The Truth About Health Care

BOOPO2

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Posts
51
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
153
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 ---
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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 ---

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.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Unfortunately, there will be no health reform. I'm calling it right here, right now
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,899
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
208
Gender
Male
the one billion dollar that the insurance companies spent buying congress seems to be money well spent. the best governorment
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,899
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
208
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.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Unfortunately, there will be no health reform. I'm calling it right here, right now

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.
 

lucky8

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Posts
3,623
Media
0
Likes
193
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
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
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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.


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
 

justasimpleguy

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
444
Media
37
Likes
1,215
Points
348
Location
Alabama (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
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.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think Europe has been doing pretty well for itself. I'm not sure what planet you've been living on.

I take it history, political science and economics are not your forte:

the econometric evidence suggested that, for a given adverse shock, countries with either long lasting unemployment benefits or high employment protection, or little coordination and centralization of collective bargaining, experienced a larger and longer increase in unemployment. In other words, these particular institutions appeared to generate a larger and longer lasting effect of shocks on unemployment.


http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer04/blanchard.html


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.

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
 

justasimpleguy

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
444
Media
37
Likes
1,215
Points
348
Location
Alabama (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
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.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
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

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.