apple0154
MEOW
You'll learn otherwise.
The Must See Chart (This Is What Class War Looks Like)
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
You'll learn otherwise.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's not true. It's really a reflection of the differences in culture. Dixie is a good ole boy. That's his culture, that's his identity, it is where he belongs. I can assure you, after watching Dixie pick peanuts out of the shrubs poop for 8 years that if the good ole boys like W and Billy Graham and Rush Limbaugh say "Unions are good." or "Taxation should be progressive." or "The US should only commit to war when there is a clear and present danger to our national security." or "Biological evolution is the excepted theory explaining speciation." Then I can promise you that Dixie would throw his entire weight behind supporting those notions. It's not about being right or wrong or buying into a particular ideology with Dixie. It's a matter of belonging to a particular cohort that is important to Dixie and folks like him.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Conversely, you can factually demonstrate where those nations have saved trillions in health care cost.
cawacko
Well-known member
Why do those countries have medical budgets which implies only so much service is given? We don't have that in the U.S.
Bfgrn
New member
No Dixie, you have FOOD in those grocery bags in exchange for your money. It is a mutually beneficial transaction. I am amazed how obtuse your response was, even for YOU...
apple0154
MEOW
Every government program has a budget. The purpose is to ensure the money is spent on medical care.
I know you don't have that in the US. That's why cancer clinics, for example, show manicured lawns and gazebos and ponds. Perhaps fewer of those things would enable more cancer patients to afford medical treatment.
Did you check the "Entire State Of Maine Gets An Obamacare Exemption" thread? Only 65 cents of every dollar goes towards medical care and the insurance company keeps the rest. How much service is sacrificed under that scheme?
apple0154
MEOW
cawacko
Well-known member
No, I watched 60 minutes do a special on CNBC about health care and they stated foreign countries have budgets and the U.S. does not and that medicare will spend basically whatever it has to at the end of a persons life. Other countries often won't or can't do that.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Beware, young man, 'Othercountries' is one helluva big place.
apple0154
MEOW
Countries with government medical have to cover everyone which means there are fewer limits than private insurance companies. Every individual is insured against the maximum number of illnesses.
To use an analogy let's say there was government home owner's insurance. Because some people living in low lying areas would require flood damage insurance that would mean people living in the mountains would also have flood insurance. Or those living in States where tornadoes rarely occur would still be covered for tornado damage because other citizens would require it.
As for spending at the end of a person's life we all know we're going to die so the government medical plan covers as many contingencies as possible because no one knows what problems they may face.
Government medical is not like private care. Individual cases are not scrutinized. If a procedure is covered, it is covered for everyone. Only the patient and the doctor decide what's necessary. If a doctor decides a procedure is necessary and the individual agrees and that particular procedure is covered then it's covered for that patient.
The same policy applies to end of life. If an illness threatening the life of a 20 year old is covered then that same illness is covered for an 80 year old. If an illness is covered for one individual it's covered for everyone, thus, more illnesses are covered than one would see in a private policy.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Link please.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LOL... Of course I have food in the grocery bags, and the grocer has to purchase more food to replenish what I purchased. This doesn't change the fact that I became poorer and the grocer became richer. He made a profit, I suffered a loss. It was indeed a mutually beneficial transaction, but the grocer benefited more because he became wealthier and I became poorer.
You might think this is "obtuse" but it is simply an illustration of capitalism and how it works. You said you have a problem with people getting rich while making others poor, but that is capitalism! That's how capitalism always works, someone makes a profit, someone benefits, someone loses wealth, someone gains wealth. Even a little kid on the corner with a lemonade stand, makes a profit, becomes wealthier as their customers become poorer. That must just drive you nuts, because you believe the kid should just give away his lemonade, or sell it at cost, and not make a profit, and just do the work for the happiness of working! That's how we should ALL live, isn't it?
cawacko
Well-known member
It was a 60 Minutes special on CNBC regarding health care. I watched it on TV. Probably could google a link to the episode or maybe CNBC's website has something. My google has a virus, can't look anything up.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Deal with REALITY, Apple! THIS is what I am talking about, don't you watch the news? Your Utopian Socialist Eurotrash nations are all going up in flames, because they can no longer afford the Socialist health care systems and the rest of this Socialist idiocy forced on them by morons like you!
