Liberals will protect you from crime by the awesome power of classical music!

uscitizen said:
Of course not neither is the record low dollar.
Click to expand...

No, not really. The record low dollar is mainly caused by the budget deficit, also. It all evens out whenever we pay the money back. And, in that case, we wouldn't have the money, so the situation is pretty much the same, it's just we're paying interest right now.
 
yeah and all that stuff we import including oil costs more.

The low dollar is good for some international businesses, but not good for the people of the USA.
 
uscitizen said:
yeah and all that stuff we import including oil costs more.

The low dollar is good for some international businesses, but not good for the people of the USA.
Click to expand...

It costs more for a while, but it generally evens itself out. Like the Yen and the dollar did in the 50's.

I thought that importing less was a good thing O_o? You protectionists are so confusing ;). I really don't know WHAT international business would find an increase in the dollar good... but it would generally cost about as much to fix the problem as to have it.
 
Darla said:
Dano, I gotta tell ya, I am not going to waste the time, and more importantly, the aggravation, of pursuing this further with someone who actually believes that preventive care does not save money, and of course, lives.

I actually burst out laughing when I read that.

Why argue it? A super- majority of Americans know better, and you are free to live in a fantasy world if you want to. Won't affect the change that's coming.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Darla but on the whole you are wrong about the money. Yes it certainly would save a few lives though, but you have to put that in perspective, for example:
1. Having everyone drive pickups would save lives in crashes
2. Having everyone with a home security system would save lives
3. Giving everyone a radon detection kit would save lives.
and so on..

Yet why does not everyone (and most governments) do the above? Because they simply determine the risk not to be worth the cost.
So back to preventative care, would you really think that people in their teens and twenties need preventative care? Of course not, the risk of finding something lifethreatening is incredibly low and DEFINETELY more than the cost. For some ages, you are probably right, I shouldn't have made it suc a blanket statement for stooges like Lorax to salivate over.

Yet in socialized healthcare, you are going to have people who don't need preventative care going for it anyway because hey it's free and that extra demand will mean waiting lists and often make it worse for people who really do need it.

Beyond that don't you think that if people REALLY thought preventative care would save them money then they would go to the doctor to pay for it to avoid future costs? Clearly they don't. A lot of those same people will have their car in for checkups to prevent future problems, which should tell you that they can afford it but they consider the chances of something happening very low and not worth the cost.
I understand lefties in general are more scared and concerned over every little thing, but most people are not like that, they have chosen freedom over security and you have to respect their choice, not take their money and decide what is best for them.
 
Watermark said:
It costs more for a while, but it generally evens itself out. Like the Yen and the dollar did in the 50's.

I thought that importing less was a good thing O_o? You protectionists are so confusing ;). I really don't know WHAT international business would find an increase in the dollar good... but it would generally cost about as much to fix the problem as to have it.
Click to expand...
I am a protectionist in that I believe we should not have laws and tax incentives to reward business moving out of the USA.
I am not an AHZ nut on this.
 
Dano, Just give everyone a spoonful of mercury every now and again and they will be fine ;)
No healthcare will be needed.
 
Thorn said:
The problem with this approach is, of course, that it ignores potential catastrophic events such as accidents and exposure to contagious diseases. In addition, it makes sense that someone who feels as you do/did would be far less likely to go for regular checkups; it's there that early detection of something serious can make a huge difference between health and recovery or disability and even death. I'm glad for you that your confidence was not contradicted by circumstance, but it could have been.
Click to expand...

Which is why we now have access to HSA accounts combined with catastrophic care as an option in many healthcare plans. My insurance costs were cut by a little over 50%. My total went from $220 a month to about $105. My company pays half, I pay half. My HSA grows tax free (as long as it is used for medical purposes). Now this is most certainly not a good plan for people with kids or people who tend to have lower immune systems. But for people that are generally healthy this is the best of both worlds. It covers preventative and catastrophic care and is done for a fairly minimal expense.
 
TheDanold said:
So back to preventative care, would you really think that people in their teens and twenties need preventative care? Of course not, the risk of finding something lifethreatening is incredibly low and DEFINETELY more than the cost."

You could not be more wrong on this Dano. Preventitive care is not costly and it more than makes up for itself long term.

"Yet in socialized healthcare, you are going to have people who don't need preventative care going for it anyway because hey it's free and that extra demand will mean waiting lists and often make it worse for people who really do need it."

On this I agree to an extent. That is the problem that can be resolved to a great extent by having a co-pay. Thus, people won't go in every time they get the sniffles, but they have little out of pocket if they feel they are truly in need of medical care. I am not for a government run plan, but I am all for finding ways to reduce the overall costs to the healthcare system. It is broken and needs repair. But if we do not find ways to reduce costs, then it matters not how it is being paid for.

"Beyond that don't you think that if people REALLY thought preventative care would save them money then they would go to the doctor to pay for it to avoid future costs? Clearly they don't. A lot of those same people will have their car in for checkups to prevent future problems, which should tell you that they can afford it but they consider the chances of something happening very low and not worth the cost."

Unlike a car Dano... most people simply do not understand or comprehend how preventative care can effect their conditions ten or twenty years from now. It is a much more gradual effect than not changing the oil in your car.

.
Click to expand...

