APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"

[Taichiliberal]

No, that is the attitude of tyranny in a nut shell. That is the "we must take over because we do not trust the people" in a nut shell. That is "fuck the will of the people, they don't know what is best for them" elitism in a nutshell. That is "end justifies the means" in a nutshell. That is lie, cheat, steal, and subvert the law to get our way in a nutshell.

Like I said, if you have to use corrupt means to pass your load of shit, then the most valid conclusion is your load of shit does not deserve to be passed.

And what is with the "we" statements? I though you were in Canada. "That's the reason why we have such a mixed up plan on the table." Who is the "we" you refer to in the first person? You have your system in Canada. If you like it, fine. But why pretend to be a participating party in the U.S.? Or is that another lie?

GL, you keep harping on "tyranny" as if it doesn't already exist with regards to our health care system, yet you seem complacent with the current "tyranny".....Corporations who lobby through Congress to keep oversight rulings in their favor as they gouge the public at will, deny coverage for profit as people suffer and die, and then vow to "change" by wanting to expand to a monopolistic type situation.

I just don't get you on this.

 

[apple0154]

....show me ONE time a hybrid type system that simply expands medicaid or a medicaid-like system to cover those in need while leaving the rest of the system relatively as is that has even made it to committee. Show me ONE time such a system has even made it to the rough draft stage.

What have I been saying?

You ask why I keep repeating myself and then you write something like that.

That's the point!!!!! Year after decade after generation, nothing happened. The last time a change was proposed they buried poor Hillary. When was that? 15 years ago? Almost another generation.

That's why Obama has said the time for talk is over. That's why I've been saying it ain't gonna happen. It's been tried and tried by both parties over the years. We both know that.

For people to say the Dems are rushing, trying to cram something through, refusing to discuss issues, is absolutely absurd. This should have been done a long, long time ago. Everyone had their chance.



//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

All you do is continue to repeat proven lies and misconceptions.

Common Liberal Lie #1: Universal plans are less expensive because those with universal plans spend half as much per capita than the U.S.

FACT: The U.S. has ALWAYS spent more per capita than other countries. Before other countries instigated their universal plans, the U.S. spent about twice as much per capita on health care. AFTER the plans were instigated, the U.S. spent about twice as much per capita on health care. AFTER the plans have been tweaked over several decades the U.S. STILL spends about twice as much per capita on health care.

Therefore: attributing the differential in per capita expenditures on health care to the universal systems of other countries is NOT supported. It is a LIE using bogus statistics.


Lie #2: "NOT ONE COUNTRY WITH A UNIVERSAL PLAN EVER REVERTED TO THE "PAY OR SUFFER" SYSTEM AND NONE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SO" (in all caps, yet!)

FACT: Every universal system has undergone changes in the last decade which are moving those plan away from a true universal plan, and more toward a plan which leaves those able to pay on their own and concentrating available assets on those who are not able to pay. ALL universal plans had, at one time, limitations on the right to self-subisidize the care available under the universal plan. ALL universal plans have since removed most if not all such limitations. MOST universal plans have instigated new sections that encourage self-subsidy of the care available under the universal plan. The end result is a tiered level of care based on who can and cannot afford to pay for higher levels of care.

Additionally, certain minimum levels of care are being scaled back as expenses outgrow available funding. New limitations are in place, or being considered, that are specifically aimed at "discouraging" unnecessary use of health care assets.

In short, those system which have never reverted to the pay or suffer system are, in fact, moving that direction. Technically, there are no universal plans left in except in China, Cuba and other full-blown socialist nations. All others have been hybridized with market systems.


Lie #3: A hybrid plan based on free market for the majority while providing assistance to the needy cannot pass.

FACT: not one bill of a hybrid type has ever even been attempted. The liberals ALWAYS take the "our way or no way" approach to the health care issue, then cry big crocodile tears when the people's answer is "fine, we'll choose 'no way'."


Personal lie, repeated at least twice now:

The "nice try" is the attempt to cry hypocrisy. Where have I EVER indicated I have a green light acceptance for the government's decisions to go to war? I have a stainless steel and plastic hip because of a certain democratic president sending people to kill and die in the muds of Vietnam. Why do you have to lie about every damned thing, even bringing in other topics to lie about?

The second "nice try" is the typical brain dead attempt to demonize capitalism. Show me a SINGLE socialist system that does NOT have its fair share of poverty. In fact, show me a single socialist system that does not have WORSE poverty than our system.

As for what will or will not pass through Congress, show me ONE time a hybrid type system that simply expands medicaid or a medicaid-like system to cover those in need while leaving the rest of the system relatively as is that has even made it to committee. Show me ONE time such a system has even made it to the rough draft stage. You ASSUME (actually you LIE about a bogus assumption) that such a system has no chance of passing because you cling to the "my way or no way" absolutism of the extreme liberal philosophy. It is a bogus outright lie. The truth is your political masters will not TRY to pass a reasonable compromise system because they are AFRAID that it WOULD pass, WOULD work, and thereby fuck up their designs for socialist control.

 

[apple0154]

No, that is the attitude of tyranny in a nut shell. That is the "we must take over because we do not trust the people" in a nut shell. That is "fuck the will of the people, they don't know what is best for them" elitism in a nutshell. That is "end justifies the means" in a nutshell. That is lie, cheat, steal, and subvert the law to get our way in a nutshell.

Like I said, if you have to use corrupt means to pass your load of shit, then the most valid conclusion is your load of shit does not deserve to be passed.

And what is with the "we" statements? I though you were in Canada. "That's the reason why we have such a mixed up plan on the table." Who is the "we" you refer to in the first person? You have your system in Canada. If you like it, fine. But why pretend to be a participating party in the U.S.? Or is that another lie?

I'm just toying with you. Feel better now?

On the other hand have you ever thought I may have friends in the US? Friends that require expensive medical care. Friends that visit and wish they had access to the medical services I have. Friends that also spend a ton of $$$ on medication.

Time for dinner. Salmon tonight. YUM!

 

[Good Luck]

That's the point!!!!! Year after decade after generation, nothing happened. The last time a change was proposed they buried poor Hillary. When was that? 15 years ago? Almost another generation.

That's why Obama has said the time for talk is over. That's why I've been saying it ain't gonna happen. It's been tried and tried by both parties over the years. We both know that.

For people to say the Dems are rushing, trying to cram something through, refusing to discuss issues, is absolutely absurd. This should have been done a long, long time ago. Everyone had their chance.

Yes, that IS the exact point. Every single time the subject is addressed, it comes from the far left wanting to push through THEIR plan, nothing BUT their plan, nothing LESS than THEIR plan.

And THAT is why it fails each time. Because the PEOPLE do not WANT their plan. The people are not stupid. We see the problems that other nations have with the type of plan constantly being pushed at us. We see the constant adjustments being made to those plans in order to continue to meet budgeting levels (as opposed to care levels.) We see types of care in those "working systems" slowly diminish over time until the best that can be said for them is they meet the minimum needs of everyone. The movement to move toward private funding care for those who can afford it did not originate with the governments - they originated from the PEOPLE (including a faction in Canada not too long ago) demanding the liberty to do so.

We also see the manner in which our own government approaches problems with federal systems: slow, ponderous, and partisan. Not exactly what one wants when a system being put in place has a history of needing continual adjustments.

The left keeps saying that the time for talk is over. The problem with that statement is they have NEVER been willing to actually TALK about the issue. Not now, not during Clinton's administration, not under Carter, nor Johnson, nor Kennedy, etc. etc. etc. Their puny little minds are made up (have been made up for them) and that is that. How MANY times has this issue been raised, and how MANY times has the response from the left been "nothing less than universal care (or a road leading there) is acceptable"? What kind of "talk" is that? It is most definitely NOT the talk of people trying to find anything resembling a reasonable compromise. It is NOT the talk of people willing to listen to alternate ideas. It IS the talk of an arrogant bunch of elitist power mongers and their monomaniacal pet dronebots who have decided only they can possibly fix things, and are willing to shove their solution down our throats using any and all means of corruption and constitutional end runs.

Just MAYBE if the left were not so absolutely set in what they are willing to accept as a solution, we COULD have been working toward a solution long ago. But when the approach to the topic over the last 50 years has been "our way or nothing", any gripes about the preferred answer being "nothing" are hypocritical at best.

 

[apple0154]

Yes, that IS the exact point. Every single time the subject is addressed, it comes from the far left wanting to push through THEIR plan, nothing BUT their plan, nothing LESS than THEIR plan.

And THAT is why it fails each time. Because the PEOPLE do not WANT their plan. The people are not stupid. We see the problems that other nations have with the type of plan constantly being pushed at us. We see the constant adjustments being made to those plans in order to continue to meet budgeting levels (as opposed to care levels.) We see types of care in those "working systems" slowly diminish over time until the best that can be said for them is they meet the minimum needs of everyone. The movement to move toward private funding care for those who can afford it did not originate with the governments - they originated from the PEOPLE (including a faction in Canada not too long ago) demanding the liberty to do so.

Let's not forget the Canadians wanting private care are in the minority. A small minority. How do I know? I know because there are not a lot of politicians jumping on that wagon and politicians jump on anything that might get them elected.

As a side note the right/Conservatives are currently in power in Canada. They would love nothing more than to whittle away at the universal system but they were told a few years back that if they did anything that could be construed as such they would find themselves on the unemployment line.

All it would take is a non-confidence vote by the other parties and they'd be out the door which, incidentally, happened to the Conservatives, in 1980, over a budget proposal. The customary 4 - 5 year term lasted all of nine months less one day. As one fellow Conservative quipped, "Long enough to conceive, just not long enough to deliver." :lol:

Another somewhat worthy footnote is that same guy mentioned to reporters that a Liberal member, Sheila Copps, reminded him of the lyrics ""Pass the Tequila, Sheila, and lay down and love me again." That went over like a lead balloon.

Oh, well. So much for memorable quotes.

Just MAYBE if the left were not so absolutely set in what they are willing to accept as a solution, we COULD have been working toward a solution long ago. But when the approach to the topic over the last 50 years has been "our way or nothing", any gripes about the preferred answer being "nothing" are hypocritical at best.

