| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-Misc |
| User: |
"THX1138" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2007 12:09:47 PM |
| Object: |
Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
Do we really want the government running our healtcare?
Do you want the government to decide if your elderly parents live or
die?
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150007/1013/editorial
John Stossel is right. Last week he wrote that the "Healthy Wisconsin"
scheme, passed in that state's Senate and offering supposedly "free"
socialized health care, is good for America because people apparently
need bad examples. As Mr. Stossel says, "We need laboratories of
failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is
Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office, and state motor-
vehicle departments. It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49
states what 'universal' [health] coverage is like. I feel bad for the
people in Wisconsin... but it's better to experiment with one state
than all of America."
More bad examples can be found in Europe. When the topic of health
care crops up I always think of my grandfather. He was very old - 91-
when he died. In his family, longevity was not uncommon. My
grandfather had never been ill. He had never needed medical treatment.
Upon reaching his 90s, however, he began to have a prostate problem
and had to go to the hospital for surgery. Like all Belgians,
throughout his professional life my grandfather had paid wage-related
contributions to cover health insurance. As he had never needed much
health care, he had been a net contributor to the system. Now was the
very first time he was going to claim something back.
My grandfather had his operation in May. In November he was dead. The
prostate operation had gone well, but the hospital administered an
antibiotic drug that caused complete deafness. Though there were
other, but costlier, treatments possible, the hospital gave this drug
to the old man. Hospital staff knew about the possible side effect,
but it did not strike them as an unreasonable and unjust thing to do.
A man who has already had 90 healthy years of his life surely has no
right to complain about deafness when some people get more seriously
ill or die at far younger ages.
When my grandfather left the hospital, he was completely deaf. But his
prostate problem had been cured. According to the clinic, the prostate
operation had been highly successful. As far as the Belgian health-
care statistics were concerned, my grandfather's treatment raised the
quality average. It also had been cheap. Statistics show that Belgium
has a high quality of health care that is relatively cheap, available
to all the country's inhabitants, and virtually free of charge for the
patients. It is the kind of health care that Americans, looking for
comparative statistics, would envy. My deaf grandfather, however, lost
his will to live. Six months after the operation, he was dead.
His predicament is not unique. Certain medical treatments or drugs are
no longer available to Europeans above a certain age. Studies of
kidney dialysis, for example, show that more than a fifth of dialysis
centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to
treat patients over 65 years of age.
My grandfather's deafness was the side effect of an antibiotic that
was given to him because of budgetary constraints in a system
providing "free" health care. More expensive drugs and treatments with
fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients. Political
authorities, claiming to be the guardians of solidarity in society,
deem it less desirable for a young person to be deaf than for an old
one. Hence my grandfather, after having paid heavy wage-related
contributions as a young man to fulfill his solidarity with the sick
and elderly, had to pay the price of deafness to fulfill his
solidarity with the young.
In Europe, old people increasingly receive less care than young people
do. In the United States, ironically, the situation is the reverse.
Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the
Medicare program. In America, the bulk of government health-care
expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of
the government money is spent on those under 65. If European
governments continue this policy, soon euthanasia will be the price
that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes
on the very old and the very sick. European doctors have already
warned about "economic euthanasia."
If Americans need bad examples in order to know what to avoid, then
Europe is a good place to learn from. America has now lost one of its
states to socialism. In Wisconsin there will soon be grandfathers
sharing the fate of my granddad.
.
|
|
| User: "poldy" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
18 Aug 2007 10:38:31 PM |
|
|
In article <1187197787.959532.148180@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
THX1138 <xxxTHX1138xxx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do we really want the government running our healtcare?
Do you want the government to decide if your elderly parents live or
die?
Are the insurance companies raking in billions better?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foobar" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
27 Aug 2007 06:25:25 PM |
|
|
On Aug 18, 11:38 pm, poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:
In article <1187197787.959532.148...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
THX1138 <xxxTHX1138...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do we really want the government running our healtcare?
Do you want the government to decide if your elderly parents live or
die?
Are the insurance companies raking in billions better?
Yup.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 12:40:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:09:47 -0700, THX1138 wrote:
Do we really want the government running our healtcare? Do you want the
government to decide if your elderly parents live or die?