Bfgrn
New member
No Dixie, that is not someone getting rich by making other people poor. You are confused by your ignorance. There is a 'value' to things like food which all adults and even children understand. No one is forcing you to buy food or a cup of lemonade from a kid with a stand. The grocer has to cover the cost of products, employees, overhead, rent, etc. He also has to make a profit to feed his family.
If a chemical company bought the property adjacent to your house and built a plant that emitted noxious fumes, it would lower the value of your property, lower the quality of the air you breath, the water you drink and increase your medical risks. It would quite probably increase your medical costs, increase your lost days of work and shorten your lifespan. The chemical company is externalizing their costs. You and your neighbors are forced to internalize them. They are getting rich by making other people poor.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, you seem to be confused by your ignorance... of course it is someone getting rich by making other people poor! The grocer is richer, I am poorer! The kid with the lemonade stand is richer, I am poorer! This happens to various degrees, all across America every day... it's called CAPITALISM!
Well I am not arguing why capitalism isn't a good thing that we need! That is YOUR argument! No one forces you to buy the products which make some corporate CEO richer, you are free to boycott his company, to refuse to give him any of your wealth. The grocer can feed his family regardless of what I do, he owns a grocery store, remember? Why does he need to make a profit off selling ME the food I need to stay alive? That doesn't seem fair to me!
Me and my neighbors could form a group to protest the company, to keep them from building their noxious fumes plant in our neighborhood. We could lobby the EPA to take action, we can lobby our representatives to make laws restricting what the company does to property values... all sorts of things like this can be done in a free and open society... of course, when we live in New Russia, that will never be the case, we will have to live with whatever the STATE says we must, and there is no recourse.
Bfgrn
New member
I am not arguing capitalism isn't a good thing that we need. You can't decipher what I am saying, so you ASSume what you need me to say for your ignorant rant.
I believe capitalism is the best economic system, but it is not a panacea for everything on this planet. And in the modern society of multinational corporations and absentee owners it requires regulations and laws that protect consumers for capitalism to work for all people.
For a free market to work, it requires all parties to be accountable. Free markets worked very well in the distant past, because all economies were local. The guy who might be tempted to pollute to take shortcuts that would increase his profit would have to breath the same air, drink the same water and face the wrath of his neighbors.
It's ironic you would run to a government created regulatory agency to fight a chemical plant next door. An agency that many Republicans want to abolish. And it is Republicans whose environmental proposals would turn America into a polluted shit hole like Russia.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
My point wasn't to "run to" a government agency... it was to point out to your pathetically stupid ass, that we DO HAVE a regulatory agency, we ARE TAKING appropriate measures to regulate... so these mythical problems you keep yapping about, simply don't exist in our society... they may have existed in the former Soviet Union shithole, but it's not a Capitalist system!
All over the country, lawyers are going to courts and winning judgments against companies and corporations who violated the regulations or law, or brought harm to another... billions and billions of dollars change hands every year, over this type of litigation. That doesn't happen when the STATE owns the means of production, Soviet citizens can't SUE the Russian government! They have a different type of system, and things work differently. In a capitalist system, yes, you can gain and acquire much more wealth, but you also assume a risk. If you do things unethically or illegally and get caught, you can go to prison or have to pay all your profits out in rewards or fines.
Bfgrn
New member
I don't want or advocate for a communist system. But the fighting against America reproducing the disastrous environmental outcomes that occurred in the Soviet Union comes from the left in America, not from the right. You need to ask yourself why that is true.