The government is not involved in the decision making.
Here we go again. If capitalist initiatives were implemented that means further capitalistic initiatives could be implemented resulting in the termination of the universal medicare plan but that never happens. It has never happened over the 20 or 30 or 40 years of universal medicare. Never! Not one single country. Why, Dixie, why? Ask yourself why.
So, again, I ask you, "What is the purpose of government?" You keep writing "this" and "that" is not their purpose so tell us what you think their purpose is.
No, I don't expect those folks to know everything about everything but I do expect those folks to find people who do. That's what we pay government for.
If my neighbors and I decide we need the road repaired I don't expect one of them to take soil samples to determine what base should be laid under the asphalt. One of us informs the government which is responsible for roads and we pay the government to repair the roads.
The same principal applies to universal medicare. My neighbors and I decide we need a medical plan so we contact the government. Along with other citizens a study is done and the most common illnesses/injuries are covered.
This is not rocket science. Rather than everyone seeking an insurance broker and trying to understand the legal jargon of what's covered and what's not the government makes a standard policy. Everyone has the same coverage and no ones money is going towards the installation of a backyard pool at a broker's home.
apple0154
MEOW
They are impossible to remove because the people don't want them removed. If removing them was what the majority wanted there would be politicians jumping all over the opportunity. I can't think of one politician, in any country that currently has universal medicare, who campaigned against it.
As for cutting services it's one thing to cut out free ambulance or temporary use of a free wheelchair when one leaves the hospital compared to free hospitalization and doctor services.
When it comes to struggling to meet demand as long as one highway is under construction or one town is replacing street lights that are working so as to update the look of Main Street there is sufficient money for medicare.
People are fed up paying taxes because they are not getting anything in return unless they're part of a special interest group. Universal medicare is something the government provides, without qualification. It is a service everyone will use at some time and as the population ages either a lot of hospitals/doctors will become extremely wealthy or people will go without proper care. Efficiency alone mandates a central system. As people retire and move electronic medical records will become a necessity.
A retiree from Florida visits a family member in Seattle. If they require medical attention electronic records will enable the doctor in Seattle to know the patient as well as their own family doctor does.
Or young families moving for employment. Their children's records will be available immediately to the next doctor.
Then there's government run prescription drug plans. It's on record if a person goes to one doctor and is prescribed narcotics for pain, then visits another doctor and gets another prescription. Not only does it cut down on prescription drug abuse but, more importantly, it allows doctors to freely prescribe such drugs knowing it is more difficult to abuse them.
Many doctors in the US won't prescribe narcotics because of the potential for abuse. How will the doctor know if the patient didn't just receive another prescription from a different doctor?
In Quebec, Canada, for example, the doctor won't know but the pharmacist will by accessing a central database and they'll contact the doctors in question.
From the Police checking a person to a bank wanting to know a person's credit history our society has reached a point where things have to be centralized.
I think a lot of the opposition to government programs has to do with privacy. The way I see it there are a lot of weird folks out there. We all fit into some group.
apple0154
MEOW
Please read and try to absorb this. Maybe then we can talk.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html
Good link. Let's see what we have here.
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,5
…….the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the “general welfare” clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments,……
5 To date no statutes have been struck down as violating these standards, although several statutes have been interpreted so as to conform to the guiding principles. First, the conditions, like the spending itself, must advance the general welfare, but the determination of what constitutes the general welfare rests largely if not wholly with Congress.
I read that as saying Congress will decide what "General Welfare" means. What's your take on it?