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
DOW JONES REPRINTS
Arnold's Health Flop
August 15, 2007; Page A12
After Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled his universal health-care plan for
California in January, almost everyone was laying down palms in
Sacramento. Here was a Republican Governor putting aside political
squabbling and "doing big things that Washington has failed to do," as
Time magazine put it. What a change seven months later, with the plan on
the cusp of collapse. There's a lesson here about health-care
"bipartisanship" when it's merely a cover for bad policy.
The California legislature is now in the second month of the fiscal year
without a budget. Deadlocks are routine because the state requires a
two-thirds majority of each house to pass spending bills, though they
rarely drag on this long or bitterly. Republicans are taking a hard line
on spending and a $1.4 billion operating deficit; and even though the
budget is just one Senate Republican vote shy of passage, a deal is
unlikely before a recess ends on August 20.
Since the legislative session ends in September, that would mean it's
curtains for Governor Schwarzenegger's health-care reform. The estimated
$12 billion in new taxes that the plan requires also need a two-thirds
majority of both houses. Which is unlikely when the legislature can't even
agree on a budget without them. To get around that, the Governor calls
them "levies," not taxes. Nice try.
The health-care plan is one reason for the gridlock, which speaks to a
political as well as policy failure. In trying to round up Democrats, the
Governor ended up alienating Republicans. No wonder: His plan was never
that conservative or market-based. Like former Governor Mitt Romney's plan
in Massachusetts, it turns on an individual mandate. That is, it requires
all residents to buy insurance or get it from the state or their employers
-- or otherwise face penalties such as garnished wages.
Once again, a state's universal health-care dreams have run up against
fiscal realities. Besides the budget fight, the plan's viability was
contingent on $3.7 billion in annual subsidies the Governor has been
requesting to expand MediCal (Medicare) and "Healthy Families," part of
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This money is unlikely to
materialize, given that the 2006 federal budget called for $4.6 billion in
health-care cuts to California over the next decade.
The plan also ran into a buzzsaw because of the damage it would do to
California's employment and insurance markets. In what's called "play or
pay," businesses would have to cover their employees or pay a 3.5% payroll
tax to fund a new state-run insurance program for low-income workers.
Doctors would be required to pay 2% and hospitals 4% of gross revenues to
fund the same -- assuming they could stay in practice at all.
Governor Schwarz-enegger's "bipartisanship" also provided an opening for
state Democrats, who have long desired, but have usually been frustrated
in passing, a liberal overhaul of the health-care system. They saw his
plan and raised, proposing a 7.5% payroll tax -- another example of "play
or pay" becoming "pay or pay." It would also compel onerous insurance
regulations like mandated coverage levels and premium ceilings.
The Governor has tried to make the Democratic plan a selling point for his
"less burdensome" alternative. But he would merely over-regulate insurance
in other ways. He wants "guaranteed issue," which means insurers must
accept all comers, allowing people to wait until they're sick to buy
insurance. He also wants "community rating," which means that insurance
premiums cannot vary based on age or health status. Cost-drivers like
these are already a main reason between four million and 6.5 million
Californians are uninsured now.
In beating the drum for his plan, Mr. Schwarzenegger has often deplored
what he calls the "hidden tax" of the current health-care system.
Supposedly that describes the extent to which the costs of treating the
uninsured shift to those who have insurance, thus making an argument for
universal care.
Yet researchers at Stanford led by Dan Kessler ran the figures and
demolished this claim. The total burden of this "cost shifting" in
California amounted to only 2.8% of premiums in the 2000s. That's not
nothing, but in the Governor's hands this modest hidden tax is an excuse
for larger unhidden taxes. Perhaps the puncturing of this argument will
prevent it from being deployed in the 2008 health-care debate, though
don't count on it.
If Arnold's plan does fail, it will join "universal" health-care dreams in
Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other states that were also unveiled
to hosannas but flopped once the fine print and costs were exposed. Alas,
the failure of these state reforms probably won't diminish political
agitation for similar attempts that Democrats or Mr. Romney might propose
in Washington. But it should.
.
|
|
|
| User: "THX1138" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 01:30:47 PM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 1:40 pm, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:09:47 -0700, THX1138 wrote:
Do we really want the government running our healtcare? Do you want the
government to decide if your elderly parents live or die?
