one reason people are fucking stupid

[zoombwaz]

They are all anti-human population control freaks.

The green movement was conceived from the beginning to be an ideological path convincing society that democide (genocide for all citizens) is good.

This is all well documented.

What nonsense. Documented by whom? Has it occurred to you that the green movement is anti-corporatist, and that if credible documentation of such a plan existed, the corporate media would be screaming about it?

Oh, that's right...you think the corporately-owned media have a liberal, anti-corporate bias...as if the guys who sign the paychecks would tolerate such behavior, ie reporting that is counter to their interests ,from the people who receive the paychecks. On this planet, if you do or say publicly the exact opposite of what your employer tells you to do or say, you don't remain an employee very long thereafter.

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Cancel4]

The concept of employment is unfamiliar to AHZ.

 

[zoombwaz]

No. I don't have to be in some weird religion to understand the 20Th century eugenics movement and it's popularity amongst the ruling elite.

You should educate yourself.

Tnen why are you spouting the talking points of the ruling elite? You might want to educate yourself on just who the ruling elite are (hint: they got most of the Bush tax cuts, and control as much or more of the country's wealth as do the bottom 95%)

 

[Cancel4]

Possessing money would be a new experience for AHZ.

 

[apple0154]

Read through the thread apple, I provided a story. Though all countries with national health care are having major funding issues that have led to rationing is not a secret, it is ignored in the discussion.

Yes, countries are facing funding issues but let's take a closer look.

The first thing to consider is more people have access to health care under a universal system than under a "pay or suffer" system by virtue of the fact one has a much greater chance of surviving a waiting period of, say, three months for an operation than trying to obtain the $5,000 or $10,000 or $50,000 required under a "pay or suffer" system within the same time frame.

The second point is medical procedures and new drugs resulting in increased life span are continually coming available so medical costs will always rise. The quicker they become available, the quicker the rising costs. What could become a greater catalyst to "class warfare"?

The last point is that charging for medical treatment is rationing health care. How many people, today, are enduring rationing due to lack of sufficient funds?

While governments have been discussing funding shortages for decades it has more to do with apportioning the money they have. It's all about priorities.

In any case, while the debate goes back and forth the citizens in those countries are continuing to get medical care and that seems to be Obama's plan. Get something in place and insure the people while discussing how to improve it.

When it comes to bi-partisan participation those who are against any form of government involvement have no incentive to come up with innovative ideas. Why would members of a government (Repubs), who are a against government involvement, even try to come up with constructive ideas? That's why Obama has continually stated he doesn't want to hear about old, tired ideas. However, once a plan is implemented then succeeding governments will be obliged to deal with it.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yes, countries are facing funding issues but let's take a closer look.

The first thing to consider is more people have access to health care under a universal system than under a "pay or suffer" system by virtue of the fact one has a much greater chance of surviving a waiting period of, say, three months for an operation than trying to obtain the $5,000 or $10,000 or $50,000 required under a "pay or suffer" system within the same time frame.

The second point is medical procedures and new drugs resulting in increased life span are continually coming available so medical costs will always rise. The quicker they become available, the quicker the rising costs. What could become a greater catalyst to "class warfare"?

The last point is that charging for medical treatment is rationing health care. How many people, today, are enduring rationing due to lack of sufficient funds?

While governments have been discussing funding shortages for decades it has more to do with apportioning the money they have. It's all about priorities.

In any case, while the debate goes back and forth the citizens in those countries are continuing to get medical care and that seems to be Obama's plan. Get something in place and insure the people while discussing how to improve it.

When it comes to bi-partisan participation those who are against any form of government involvement have no incentive to come up with innovative ideas. Why would members of a government (Repubs), who are a against government involvement, even try to come up with constructive ideas? That's why Obama has continually stated he doesn't want to hear about old, tired ideas. However, once a plan is implemented then succeeding governments will be obliged to deal with it.

Access to health care is of questionable value when access means the right to die on a waiting list.

When it comes to bi-partisan participation those who are against any form of government involvement have no incentive to come up with innovative ideas.

This is absolutely moronic. It makes no sense. Is your premise that big government fanatics are innovative because they believe in government? Your brain is missing.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You hould seek help for those paranoid fantasies of yours.