How often did the right bring up medical change even when they had the numbers in government? How often does the right suggest any program to help the less fortunate besides supporting local charities/faith based groups which, by the way, is not the same thing, at all.

Unless a health plan is universal there will be the constant initiative to screen, to cut, to squeeze entitlements. It's inevitable.

Think of it like welfare. From what I learned (don't forget I was a slumlord at one time) welfare's primary objective is to NOT pay welfare. If anything less than free access to medical care is instituted there will always be those who will want to tighten up the qualifications.

Again, it comes down to "right vs privilege".

 

[Good Luck]

So you admit that, in spite of your previous rhetoric, there IS a movement in Canada to get rid of universal care. There are also movements in other nations. It may currently be a minority, but I'll bet it is larger this legislative year than it was last legislative year, and that year was bigger than previous. (ie: the movement is growing.) And their pressures are having an effect as at least some of their demands are being acceded to, such as private facilities and private funding entering the (formerly) universal plans (which are no longer truly universal, are they?) Just wait a few years as the universal plans do NOTHING about the causes of health care costs rising beyond control.

Also, while it may be a minority in Canada calling for repealing universal care, it happens to be a MAJORITY in the U.S. who do NOT want it passed in the U.S.

How often did the right bring up medical change even when they had the numbers in government?

So now your argument is that because the republicans did not initiate their own proposals, it justifies the left's "our way or nothing" stance? Typical infantile modern liberal thinking. The democrats held control of the House, often by large majorities, for over 50 years, held the Senate much of that time, and their bitch is the republicans did nothing in the 8 whole years they held bare minimum majorities in both houses, 6 of those years under a democratic president.

Like I said, liberal arguments are those of whiny spoiled children.

What do you THINK would have happened to a republican proposal, when the democrats have held and continue to hold their "our way or nothing" attitude? Uhh, maybe the same thing that happened to no less than 4 Republican bills addressing issues such as patients rights, tort reform, etc. Killed dead because they did not conform to democratic ideals of total government control.

And even when the democrats have the majorities they need plus the WH, they complain they cannot pass what they want - they must pass a piece of complete shit first - and LIE through their ASSES about it being "necessary" to achieve some kind of "breakthrough" first. What a FUCKING load of complete, utter, total, bovine excrement. They aren't passing the plan they (supposedly) believe in for the same reason your conservative faction will not repeal universal care in Canada - they'd be out on their asses next election. So they come up with a load of shit they KNOW full well will fail miserably to give them the excuse to pass something else more to their liking as an emergency measure. (Meanwhile, they pass along a few hundred billion dollars in subsidized and mandated insurance fees to the high end insurance companies paying for their election campaigns and set up a government clearinghouse to rid their butt buddies of unwanted competition.) And though I expect such nonsense from the current democratic party, since their real objective is power and control over matters much broader than health care, what I find both fascinating and somewhat depressing is how modern liberals will eat anything that comes out of their political masters' asses, and ask for seconds.

 

[apple0154]

So you admit that, in spite of your previous rhetoric, there IS a movement in Canada to get rid of universal care.

You certainly like to twist things, don't you? Must be that right wing illness you're suffering from. In msg 284 you wrote, "The movement to move toward private funding care for those who can afford it did not originate with the governments - they originated from the PEOPLE (including a faction in Canada not too long ago) demanding the liberty to do so."

The liberty to have access to private care. Not a movement to get rid of the universal plan. A move to change the rules that apply to private facilities.

I'll repeat one more time. There is no political party in Canada that campaigns on getting rid of the universal plan. The people wanting private care had to apply to the courts because the government didn't want to interfere with the plan because the vast majority of people want the plan. Is that clear?

The problem is, as I explained before, some doctors will want to work both sides of the street. When customers are few the doctors working at private clinics will want a piece of the government action. When the government plan requires them, say in a case of an epidemic, they will not be available because they will be at the private clinic scamming the ill people.

Also, a specialist would be able to see a patient on the government plan and suggest a medical procedure and then say they don't have the time to do it on the government plan but if the patient came to the private clinic they could fit them in.

Let me assure you I have met many doctors. They are not all good Samaritans.

There are also movements in other nations. It may currently be a minority, but I'll bet it is larger this legislative year than it was last legislative year, and that year was bigger than previous. (ie: the movement is growing.) And their pressures are having an effect as at least some of their demands are being acceded to, such as private facilities and private funding entering the (formerly) universal plans (which are no longer truly universal, are they?) Just wait a few years as the universal plans do NOTHING about the causes of health care costs rising beyond control.

There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with private facilities. If one wants to pay for their medical expenses by all means be my guest. The government and the majority of people want to be sure the universal plan is not scrapped due to a minority of monied interests

And even when the democrats have the majorities they need plus the WH, they complain they cannot pass what they want - they must pass a piece of complete shit first - and LIE through their ASSES about it being "necessary" to achieve some kind of "breakthrough" first. What a FUCKING load of complete, utter, total, bovine excrement. They aren't passing the plan they (supposedly) believe in for the same reason your conservative faction will not repeal universal care in Canada - they'd be out on their asses next election. So they come up with a load of shit they KNOW full well will fail miserably to give them the excuse to pass something else more to their liking as an emergency measure. (Meanwhile, they pass along a few hundred billion dollars in subsidized and mandated insurance fees to the high end insurance companies paying for their election campaigns and set up a government clearinghouse to rid their butt buddies of unwanted competition.) And though I expect such nonsense from the current democratic party, since their real objective is power and control over matters much broader than health care, what I find both fascinating and somewhat depressing is how modern liberals will eat anything that comes out of their political masters' asses, and ask for seconds.

Here we go again with the faux government paranoia. The Dems are not always in power so the Repubs will be in control of the medical plan at some point. They will be able to change things to their way of liking if the people feel it would be better.

Why the fear of trying out a universal plan? The only logical answer is once the people experience it they won't want to change back and the opponents know that. They know not one country ever changed back to a "pay or suffer" system even though there are monied interests scratching and clawing for a return.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You certainly like to twist things, don't you? Must be that right wing illness you're suffering from. In msg 284 you wrote, "The movement to move toward private funding care for those who can afford it did not originate with the governments - they originated from the PEOPLE (including a faction in Canada not too long ago) demanding the liberty to do so."

The liberty to have access to private care. Not a movement to get rid of the universal plan. A move to change the rules that apply to private facilities.

I'll repeat one more time. There is no political party in Canada that campaigns on getting rid of the universal plan. The people wanting private care had to apply to the courts because the government didn't want to interfere with the plan because the vast majority of people want the plan. Is that clear?

The problem is, as I explained before, some doctors will want to work both sides of the street. When customers are few the doctors working at private clinics will want a piece of the government action. When the government plan requires them, say in a case of an epidemic, they will not be available because they will be at the private clinic scamming the ill people.

Also, a specialist would be able to see a patient on the government plan and suggest a medical procedure and then say they don't have the time to do it on the government plan but if the patient came to the private clinic they could fit them in.

Let me assure you I have met many doctors. They are not all good Samaritans.



There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with private facilities. If one wants to pay for their medical expenses by all means be my guest. The government and the majority of people want to be sure the universal plan is not scrapped due to a minority of monied interests



Here we go again with the faux government paranoia. The Dems are not always in power so the Repubs will be in control of the medical plan at some point. They will be able to change things to their way of liking if the people feel it would be better.

Why the fear of trying out a universal plan? The only logical answer is once the people experience it they won't want to change back and the opponents know that. They know not one country ever changed back to a "pay or suffer" system even though there are monied interests scratching and clawing for a return.

Excellent deconstruction on your part. It amazes me that people like GL have NO problem with the corporated dominance and corruption of the American health care system via gov't lobbying, which has led to deaths and bankruptcy, yet scream like banshees that a gov't healthcare option is going to end the world.

 

[Good Luck]

You certainly like to twist things, don't you? Must be that right wing illness you're suffering from. In msg 284 you wrote, "The movement to move toward private funding care for those who can afford it did not originate with the governments - they originated from the PEOPLE (including a faction in Canada not too long ago) demanding the liberty to do so."

The liberty to have access to private care. Not a movement to get rid of the universal plan. A move to change the rules that apply to private facilities.

I'll repeat one more time. There is no political party in Canada that campaigns on getting rid of the universal plan. The people wanting private care had to apply to the courts because the government didn't want to interfere with the plan because the vast majority of people want the plan. Is that clear?

The problem is, as I explained before, some doctors will want to work both sides of the street. When customers are few the doctors working at private clinics will want a piece of the government action. When the government plan requires them, say in a case of an epidemic, they will not be available because they will be at the private clinic scamming the ill people.

Also, a specialist would be able to see a patient on the government plan and suggest a medical procedure and then say they don't have the time to do it on the government plan but if the patient came to the private clinic they could fit them in.

Let me assure you I have met many doctors. They are not all good Samaritans.



There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with private facilities. If one wants to pay for their medical expenses by all means be my guest. The government and the majority of people want to be sure the universal plan is not scrapped due to a minority of monied interests



Here we go again with the faux government paranoia. The Dems are not always in power so the Repubs will be in control of the medical plan at some point. They will be able to change things to their way of liking if the people feel it would be better.

Why the fear of trying out a universal plan? The only logical answer is once the people experience it they won't want to change back and the opponents know that. They know not one country ever changed back to a "pay or suffer" system even though there are monied interests scratching and clawing for a return.

If there is nothing wrong with private facilities, why did Canada outlaw them until recently? Why did the people of Canada have to go to their courts to secure the liberty to seek private care?

You talk about "faux" paranoia of the government, yet you casually dismiss the need of the Canadian people to regain the liberty to seek their own medical treatment. YOU say it's fine and dandy, but I'll bet prior to the success of the movement to regain the liberty to seeek care outside government mandated sources you were on the government's side, weren't you. You act like having to seeek redress in the courts because the government decided to retain full control to be no big deal. The typical head in the ass of big government response. Do you have a government functionary tuck you in at night? read you a bedtime story? Check the closet for monsters?

How is the trepidation that the American people losing their liberties to make free choices aboiut their health care "paranoia" (let alone faked) when there is ample historic precedent that when a government takes over health care under a universal plan, the people ALWAYS end up losing the right to seek care outside the system, and have to wrest that right back from the government? Is that paranoia, or is that simple knowledge of history?

And it seems that the people, in general, agree. Because there are several other examples of the people telling their governments to shove their universal plans up their tyrannical butts. Now, do you care to explain WHY would people be SO intent on spending their OWN money on private health care that they would go so far as to form a movement and SUE the government for that right? Who in their right mind would do so, unless there is an actual, genuine DIFFERENCE in the quality of care between your precious universal plans, and private care? People who can afford their own aren't the type of people to go around wasting their money on expenses they can avoid unless there is a REASON for doing so. Avoiding unnecessary expenses is how most of them get to the point they can afford to tell their respective governments to shove their universal health care.

So, take your "faux paranoia" bullshit and cram it right up where the rest of your bullshit and lies belong. Historical precedent of what happens when universal systems are instated, as well as the observation that even government who previously resisted allowing private care access are now encouraging it as they realize their pet socialism projects are getting to be less and less sustainable, as is evidenced by their consistent movement the last decade to modify them into something that more resembles a hybrid system of private care and safety net than a genuine universal system. Then there is the observation of the people, many (and growing) of whom have taken serious efforts to take back control of their health care decisions. THOSE are the factors leading to a mistrust of the systems you so strenuously support.

An additional factor includes a general mistrust of the democratic party's motives based on first hand experience with and observation of the way other "help" programs are designed. As is the observation that the typical democratic politician is every bit as much in the pockets of big money interests as any republican has ever been. As is the observation that both the members of the democratic party, and the party as a whole, is every bit as corrupt, as they claim the republican party is, if not more so considering the methods they are willing to use to get their shit passed.

Paranoia? FALSE paranoia? No, a genuine mistrust based on observation and knowledge of our current government, the politicians running it and (especially) their bureaucrats and other functionaries.

 

[apple0154]

If there is nothing wrong with private facilities, why did Canada outlaw them until recently? Why did the people of Canada have to go to their courts to secure the liberty to seek private care?

The reason is when the program started there were people who refused to get on board.

Consider the following. Generally, people don't like change so if private facilities are the norm and the government implements a plan what is going to change? Why would the doctors and nurses and other staff work at a government facility when they're currently employed at a private one? In other words the change would be laboriously slow, if not impossible.

You talk about "faux" paranoia of the government, yet you casually dismiss the need of the Canadian people to regain the liberty to seek their own medical treatment.

Canadians are allowed to choose whatever doctor they want. They can choose whatever hospital they want. They can also be "members" of a number of hospitals at one time.

For example, there is a General Hospital. There is what's considered a Catholic Hospital and there's a Jewish Hospital, etc. When my doctor requires tests or certain examinations not done at his office he asks me which hospital I prefer. I choose the hospital depending on the test(s) required. One of my favorites is the Jewish General because their coffee shop has the best pastry.

If anyone doesn't think that's important consider this. My doctor sent me for a stress test. That involves running on a tread mill while monitoring ones heart, lungs, etc. It's necessary to build up a sweat. One does not want to do that after eating a huge strudel.

On the other hand there are examinations/tests that do not require physical exertion. Sitting in the waiting room with a pastry, coffee and newspaper is not what I'd call rationed care. Would you?

YOU say it's fine and dandy, but I'll bet prior to the success of the movement to regain the liberty to seeek care outside government mandated sources you were on the government's side, weren't you. You act like having to seeek redress in the courts because the government decided to retain full control to be no big deal.

That's right. I was on the government side. I believe everyone is entitled to medical care and if that meant a period of time with no private clinics, so be it. Once the universal plan is established, then fine. But as I explained before there will be doctors and other medical personnel trying to work both sides of the street.

Health care's roll is not to provide jobs for doctors and nurses. Necessary care facilities are not hotels. I really don't care how it's planned as long as everyone has access to health care regardless of their financial situation and the only way it's worked so far is by having a universal plan.

How is the trepidation that the American people losing their liberties to make free choices aboiut their health care "paranoia" (let alone faked) when there is ample historic precedent that when a government takes over health care under a universal plan, the people ALWAYS end up losing the right to seek care outside the system, and have to wrest that right back from the government? Is that paranoia, or is that simple knowledge of history?

To use a trite expression once a paradigm shift has taken place changes can then be made. It has to be accepted that everyone is entitled to medical care, regardless. Otherwise, a true transition never takes place. The people who continue to pay for their private care will rant and b!tch about paying taxes to cover someone else's care.

And it seems that the people, in general, agree. Because there are several other examples of the people telling their governments to shove their universal plans up their tyrannical butts.

Yes, there are people telling their governments to shove their plans but those people are in the minority. How do I know? I know because there isn't ONE political party that espouses such nonsense.

Try and use a little logic here. Wouldn't the opposition parties in Canada and Great Britain and France and Australia and Italy and Norway and.....wouldn't ONE of those parties be campaigning on dismantling their universal plan? Just one?

Now, do you care to explain WHY would people be SO intent on spending their OWN money on private health care that they would go so far as to form a movement and SUE the government for that right?