An example Dano... I found out yesterday I have arthritis in my neck from an injury that occured (they think) about 15-20 years ago. It just now started effecting me. It can be corrected and in doing more preventative work now, I can keep the problem from being more costly and painful down the road.
 
Onceler said:
Well, it is ALL NATURAL. Hell, they should put it in the organic/health aisle at supermarkets...
Click to expand...
Any idea what's in a thermometer dumbass?

Quick contact your local EPA chapter, what if some people disposed of them in places with water?
That little bit of mercury will kill us all and poison our drinking water!
 
Superfreak said:
An example Dano... I found out yesterday I have arthritis in my neck from an injury that occured (they think) about 15-20 years ago. It just now started effecting me. It can be corrected and in doing more preventative work now, I can keep the problem from being more costly and painful down the road.
Click to expand...
Again preventative care CAN save you money, that would depend on age and medical history.
Overall though (with factoring in all people and ages) it does not, otherwise insurance companies would encourage it more as it would save them money and you can bet they've spent top dollar finding out about it.

I hear your story man, but I've also heard stories going the other way. Like my grandmother is now just turning 94 this month. She is one of those people who hates going to see the doctor and just really doesn't want to bother with it. She is still healthy at 94 and thousands of dollars on preventative care may well have caught something, but it didn't and it was her choice.

Most people are not going to find anything wrong when preventative care is done, I don't begrudge anyone for doing it, but let each individual pay for and make their own choice if that is they are worried.
 
TheDanold said:
Any idea what's in a thermometer dumbass?

Quick contact your local EPA chapter, what if some people disposed of them in places with water?
That little bit of mercury will kill us all and poison our drinking water!
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you Dano. Someday, you'll get cancer, which, since you don't believe in preventive care, you won't know about until it's spread, and you'll die cursing the liberals.

I just hope you don't teach your kids this, if you have any. Children need check ups. If you want to do without them, and eat mercury, that's your business. But kids deserve better.
 
TheDanold said:
Any idea what's in a thermometer dumbass?

Quick contact your local EPA chapter, what if some people disposed of them in places with water?
That little bit of mercury will kill us all and poison our drinking water!
Click to expand...

Umm it winds up in the fish we eat, birds that eat the fish, etc....
And it does not go away for a very long time.

Mercury has been removed from many/most thermometers.
 
Onceler said:
Mercury in thermometer - fine.

Mercury in the fish that I'm eating - not so much.
Click to expand...
Ok very good, now here come the facts, (remember that those few pounds of mercury dumped by that company into Lake Michigan have been happening for decades and that is what nothing new).

From the EPA's own site on Lake Michigan results:
"Mercury concentrations in fish averaged 139 ng/g in lake trout and 69.0 ng/g in adult coho salmon. These average values are approximately 10 times below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) action level of 1000 ng/g (1 ppm) for fish tissue mercury content. Even the maximum mercury concentration measured in the LMMB Study (396 ng/g) was well below the FDA action level. "
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/results/mercury/index.html

Even the worst fish caught there were well below the point of having to worry about it.

You see here is the problem with you emotional lefties, you see something as bad (ie: mercury causing problems with fish eaten) and then assume that any mention of mercury in water will result in this. Lake Michigan is HUGE, the mercury dumped in there is tiny, a lot of the mercury will naturally occur there anyway from natural erosion of rocks.
Liberals are incabable of understanding the concept of scalability.

Honestly if Desh posted an article about someone putting one drop of mercury in the Pacific Ocean, I honestly think that the usual pack of leftoid sheep would have said the exact same thing they did in that other thread with dire warnings and evil corps trying to kill us, etc...

It just ties in with your Gaia type religion of believing that anything Man does to the environment must be bad (ie: CO2, mercury), no matter in what quantity but if it happens naturally by volcanos, oceans or erosion then you don't really care.
You are stuck in a very primitive mindframe found in past anthropological studies of societies that demand man do nothing to nature or they should suffer by a higher power. Pagan dumbass.
 
Yeah Dano and child molestors have been doing their evil business for centuries. so we should just let them continue ?
 
Darla said:
I feel sorry for you Dano. Someday, you'll get cancer, which, since you don't believe in preventive care, you won't know about until it's spread, and you'll die cursing the liberals.

I just hope you don't teach your kids this, if you have any. Children need check ups. If you want to do without them, and eat mercury, that's your business. But kids deserve better.
Click to expand...
I feel sorry for you Darla, you have no kids and you never will. Kids deserve better than you.

And yes my kids do get checkups, not because they've ever found anything and likely never would, but because I do love and worry about them. You will note that my examples before were to do with adults making their OWN decisions on preventative care.

I wouldn't curse any Liberals if something happened to me, unlike you I accept the consequences of my choices. Again safety is a concern but not to the point of having it infringe on my freedom to live in other ways. I drive a small car and I don't have a security system other than guns, maybe to kooked up Libs that looks like a Daddy gone wild but to most people in America it is just normal living.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah Dano and child molestors have been doing their evil business for centuries. so we should just let them continue ?
Click to expand...
From the EPA's own study for Lake Michigan, current levels of mercury dumped do not affect health in the least.
Child molesters ALWAYS affect someone and are criminals who should get the death penalty. Do you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top