Nahh. I enjoy them.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Tnen why are you spouting the talking points of the ruling elite? You might want to educate yourself on just who the ruling elite are (hint: they got most of the Bush tax cuts, and control as much or more of the country's wealth as do the bottom 95%)

I'm not. You are. They want to control healthcare to kill us.

 

[apple0154]

Access to health care is of questionable value when access means the right to die on a waiting list.

Compared to the right to die due to lack of money?

This is absolutely moronic. It makes no sense. Is your premise that big government fanatics are innovative because they believe in government? Your brain is missing.

You definately have difficulty grasping basic concepts. A person or persons believing that governments can not implement and run programs will not attempt to implement or run programs if/when elected to government. What part of that sentence are you having difficulty with?

In the words of Henry Ford, "If you think you can or you can't, you're right."

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Compared to the right to die due to lack of money?

Sure, compare it if you want. It's really six of one, half dozen of the other.

You definately have difficulty grasping basic concepts. A person or persons believing that governments can not implement and run programs will not attempt to implement or run programs if/when elected to government. What part of that sentence are you having difficulty with?

It is a value to recognize the inneficiencies, corruptions and competition killing effects of federal involvement. They can still pass laws that will make private sector solutions better, such as breaking up the state by state insurance cartels.

In the words of Henry Ford, "If you think you can or you can't, you're right."

I think we can reduce the role of the federal government in our lives.

 

[apple0154]

Sure, compare it if you want. It's really six of one, half dozen of the other.

Great. So, in that case we can rule out the argument waiting lists are worse than the status quo.

It is a value to recognize the inefficiencies, corruptions and competition killing effects of federal involvement. They can still pass laws that will make private sector solutions better, such as breaking up the state by state insurance cartels.

The inefficiencies and corruptions can be dealt with by voting in/out political parties.

I think we can reduce the role of the federal government in our lives.

You're contradicting yourself. Previously, you wrote, " They can still pass laws that will make private sector solutions better...."

By passing laws the Federal Government is playing a role in our lives. Where is the logic and efficiency by having the Federal Government pass laws and then the insurance companies changing their operations when the Federal Government can simply take over the operation?

People vote for governments with the expectation the government will have the citizen's interests as their primary concern. If they fail in that regard they are voted out. On the other hand, the primary concern of private insurance companies is not that of their client's. Their primary concern is making money.

Given that is correct why are we even having this discussion?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Great. So, in that case we can rule out the argument waiting lists are worse than the status quo.

No we can't. In one scenario it is possible to get healthcare if one can get enough money. In the waiting lists, it is illegal to buy it anywhere, you must wait on the death list, unless you have political connections.

The inefficiencies and corruptions can be dealt with by voting in/out political parties.

No they cannot. All politicians say they will reform, but they never do.

Power corrupts, complete power corrupts completely.

You're contradicting yourself. Previously, you wrote, " They can still pass laws that will make private sector solutions better...."

By passing laws the Federal Government is playing a role in our lives.

It's not a contradiction, there is substantial difference between deregulatory laws which create private competition, and federal takeovers which create huge fascist hierarchies.

Where is the logic and efficiency by having the Federal Government pass laws and then the insurance companies changing their operations when the Federal Government can simply take over the operation?

One is a good idea. One is a bad idea.

People vote for governments with the expectation the government will have the citizen's interests as their primary concern. If they fail in that regard they are voted out. On the other hand, the primary concern of private insurance companies is not that of their client's. Their primary concern is making money.

Given that is correct why are we even having this discussion?

Because you believe government is less corrupt than business. Your stupidity necessitates these discussions.

 

[Canceled2]

Facing funding issues that are resulting in less and less care every year is a HUGE problem.

Mediocre care for all vs good care for all but about 15%. I think the latter is where most us would like to start when looking for a solution. So let's find a way to lower costs for the majority (deregulation for states etc.) and focus on how to best help those 15% that actually need care...perhaps they'd be satisfied with some mediocre care???

Yes, countries are facing funding issues but let's take a closer look.

The first thing to consider is more people have access to health care under a universal system than under a "pay or suffer" system by virtue of the fact one has a much greater chance of surviving a waiting period of, say, three months for an operation than trying to obtain the $5,000 or $10,000 or $50,000 required under a "pay or suffer" system within the same time frame.