Sure. You have two types of people in that group. The first are the doctors and potential investors. Everyone knows medical care is where the money and jobs are due to the fact the largest segment of the population is reaching the age where the human body requires more maintenance and repair. It's a no-brainer.

The second group are people who were successful in life and now feel they are special. "I don't want to lose two months on the golf course waiting for a hip operation. Let the young man/woman who is trying to support a family hobble around while waiting in line behind me because I have money."

Paranoia? FALSE paranoia? No, a genuine mistrust based on observation and knowledge of our current government, the politicians running it and (especially) their bureaucrats and other functionaries.

Yes, paranoia. I'm tired of having to repeat the same thing. Show me one political party, in any country that has a universal plan, that is trying to dismantle the plan? Show my any opposition party trying to dismantle a universal plan. Show me just one prominent politician who espouses such idiocy.

Give me something to work with besides your paranoia. Google the entire G-D world! :lol:

Your rants are those of a lunatic. You have absolutely nothing to base your arguments on except the occasionally disgruntled individual suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Universal plans are superior and preferred by the majority of people who are covered by one. That is a world wide, undisputed fact.

 

[Litmus]

People are not just irrationally opposed to all change, as you assert.

Some change is change to a worse condition, like the fasicst healthcare power grab the nazis are putting through congress now.

 

[apple0154]

People are not just irrationally opposed to all change, as you assert.

Some change is change to a worse condition, like the fasicst healthcare power grab the nazis are putting through congress now.

Once it's all settled I'm sure you'll feel differently. Don't let the mis-information scare you.

 

[Litmus]

Once it's all settled I'm sure you'll feel differently. Don't let the mis-information scare you.

There's no fear here, queefer, just strident objection to an idiotic plan.

 

[apple0154]

There's no fear here, queefer, just strident objection to an idiotic plan.

Oh. I thought you may be worried the government would neuter guys like you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The reason is when the program started there were people who refused to get on board.

Consider the following. Generally, people don't like change so if private facilities are the norm and the government implements a plan what is going to change? Why would the doctors and nurses and other staff work at a government facility when they're currently employed at a private one? In other words the change would be laboriously slow, if not impossible.



Canadians are allowed to choose whatever doctor they want. They can choose whatever hospital they want. They can also be "members" of a number of hospitals at one time.

For example, there is a General Hospital. There is what's considered a Catholic Hospital and there's a Jewish Hospital, etc. When my doctor requires tests or certain examinations not done at his office he asks me which hospital I prefer. I choose the hospital depending on the test(s) required. One of my favorites is the Jewish General because their coffee shop has the best pastry.

If anyone doesn't think that's important consider this. My doctor sent me for a stress test. That involves running on a tread mill while monitoring ones heart, lungs, etc. It's necessary to build up a sweat. One does not want to do that after eating a huge strudel.

On the other hand there are examinations/tests that do not require physical exertion. Sitting in the waiting room with a pastry, coffee and newspaper is not what I'd call rationed care. Would you?



That's right. I was on the government side. I believe everyone is entitled to medical care and if that meant a period of time with no private clinics, so be it. Once the universal plan is established, then fine. But as I explained before there will be doctors and other medical personnel trying to work both sides of the street.

Health care's roll is not to provide jobs for doctors and nurses. Necessary care facilities are not hotels. I really don't care how it's planned as long as everyone has access to health care regardless of their financial situation and the only way it's worked so far is by having a universal plan.



To use a trite expression once a paradigm shift has taken place changes can then be made. It has to be accepted that everyone is entitled to medical care, regardless. Otherwise, a true transition never takes place. The people who continue to pay for their private care will rant and b!tch about paying taxes to cover someone else's care.



Yes, there are people telling their governments to shove their plans but those people are in the minority. How do I know? I know because there isn't ONE political party that espouses such nonsense.

Try and use a little logic here. Wouldn't the opposition parties in Canada and Great Britain and France and Australia and Italy and Norway and.....wouldn't ONE of those parties be campaigning on dismantling their universal plan? Just one?



Sure. You have two types of people in that group. The first are the doctors and potential investors. Everyone knows medical care is where the money and jobs are due to the fact the largest segment of the population is reaching the age where the human body requires more maintenance and repair. It's a no-brainer.

The second group are people who were successful in life and now feel they are special. "I don't want to lose two months on the golf course waiting for a hip operation. Let the young man/woman who is trying to support a family hobble around while waiting in line behind me because I have money."



Yes, paranoia. I'm tired of having to repeat the same thing. Show me one political party, in any country that has a universal plan, that is trying to dismantle the plan? Show my any opposition party trying to dismantle a universal plan. Show me just one prominent politician who espouses such idiocy.

Give me something to work with besides your paranoia. Google the entire G-D world! :lol:

Your rants are those of a lunatic. You have absolutely nothing to base your arguments on except the occasionally disgruntled individual suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Universal plans are superior and preferred by the majority of people who are covered by one. That is a world wide, undisputed fact.

This is about the third time that you've asked for some tangible proof beyond supposition and conjecture on GL's part that regarding his claim other countries around the world REVERTED to the our current system of health care sans current reform efforts.

I wonder if he'll ever meet the challenge?

 

[apple0154]

This is about the third time that you've asked for some tangible proof beyond supposition and conjecture on GL's part that regarding his claim other countries around the world REVERTED to the our current system of health care sans current reform efforts.

I wonder if he'll ever meet the challenge?

The opponents treat health care reform as if it's a problem that's recently come up. "No one ever mentioned it before. No country has had to deal with it. It's all new. What do we do?"

Of course their objective is to do nothing or tweak the old "pay or suffer" system. They don't believe everyone is entitled to medical care so their objective, any plans they put forward, can not include coverage for everyone. They purposely don't want that so why would they think Obama is interested in their ideas?

 

[Taichiliberal]

The opponents treat health care reform as if it's a problem that's recently come up. "No one ever mentioned it before. No country has had to deal with it. It's all new. What do we do?"

Of course their objective is to do nothing or tweak the old "pay or suffer" system. They don't believe everyone is entitled to medical care so their objective, any plans they put forward, can not include coverage for everyone. They purposely don't want that so why would they think Obama is interested in their ideas?

It all essentially ties into the fallacy of "by your own bootstrap" that is engrained in this society. The corporate leadership of the insurance company preys upon this mindset to foster what you call the "pay or suffer" policy that we all currently live under. That way you have a congential, knee-jerk hatred of anyone perceived to be getting "something for nothing", or worse, someone "living off my hard work"..as the healthcare reform foes portray Obama's proposals.

You'd think people would have caught onto that old hat by now.

 

[Good Luck]

It is amazing how you people literally WANT to give your liberties up.

You ADMIT that the reason Canada OUTLAWED private care was to quite literally FORCE people into their system. You see nothing wrong with it.

Yet at the same time, you call people who do not WANT to be forced into a government system "paranoid" for thinking they are going to be forced into a government system.

And I find the way you gloss over the reasons people demanded the right to seek private health care to be beyond belief. Take the "second" group, because your first group are wanting to PROVIDE private care, where I am addressing why people SEEK private care. During your oh-so-reasonable explanation, you fully admit that your universal care system has access problems. People using your universal care, by YOUR OWN WORDS, are looking at two month waiting lists for necessary hip surgery, while people seeking private care can have their surgery right away.

Yet proponents of universal care keep claiming the stories of rationed care and waiting lists are lies. Which is the lie? Those who point out universal care has problems meeting demand, or those who say the stories of waiting lists are liars?

It is very simple: people want private health care because it provided what they need WHEN they need it. You may think it no big deal for someone needing hip surgery to wait an additional couple months. I can tell you right now from first hand experience: it is a BIG fucking deal. People with a hip problem "hobble" for damned good reason, but you imply those who don't WANT to hobble around in extreme pain another couple months are being SELFISH for wanting their surgery right away. (Golf course? How about walking around the fucking grocery store you ignorant fuck.)

What a stupid, fucked up, bullshit hypocritical attitude. Completely and totally full of shit. In fact, I myself ended up paying for my own hip replacement because the government, in their infinite wisdom, did not feel my situation was dire enough to warrant paying for it themselves. Had I private insurance instead of government provided, I could have had my hip replaced a good year or more earlier. But good old government provided insurance using government guidlines decided a ball and socket completely ruined from bullet fragments "did not warrant replacement" even though I literally could not stand from a seated position without help.

And you wonder why I mistrust government care. I am "paranoid." You are a complete ignorant, hypocritical asshole who will stoop to any level and make up any assinine excuse to defend you load of shit. You remind me of the friend I had once that sat in the middle of a natural pool by the creek, his lips were blue, his shivering could be seen from 100 yards away, yet he was calling out to me "come on in, the water's great!"

Every time you write you shoot your own argument in the foot. You ADMIT people seek private care because it is BETTER care. (Yes, being more immediate is BETTER, whether YOU want to call it that or not. Anyone in pain but has to wait would definitely call more immediate care better.) You ADMIT to waiting lists. You ADMIT to lower standards of care (no "luxuries") in order to stretch assets. (Having "luxuries" is BETTER, though you refuse to admit it.)

But we are "paranoid" that going to a government system will result in diminished ability to provide care, lower standards of care, waiting lists, etc.

What a fucking liar you are.


Aside to TaiChiDipShit:
I gave references to two very good books on the subject. It is not my fault your library card limits you to the kindergarten section. But I imagine your library would object to your drooling in their real books.

 

[apple0154]

It is amazing how you people literally WANT to give your liberties up.

You ADMIT that the reason Canada OUTLAWED private care was to quite literally FORCE people into their system. You see nothing wrong with it.

Yet at the same time, you call people who do not WANT to be forced into a government system "paranoid" for thinking they are going to be forced into a government system.

The problem is not with people being paranoid about going into a government system. They are paranoid from all the lies and misrepresentations thrown out about a government system. That’s where the problem is at.

Assuming you do not have a learning disability do a Google search on universal plans. Then, pick any country that is listed and do a search on their politics/political system and see if there is ONE politician campaigning on dismantling their universal plan. Then move on to another country and do the same thing.

Then come back here and post a logical, sensible, adult post telling us what you found. It would be most refreshing.

People using your universal care, by YOUR OWN WORDS, are looking at two month waiting lists for necessary hip surgery, while people seeking private care can have their surgery right away.

Yet proponents of universal care keep claiming the stories of rationed care and waiting lists are lies. Which is the lie? Those who point out universal care has problems meeting demand, or those who say the stories of waiting lists are liars?

I’ve addressed this before. The waiting list for certain treatments/procedures are localized. I told you about the man who lived in a small community and they didn’t have the necessary medical equipment to treat his cancer but he refused to travel 40 miles for treatments unless the government paid for his gas. There are other similar examples.

Do you think every small community is going to have state-of-the-art medical equipment and specialized surgeons in a “pay or suffer” system? If sufficient “customers” are not available, neither government nor private, is going to set up shop.

It is very simple: people want private health care because it provided what they need WHEN they need it. You may think it no big deal for someone needing hip surgery to wait an additional couple months. I can tell you right now from first hand experience: it is a BIG fucking deal. People with a hip problem "hobble" for damned good reason, but you imply those who don't WANT to hobble around in extreme pain another couple months are being SELFISH for wanting their surgery right away. (Golf course? How about walking around the fucking grocery store you ignorant fuck.)

What about those who don’t have the money for the operation? Let me guess. They should “hobble” around trying to get the money, right? And if they don’t ….oh well, at least the worry will help keep their mind off the pain, right?

So, I put the question to you. Is that the plan you advocate or are you in favour of simply paying for any and all hip operations? Do try and give a concise answer.

Every time you write you shoot your own argument in the foot. You ADMIT people seek private care because it is BETTER care. (Yes, being more immediate is BETTER, whether YOU want to call it that or not. Anyone in pain but has to wait would definitely call more immediate care better.) You ADMIT to waiting lists. You ADMIT to lower standards of care (no "luxuries") in order to stretch assets. (Having "luxuries" is BETTER, though you refuse to admit it.)

But we are "paranoid" that going to a government system will result in diminished ability to provide care, lower standards of care, waiting lists, etc.

What a fucking liar you are.

And what about those who can’t afford an operation? You never answer that. It’s all about me, me, me. You don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself which is the typical right wing philosophy. You want the luxuries even if others completely do without medical care.

You just don’t get it but that’s why Obama is not talking to the right wing/Repubs. There is no middle ground. You and they just don’t care. It’s as simple as that so there’s nothing to discuss. Even if right wingers had the best care possible they’d still begrudge others because that’s exactly what has been happening all along. That’s precisely why we need a change.

As Taichiliberal so eloquently put it, the "something for nothing", “someone living off my hard work” mentality is so ingrained it would be like trying to explain modern civilization to our ancestors who lived hundreds of years ago. Rather than “other people” being fellow citizens they are considered strangers, lazy, bad, not to be trusted.

It’s time for a change. It’s the 21st century. Come along with us. It’s a great place.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The problem is not with people being paranoid about going into a government system. They are paranoid from all the lies and misrepresentations thrown out about a government system. That’s where the problem is at.

Assuming you do not have a learning disability do a Google search on universal plans. Then, pick any country that is listed and do a search on their politics/political system and see if there is ONE politician campaigning on dismantling their universal plan. Then move on to another country and do the same thing.

Then come back here and post a logical, sensible, adult post telling us what you found. It would be most refreshing.



I’ve addressed this before. The waiting list for certain treatments/procedures are localized. I told you about the man who lived in a small community and they didn’t have the necessary medical equipment to treat his cancer but he refused to travel 40 miles for treatments unless the government paid for his gas. There are other similar examples.

Do you think every small community is going to have state-of-the-art medical equipment and specialized surgeons in a “pay or suffer” system? If sufficient “customers” are not available, neither government nor private, is going to set up shop.



What about those who don’t have the money for the operation? Let me guess. They should “hobble” around trying to get the money, right? And if they don’t ….oh well, at least the worry will help keep their mind off the pain, right?

So, I put the question to you. Is that the plan you advocate or are you in favour of simply paying for any and all hip operations? Do try and give a concise answer.



And what about those who can’t afford an operation? You never answer that. It’s all about me, me, me. You don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself which is the typical right wing philosophy. You want the luxuries even if others completely do without medical care.

You just don’t get it but that’s why Obama is not talking to the right wing/Repubs. There is no middle ground. You and they just don’t care. It’s as simple as that so there’s nothing to discuss. Even if right wingers had the best care possible they’d still begrudge others because that’s exactly what has been happening all along. That’s precisely why we need a change.

As Taichiliberal so eloquently put it, the "something for nothing", “someone living off my hard work” mentality is so ingrained it would be like trying to explain modern civilization to our ancestors who lived hundreds of years ago. Rather than “other people” being fellow citizens they are considered strangers, lazy, bad, not to be trusted.

It’s time for a change. It’s the 21st century. Come along with us. It’s a great place.

You're dealing with an insipidly stubborn mindset (who STILL hasn't produced any proof to his claim about other countries opting for our current healthcare system, yet he continues to repeat the claim). A mindset that readily accepts people paying thousands into companies that deny them coverage, that bankrupt hardworking, honest folk and let people DIE despite being long, loyal members.

As you said, people like GL just don't give a damn about those who fall by the wayside.