People just dont understand that there is no free lunch when it comes
to universal health care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "benrrrrrrrrand, esq" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 03:20:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:30:47 -0700, THX1138 <xxxTHX1138xxx@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Aug 15, 1:40 pm, KK <_...@furburger.net> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:09:47 -0700, THX1138 wrote:
Do we really want the government running our healtcare? Do you want the
government to decide if your elderly parents live or die?
People just dont understand that there is no free lunch when it comes
to universal health care.
It's because the government has been running the schools.
Look at the WONDERFUL job they've done so far...they've been very
successful at fucking kids over and allowing the turds who teach free
reign to do as such.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 01:41:39 PM |
|
|
THX1138 wrote:
People just dont understand that there is no free lunch when it comes
to universal health care.
unfortunately the paid for lunch with private health care is leaving folks
missing things like better outcomes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "THX1138" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 07:28:21 PM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 2:41 pm, Art Clemons <ArtClem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
THX1138 wrote:
People just dont understand that there is no free lunch when it comes
to universal health care.
unfortunately the paid for lunch with private health care is leaving folks
missing things like better outcomes.
really? mine is fine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 08:31:39 PM |
|
|
THX1138 wrote:
really? mine is fine.
What about the folks with substandard plans or no insurance at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "THX1138" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 09:23:22 PM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 9:31 pm, Art Clemons <ArtClem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
THX1138 wrote:
really? mine is fine.
What about the folks with substandard plans or no insurance at all?
what about medicaid? what about the fact that no hospital by law can
turn you away for treatment
regardless if you have or have no coverage?
Why is it important that the government control our healtcare? IF we
are going to spend millions of dollars
on shitty govt. run care, why not spend that money on fixing the
current system? We cant even educate our
kids in public schools today and the assholes in congress want to
control my healthcare. scary considering how in
the U.K. if you are over 65, you are screwed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 09:34:54 PM |
|
|
THX1138 wrote:
what about medicaid? what about the fact that no hospital by law can
turn you away for treatment
regardless if you have or have no coverage?
No hospital is allowed to turn you away for emergency treatment, that's an
entirely different scenario than not being able to turn away patients
otherwise. I also note that lots of folks with no coverage end up owing
incredible amounts of money for the same services that health insurers pay
less than three thousand dollars to the hospital as compensation. Many of
the folks who used to declare bankruptcy were escaping medical debts rather
than credit cards.
Why is it important that the government control our healtcare? IF we
are going to spend millions of dollars
on shitty govt. run care, why not spend that money on fixing the
current system? We cant even educate our
kids in public schools today and the assholes in congress want to
control my healthcare. scary considering how in
the U.K. if you are over 65, you are screwed.
How silly your points are. Most folks in the US are quite pleased with
public education, it's mostly the poor and dark who get poorly served by
public schools in the US.
I also note that you're repeating propaganda from those opposed to single
payer health care in the US. People over 65 still get treated in the UK,
why not look at the figures. Why not note that people there statistically
have a greater life expectancy than in the US, now how can that be if those
over 65 don't get treatment? Further I note how you ignore France as a
model or how you ignore Germany, you're cherry picking what to complain
about in other countries and ignoring the better results no matter how you
measure in those countries.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/08/13/life.expectancy.ap/
.
|
|
|
| User: "THX1138" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 06:56:12 AM |
|
|
No hospital is allowed to turn you away for emergency treatment, that's an
entirely different scenario than not being able to turn away patients
otherwise. I also note that lots of folks with no coverage end up owing
incredible amounts of money for the same services that health insurers pay
less than three thousand dollars to the hospital as compensation. Many of
the folks who used to declare bankruptcy were escaping medical debts rather
than credit cards.
the hospital is not allowed to turn you away and they supposed to
find a way for you to pay it even if it mean medicaid.
How silly your points are. Most folks in the US are quite pleased with
public education, it's mostly the poor and dark who get poorly served by
public schools in the US.
my points are not silly. The school system is this country sucks
period.
how about all the white kids who go to philly schools?
I also note that you're repeating propaganda from those opposed to single
payer health care in the US. People over 65 still get treated in the UK,
why not look at the figures.
I did. this is not the first time this was reported.
liberals tend to think there is a bottomless pit of money somewhere to
fund this awfull
social exeriement.
