The Truth About Health Care

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_VinylBoy, Feb 4, 2010.

  1. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Last year it was Alan Grayson... tonight, it's Ed Schultz.
    It's great to see that someone gets it, and isn't afraid to get brazen about it. The rest of us need to get just as loud.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWvmkX4oAsQ
     
  2. Penis Aficionado

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    That was awesome.
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Yes it was. We need more of this in the news and on the daily.
     
  4. BOOPO2

    BOOPO2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    2
    I BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCEi--AS LONG AS THEY PAY FOR IT EVERYONE ON ANY TYPE OF ASSISTANCE SHOULD TAKE A DRUG TEST TO QUALIFY ---
     
  5. B_Mister Buildington

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
  6. justasimpleguy

    justasimpleguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Good on ya, Ed. This is the real deal.
     
  7. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Sorry... that's being discussed on a completely different thread, and the answer is no. The war on drugs, in any shape or form, is pointless and a complete waste of money. Your tax contribution to any government sponsored program to help the needy doesn't warrant anyone who qualifies to live up to your superficial standards. Mind your business and keep yourself off drugs.

    Now be a doll and take this, plus any other discriminating rhetoric, to the appropriate thread and keep this one on topic.
     
  8. seterwind

    seterwind New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2005
    Messages:
    216
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Thanks for the post, VinylBoy. Yeah, more of this is needed.
     
  9. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    we NEED the public option plain and simple, i do not trust the insurance companies.
     
  10. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,866
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    Coming from the UK Im rather bemused how the US can put up with not having a nationally organised health system which gives good uniform standards of care irrespective of ability to pay. Or maybe i can. The truth is that basic health care is very cheap and involves having good drains, clean water, food not containing poisons, somewhere warm and dry to live. Then a few effective and cheap vaccinations. Most people get that. Be willing to pay a bit more and you can throw in fixing a broken leg, stitching up cuts and other simple and fundamentally cheap medical interventions. But once you get to transplant intervention, mamoth all day operations, fancy experimental drugs... the costs just skyrocket. Pay as much as you can afford and there will always be something else someone is willing to sell you (and which might even work). The US seems to be locked into a system which just does not understand moderation in health care. Its all or nothing.

    The trick with a state system is to strike a balance between no care and all possible care. There are always going to be people who do not get something which might have kept them going for a bit longer. Doesnt matter how well you fund it. You have to set a level and stick to it. A level which is both affordable when providing care universally and which still gives everyone a fair level of effective care. Anyone who is really rich or really desperate can use their own money to get extra care if that is what they want. Funny how the US has gone off the tracks somewhere turning medicine into a money making business instead of a care giving one.
     
  11. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Unfortunately, there will be no health reform. I'm calling it right here, right now
     
  12. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    the one billion dollar that the insurance companies spent buying congress seems to be money well spent. the best governorment
     
  13. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    the one billion dollars that the insurance companies spent buying congress seems to be money well spent.. I hope your congress people got their fair share I know the ones here in Texas for sure did. the best government money can buy.
     
  14. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    This is one time that I hope you're wrong. I don't think what would get past will be perfect or ideal for everyone, but I hope something goes through. At least get the ball rolling... then we can adjust it as we go along.

    If it works for the gays in the military controversy, it could also work for Health Reform.
     
  15. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope i'm wrong too but as of now, the only thing Washington has managed to accomplish is increasing my premium by 25%...no joke
     
  16. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX

    the entire notion had its origin with the British intelligentsia who had an admiration for the Bolshevik revolution -- a failed notion in its entirety

    the fact is, since European nations have adopted and implemented these various ideas and policies, they have stagnated economically

    not to mention that culturally, they are more in accord with the vassalage that Europeans have always been under, in one form or another, and that has, for the most part been absent in America, unless you are a recipient of the Johnson Administration's attempt at socialism, or its successor programs, or a lib ideologue
     
  17. justasimpleguy

    justasimpleguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    I think Europe has been doing pretty well for itself. I'm not sure what planet you've been living on.

    Nick, it's the opposite of being a vassal. Could vassals vote their lords out? Do people have any control over private corporations comparable to voting to choose their government? No.
     
  18. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    see if you can make the analogy between what you just posted, and:

    Vassalage
    Feudalism or Vassalage is a medieval contractual relationship among the upper classes, by which the ruler of the land grants land (also called fiefs) to his certain deserving persons (the vassal) in return for military service, tithes and suchlike.
    Lord and vassal are interlocked in a web of mutual rights and obligations, to the advantage of both. Whereas the lord owes his vassal protection, the vassal owes his lord military and other services. The lord was expected to provide a court for his vassals who in turn were to provide the lord with counsel before he undertook any initiative of importance to the feudal community as a whole, such as planning a crusade. In addition the lord frequently convened his vassals "to do him honor."
    Financial benefits accrued largely to the lord. A vassal owed the lord a fee knows as relief when he succeeded to his fief, was expected to contribute to the lord's ransom were he captured and to the lord's crusading expenses

    Vassalage
     
  19. justasimpleguy

    justasimpleguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Shocks. It's interesting you used the word. And somehow think that corporatism or neoliberalism or whatever you want to call it produces "freedom" and "prosperity." You might want to read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.

    Oh yeah, vassals had so much power to choose...to challenge ideas like the divine right of kings. It was a nice little arrangement for the people at the top. Not so much for everyone else, which was my point.

    "Free markets" free corporations to pillage and destroy, to sell toxic products to people at inflated prices, to play havoc with supply to create artificial scarcity and so on. Socialism stands opposed to these practices.
     
  20. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,866
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    I think there is much less difference between democracy and dictatorship than is commonly supposed. Taking the example of the UK we take part in elections which do not allow us to chose anything except which of two people already chosen by someone else we like best. This is little different to times gone by when the new king was elected from the best of his predecessors close relatives. It seems to be a fundamental principle of modern 'democracies' that the one thing you never do is allow people to choose the outcome in any real issue. So who in america gets to vote on this years tax rate, level of military spending, how many traffic wardens there should be, whether to bail out banks or invade someone? No one except those few hundred chosen by their own colleagues and predecessors?

    Economic growth is also over rated. How come we need to buy a new tv every 5 years instead of having one which costs twice as much but lasts 4 times as long? Er, that first choice would mean twice the economic growth but no one is better off the slightest bit. Probably they have to spend more time in a factory making those TVs. So thats what you want, more time spent working for someone else with nothing more to show for it? Economic growth is another name for throwing things away which work and making new ones just for the hell of it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted