Big Gubmint
Verified User
Polls show that even though 52% of respondents worry about the bridges they cross, nearly 66% don't want to pay higher taxes to repair them.
Big Gubmint works great, don't it?
Big Gubmint works great, don't it?
Why do people often vote against their own interests?
- Thread starter midcan5
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What I find is a bunch of left wing hooey. You keep throwing out these 'shining examples' of socialized health care, but in every instance, the people in those countries are having to wait for major surgeries, being denied treatment that is too costly to the state, and literally dying because of the system, yet you think these examples have merit because of "cost" considerations. Yes, we spend a lot more money for health care here, because we save more lives! Instead of paying for a funeral, we are paying for advanced treatments and rehabilitation! So yeah, our actual COST would be higher! IF we allowed more people to DIE while waiting to be treated, it wouldn't cost us nearly as much... but I don't really see how THAT is a feather in the cap of socialized health care!
We also hear the lament that no country who has ever gone to a socialist system has ever reverted back to the old system, but this fails to recognize several small details... like the fact that socialist countries don't really give the people an option or voice in the matter, so it wouldn't make any difference whether they wanted to revert back or not. Additionally, once you've destroyed a capitalist system and private enterprise, it ain't coming back, there is literally nothing there to "revert" back to! So what you argument amounts to is, we should drive our cars off a cliff because riding on air is more comfortable that those pesky bumpy roads!
Finally, you are all a bunch of left-wing, koolaid-drenched morons, who lack ANY common fucking sense! In your simple little nitwit minds, you fully expect taxpayers to foot the bill for EVERYONE'S health care! Oh yeah, sign up EVERY American, pay for EVERY imaginable thing, preexisting or not, doesn't matter, pay for it ALL! Yet, it's somehow going to cost us LESS money?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Un huh and the same polls show that 9 out of 10 men who tried Camels preferred women. What's your fuckin point?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dixie, this is a frustrating aspect of the problem here. You throw out socialism to mean, anyone who does anything different then Alabama is a socialist. Get informed on this topic dude cause you simply don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Universal Health Care and Socialized Health Care are not always the same thing. Of the nations I"ve mentioned in comparison "Canada, The UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea" only Canada and the UK have socialized, completely state funded, health care. So drop the "Socialism" bogeyman canard. It's for the brain dead and the uninformed and it shows the rest of us that you are completely clueless as the the nature of the health care problem in this nation and the needs for reform and the general principle other CAPITALIST nations have applied to fix this problem.
apple0154
MEOW
Statistics show you are wrong. Life expectancy is either on par or superior. In other words one can not live longer if they're dead.
Nonsense. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Many countries have had universal plans for 40 or 50 years. They had plenty of time to revert but they didn't. Many of those same countries don't even have a recognizable political movement advocating reverting to a "pay or suffer" system.
In plain English the people don't want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system.
Exactly! It's called preventive medicine. Just like a regular checkup at the dentist. The dentist spots a cavity and tells you it needs to be fixed. You can pay for a $100.00 filling or wait until the tooth decays and you need a root canal and crown for $1000.00. Which one costs LESS money?
People can be alerted to rising blood pressure and diabetes and change diet or start taking medication. A free checkup and less than $50/mth for medication can prevent a stroke from high blood pressure. Or one can have a stroke and the government can feed and house the invalid for the next 20 or 30 years. Which costs LESS money? One can adjust diet or start on meds for diabetes or go blind or have a limb amputated and collect welfare for the rest of their life. Which one costs LESS money?
What is wrong with you, Dixie? You're intelligent enough to operate a computer and post sentences and paragraphs but the content of those sentences and paragraphs are the ravings of a lunatic.
The least that can be said for a universal plan is folks like you could get a free medical diagnosis.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh Nice Burn! LOLThe least that can be said for a universal plan is folks like you could get a free medical diagnosis.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Statistics show you are wrong. Life expectancy is either on par or superior. In other words one can not live longer if they're dead.
Nonsense. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Many countries have had universal plans for 40 or 50 years. They had plenty of time to revert but they didn't. Many of those same countries don't even have a recognizable political movement advocating reverting to a "pay or suffer" system.
In plain English the people don't want to revert to a "pay or suffer" system.
Exactly! It's called preventive medicine. Just like a regular checkup at the dentist. The dentist spots a cavity and tells you it needs to be fixed. You can pay for a $100.00 filling or wait until the tooth decays and you need a root canal and crown for $1000.00. Which one costs LESS money?
People can be alerted to rising blood pressure and diabetes and change diet or start taking medication. A free checkup and less than $50/mth for medication can prevent a stroke from high blood pressure. Or one can have a stroke and the government can feed and house the invalid for the next 20 or 30 years. Which costs LESS money? One can adjust diet or start on meds for diabetes or go blind or have a limb amputated and collect welfare for the rest of their life. Which one costs LESS money?
What is wrong with you, Dixie? You're intelligent enough to operate a computer and post sentences and paragraphs but the content of those sentences and paragraphs are the ravings of a lunatic.
The least that can be said for a universal plan is folks like you could get a free medical diagnosis.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
So what's the difference between universal health care and socialized health care, mr. words?
apple0154
MEOW
"Socialize: to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.
Universal: present everywhere" (Dictionary.com)
When something is "socialized" there tends to be a list of procedures one must follow. For example, welfare. Two very different people must meet the same qualifications, follow the same procedures and will receive the same amount of assistance. The 350 pound guy will not receive more money for food than the 150 pound guy.
If such was the case with medicine there would be one procedure for a certain operation and one only. For example, gall stones. The standard procedure would be to operate and remove the stones although there are alternative procedures such as drugs that dissolve them and shock waves that break them into small pieces to be passed.
Some people tend to compare universal coverage to private insurance or HMOs, only run by the government, but that isn't the case. Often private insurance companies will get involved in the medical diagnosis and procedure. In other words, as with a case of gall stones, private insurance/HMOs may decide what procedure they will pay for regarding a specific case and in all probability authorize the least costly procedure. Universal medical does not work that way.
All three procedures I mentioned would, undoubtedly, be covered by universal medical because different cases may require different procedures. It is the doctor and the patient, no one else, who decides on what procedure will be done. Universal medical means the government covers the expenses but does not determine which procedure will be used.
That's the difference between "socialized" and "universal" medical. People tend to envision government involvement far beyond the reality when the word "socialized" is used.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Universal Health Care is coverage for all eligible residents within a political region. Typically costs are born, in the majority, by publically funded programs. All wealthy industrial nations, except the United Staes, have some form of Universal Health Care Coverage.
Socialized Medicine is a health care system completly ran, funded and operated by the Government (The State). In the USA the term is used incorrectly, and as a perjorative, to describe any form of publicly funded health care reform.
It is also significant to point out, as Apple has, that not one wealthy, capitalist, industrial nation that has adopted UHC has reverted back to a completely private, pay or suffer, system.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
once you kill off all the private insurance companies what possibility is there to ever go back?.....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Why would they be "killed off" if the services they offer are so superior, as you and those you support claim? There's nothing in the gov't proposals that would "kill them"...unless you consider not trying to cheat your customers as something unAmerican.
apple0154
MEOW
You're joking, right? There are and will always be people willing to gamble and that's what insurance companies do. Besides, with the medical technology available today a blood test reveals a lot about a person. It's easier for insurance companies to evaluate a person.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
so nothing. thanks.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's an argument from ignorance. Virtually every nation with UHC has private insurance companies.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
because they are prohibited from offering their policies to new clients under the proposed act.....and it's difficult to compete against a company subsidized by taxpayer money......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no, I'm not joking.....if BC/BS gets dismantled who do expect could ever afford to recreate it from scratch.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
it's an argument about YOUR ignorance......have you paid no attention to the proposed act so far?.....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You have been mis-informed......what the recent proposals from the gov't due is prevent the health insurance companies from violating the anti-trust laws by their "cross-state" offerings.
Again, the boogeyman of "... it's difficult to compete against a company subsidized by taxpayer money" was proven false before it left the lips of Hannity and Limbaugh. Think not? Then please explain why FEDEX and UPS (with their Mailbox Rental subsidiary) have been thriving for years DESPITE the USPS?