Why not note that people there statistically
have a greater life expectancy than in the US, now how can that be if those
over 65 don't get treatment? Further I note how you ignore France as a
model or how you ignore Germany, you're cherry picking what to complain
about in other countries and ignoring the better results no matter how you
measure in those countries. http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/08/13/life.expectancy.ap/
It seems you and other liberals are hell bent on replacing the current
system with an imoral
one that decides who lives or dies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 07:27:18 AM |
|
|
THX1138 wrote:
the hospital is not allowed to turn you away and they supposed to
find a way for you to pay it even if it mean medicaid.
I think you miss the point. Hospitals for example don't have to treat let's
say your skin condition unless it constitutes an emergency. Hospitals also
get to charge outrageous and high rates for services and then bill the
uninsured.
Patients can't be turned away in an emergency but continuing care isn't
required. Hospitals turn away patients regularly if just by demanding some
high fee when service is rendered in non-emergency situations. Hospitals
can also refuse to accept some forms of insurance including a state's
medicaid plan.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 10:27:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:34:54 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
ost folks in the US are quite pleased with
public education
How long of a fucking neck do you have for your head to be so deep in the
sand?
Our public education system is "quite pleasing" to people?
Social Security is a "well-run" government program?
Government bureaucrats are efficient employees?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 05:51:07 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
How long of a fucking neck do you have for your head to be so deep in the
sand?
Our public education system is "quite pleasing" to people?
I said most people were satisfied with their local public schools, that's
not bologna, but reality.
From 2000
http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues114.shtml
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0409pol.htm
Social Security is a "well-run" government program?
It is actually, the money is disbursed on time, the really poor survive on
SS, and funding it is practical as projected for at least 30 years.
Government bureaucrats are efficient employees?
I'm surprised how by applying the term bureaucrat, you think you've made a
point. Geo Bush, your apparent hero is a bureaucrat, in fact, the
bureaucrat in chief, since he's the head of the executive branch. Almost
anyone working for the executive branch can be classified as a bureaucrat,
including the folks in the military. It's not probative of anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
17 Aug 2007 08:05:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:51:07 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
KK wrote:
How long of a fucking neck do you have for your head to be so deep in
the sand?
Our public education system is "quite pleasing" to people?
I said most people were satisfied with their local public schools, that's
not bologna, but reality.
Not according to your links - from a teacher's association, no less (bias?
No way!).
The poll you quote said people would rather pay to fix public schools than
have voucher programs. Far from saying that public education is "quite
pleasing" to people, it says that they acknowledge it's got problems that
need to be fixed.
So - your "supporting evidence" pretty much says the opposite of what you
intended it to.
Social Security is a "well-run" government program?
It is actually, the money is disbursed on time, the really poor survive on
SS
The same could be said for a Ponzi scheme before the bottom falls out.
and funding it is practical as projected for at least 30 years.
.... at which time the people who have been paying in for 40-50 years are
fucked. That sounds great!
Government bureaucrats are efficient employees?
I'm surprised how by applying the term bureaucrat, you think you've made a
point. Geo Bush, your apparent hero
How many times do I have to repeat to you dolts that I am not a
Republican, or that I think George Bush is a dolt? That one team sucks
doesn't mean yours doesn't.
is a bureaucrat, in fact, the
bureaucrat in chief, since he's the head of the executive branch. Almost
anyone working for the executive branch can be classified as a bureaucrat,
including the folks in the military. It's not probative of anything.
I didn't say the term 'bureaucrat' proved anything. It's not my evidence,
it's my proposition. There's another definition for bureaucrat, though:
- an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent
judgment.
Which is the one I meant. And anyone who has dealt with local, state, or
federal government will understand exactly where I'm coming from.
If the thought of government being in charge of what doctor you can see or
what procedures you're allowed doesn't frighten you, you must be a
government worker yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
17 Aug 2007 09:26:23 AM |
|
|
KK wrote:
Not according to your links - from a teacher's association, no less (bias?
No way!).
The poll you quote said people would rather pay to fix public schools than
have voucher programs. Far from saying that public education is "quite
pleasing" to people, it says that they acknowledge it's got problems that
need to be fixed.
So - your "supporting evidence" pretty much says the opposite of what you
intended it to.
I suggest you read the polling results section again. Comprehension should
dawn on you.
Social Security is a "well-run" government program?
It is actually, the money is disbursed on time, the really poor survive
on SS
The same could be said for a Ponzi scheme before the bottom falls out.