The second point is medical procedures and new drugs resulting in increased life span are continually coming available so medical costs will always rise. The quicker they become available, the quicker the rising costs. What could become a greater catalyst to "class warfare"?

The last point is that charging for medical treatment is rationing health care. How many people, today, are enduring rationing due to lack of sufficient funds?

While governments have been discussing funding shortages for decades it has more to do with apportioning the money they have. It's all about priorities.

In any case, while the debate goes back and forth the citizens in those countries are continuing to get medical care and that seems to be Obama's plan. Get something in place and insure the people while discussing how to improve it.

When it comes to bi-partisan participation those who are against any form of government involvement have no incentive to come up with innovative ideas. Why would members of a government (Repubs), who are a against government involvement, even try to come up with constructive ideas? That's why Obama has continually stated he doesn't want to hear about old, tired ideas. However, once a plan is implemented then succeeding governments will be obliged to deal with it.

 

[apple0154]

No we can't. In one scenario it is possible to get healthcare if one can get enough money. In the waiting lists, it is illegal to buy it anywhere, you must wait on the death list, unless you have political connections.

If people could get enough money this discussion would be moot. Many people can not get enough money. That's the problem.

No they cannot. All politicians say they will reform, but they never do.

Power corrupts, complete power corrupts completely.

Obama is trying to reform. Why are you against him?

It's not a contradiction, there is substantial difference between deregulatory laws which create private competition, and federal takeovers which create huge fascist hierarchies.

That is not substantiated by reality. Again, there is not one country that had a universal medical plan and then reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one out of dozens and dozens.

Because you believe government is less corrupt than business. Your stupidity necessitates these discussions.

Unfortunately, it's your ignorance which necessitates these discussions. Once again, show one country which reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. Just one.

That is the absurdity of these discussions. With all the bad-mouthing about universal medical there is not one country where the population demanded a return to the old way of doing things.

Show us just one country or are you implying the US has the most corrupt system of government on the face of the earth? Are you implying the US Constitution is the worst governing document any country holds?

I'm assuming there is a reason(s) behind your absurd, paranoid views regardless of the validity behind them. Perhaps if you share them we can help dissolve the sheer terror you must be living with.

So, please do tell us why you feel the US form of government/political system/ social set-up would result in an apocalypse if a universal medical plan was implemented. Do you feel the US government, by the way it's structured, is incapable of doing what dozens of other countries are and have been doing for decades? Do you feel the average US politician has a much greater propensity to be evil compared to politicians in other countries?

Let's take a look at your psyche and hope the depth is greater than a sidewalk puddle.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Facing funding issues that are resulting in less and less care every year is a HUGE problem.

Mediocre care for all vs good care for all but about 15%. I think the latter is where most us would like to start when looking for a solution. So let's find a way to lower costs for the majority (deregulation for states etc.) and focus on how to best help those 15% that actually need care...perhaps they'd be satisfied with some mediocre care???

A new Investor's Business Daily poll of more than 1,300 physicians finds
that nearly two-thirds (65%) don't back ObamaCare. More that 70% say
the government cannot provide insurance coverage for 47 million additional
and save money without harming quality and 45% of doctors say they
would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement if the
health care plan passes.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

If people could get enough money this discussion would be moot. Many people can not get enough money. That's the problem.

I agree. That's why i'm against the globalization memes which are incenting corporations to destroy the american working class.

Obama is trying to reform. Why are you against him?

I believe his ideas are bad.

That is not substantiated by reality. Again, there is not one country that had a universal medical plan and then reverted to the old "pay or suffer" system. Not one out of dozens and dozens.

Because tyrants love government systems and they won't allow it. There are many complaints and travesties in the systems you laud, you're just blinded to them by your own ideology.

Unfortunately, it's your ignorance which necessitates these discussions. Once again, show one country which reverted to a "pay or suffer" system. Just one.

The tyrants in charge will not allow it. Tyranny is on the rise in the world. You should be against that.

That is the absurdity of these discussions. With all the bad-mouthing about universal medical there is not one country where the population demanded a return to the old way of doing things.

You keep saying that. Again I rebutt, the totalitarian demociders are in control and will not allow their power over life and death to ebb.

Show us just one country or are you implying the US has the most corrupt system of government on the face of the earth? Are you implying the US Constitution is the worst governing document any country holds?

You're tiring. and stupid. The government takeover of healthcare is extra-constitutional. I like the constitution, it's obamacrats that are tearing it up.

I'm assuming there is a reason(s) behind your absurd, paranoid views regardless of the validity behind them. Perhaps if you share them we can help dissolve the sheer terror you must be living with.

Government healthcare is a bad idea. I've gone over the reasons already.

So, please do tell us why you feel the US form of government/political system/ social set-up would result in an apocalypse if a universal medical plan was implemented. Do you feel the US government, by the way it's structured, is incapable of doing what dozens of other countries are and have been doing for decades? Do you feel the average US politician has a much greater propensity to be evil compared to politicians in other countries?

I believe that because of the freedom oriented nature of the american citizenry, we should not and, in fact, will not allow the government to seize control over our bodies.

Let's take a look at your psyche and hope the depth is greater than a sidewalk puddle.

I'm a genius of extremely noble nature. The prognosis looks good. Don't worry your little squirrel brain one iota.

 

[Damocles]

A new Investor's Business Daily poll of more than 1,300 physicians finds
that nearly two-thirds (65%) don't back ObamaCare. More that 70% say
the government cannot provide insurance coverage for 47 million additional
and save money without harming quality and 45% of doctors say they
would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement if the
health care plan passes.

Shh... You are supposed to whisper when you disagree with The One.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Shh... You are supposed to whisper when you disagree with The One.

Ooh, that's right, I will be called a racist.

 

[apple0154]

Facing funding issues that are resulting in less and less care every year is a HUGE problem.

Mediocre care for all vs good care for all but about 15%. I think the latter is where most us would like to start when looking for a solution. So let's find a way to lower costs for the majority (deregulation for states etc.) and focus on how to best help those 15% that actually need care...perhaps they'd be satisfied with some mediocre care???

It's been shown, time and again, countries with universal plans have a lower cost per person for medical care. While the occasional rumblings are heard not one country has political opposition to universal coverage. Right there the cost for the majority is lowered.

In an ideal world it would be better to devise and implement a plan but there are forces not interested in participating resulting in no plan being implemented. This has gone on for half a century. It's unrealistic to suggest we still talk about it.

When everyone is affected by shortages/cost overruns then the two parties will have to come up with solutions. As it stands now no solutions are necessary because no plan is in place.

In my view all Obama is trying to do is put a plan in place. Any plan. Then people will have to start coming up with ways to improve it. The biggest problem is not "what plan" but "no plan". Folks like AssHat who do not want any government plan are not going to try and come to a consensus and there are such folks in government.

As Obama said we can't wait any longer. It's come to the point where anything is better than nothing because more people will start to be insured and governments will be obliged to work on the plan and make improvements.

 

[Canceled2]

They have a a very mediocre system and the majority don't know what a good healthcare system looks like or feels like. That people in other countries have become satisfied with mediocre care is not a an argument that can persuade. There are many thousands who have either had to seek care elsewhere or even just accept the facts of a poor system and suffer.

So, again, let's look at lowering costs here and creating some sort of way to help the truly needy.

Also, Canada is on the verge of health care collapse because they cannot afford their system...

It's been shown, time and again, countries with universal plans have a lower cost per person for medical care. While the occasional rumblings are heard not one country has political opposition to universal coverage. Right there the cost for the majority is lowered.

In an ideal world it would be better to devise and implement a plan but there are forces not interested in participating resulting in no plan being implemented. This has gone on for half a century. It's unrealistic to suggest we still talk about it.

When everyone is affected by shortages/cost overruns then the two parties will have to come up with solutions. As it stands now no solutions are necessary because no plan is in place.

In my view all Obama is trying to do is put a plan in place. Any plan. Then people will have to start coming up with ways to improve it. The biggest problem is not "what plan" but "no plan". Folks like AssHat who do not want any government plan are not going to try and come to a consensus and there are such folks in government.

As Obama said we can't wait any longer. It's come to the point where anything is better than nothing because more people will start to be insured and governments will be obliged to work on the plan and make improvements.