Ponzi schemes don't have funding. One other way to look at SS is as the
equivalent of issued bonds which get paid off later with the revenue then
available.
and funding it is practical as projected for at least 30 years.
... at which time the people who have been paying in for 40-50 years are
fucked. That sounds great!
The present worst case scenario would have recipients of SS getting 70%,
that's not quite the setup you envision apparently but it is what the
projections indicate. SS only fails if people stop paying into it.
Government bureaucrats are efficient employees?
I'm surprised how by applying the term bureaucrat, you think you've made
a point. Geo Bush, your apparent hero
How many times do I have to repeat to you dolts that I am not a
Republican, or that I think George Bush is a dolt? That one team sucks
doesn't mean yours doesn't.
It's amazing how your opposition seems to accord with doltish dumbya on the
issue of health care.
is a bureaucrat, in fact, the
bureaucrat in chief, since he's the head of the executive branch. Almost
anyone working for the executive branch can be classified as a
bureaucrat, including the folks in the military. It's not probative of
anything.
I didn't say the term 'bureaucrat' proved anything. It's not my evidence,
it's my proposition. There's another definition for bureaucrat, though:
- an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent
judgment.
Which is the one I meant. And anyone who has dealt with local, state, or
federal government will understand exactly where I'm coming from.
If the thought of government being in charge of what doctor you can see or
what procedures you're allowed doesn't frighten you, you must be a
government worker yourself.
Government isn't normally in charge of which doctor you can see in most non
US systems. What it is in charge of, is paying for medical care and
surprisingly enough prescriptions too. Oh yeah, you also likely won't be
able to get your treatment by a homeopathic physician reimbursed either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
17 Aug 2007 11:12:59 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:26:23 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
It's amazing how your opposition seems to accord with doltish dumbya on
the
issue of health care.
My thoughts on government-controlled health care coincide with those of
most americans. Ditto that for SS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
19 Aug 2007 02:18:27 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
My thoughts on government-controlled health care coincide with those of
most americans. Ditto that for SS.
Most Americans seem to approve of SS and want it to continue. Plans for
privatization don't seem to have caught on.
We don't know how the public would react to what you term government
controlled health care for a good reason, it isn't an option presently in
the US except for those utilizing Medicare.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
20 Aug 2007 08:17:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:18:27 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
My thoughts on government-controlled health care coincide with those of
most americans. Ditto that for SS.
Most Americans seem to approve of SS and want it to continue.
*****. 80 percent of those currently paying in would opt-out if given
the option.
Plans for
privatization don't seem to have caught on.
Plans for privatization were never seriously proposed.
We don't know how the public would react to what you term government
controlled health care
What the ***** do you call it? Government would determine your coverage,
your benefits, and which treatments and by what doctor you'd be allowed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
20 Aug 2007 11:32:33 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
My thoughts on government-controlled health care coincide with those of
most americans. Ditto that for SS.
Most Americans seem to approve of SS and want it to continue.
*****. 80 percent of those currently paying in would opt-out if given
the option.
And your basis for this is? What reputable polling org has backed this
nonsensical claim?
Plans for
privatization don't seem to have caught on.
Plans for privatization were never seriously proposed.
I don't remember ever seeing the public clamoring for having a sink or swim
retirement setup. SS isn't great but you also can't point to any private
setup around the world that's really worked for a first world nation. Even
Chile flopped badly and that was touted as an example to be followed by
those in favor of privatization.
We don't know how the public would react to what you term government
controlled health care
What the ***** do you call it? Government would determine your coverage,
your benefits, and which treatments and by what doctor you'd be allowed.
Where in the first world is there a setup where people are assigned to
physicians or other health care providers. That's not the system in Great
Britain, France, Germany or Canada? You're spouting dogma without a basis
in fact.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "lab~rat :-" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 11:18:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:27:33 GMT, KK <_KK_@furburger.net> puked:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:34:54 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
ost folks in the US are quite pleased with
public education
How long of a fucking neck do you have for your head to be so deep in the
sand?
Our public education system is "quite pleasing" to people?
Social Security is a "well-run" government program?
Government bureaucrats are efficient employees?
Stop feeding the troll...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Stupid humans...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 02:16:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:41:39 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
unfortunately the paid for lunch with private health care is leaving folks
missing things like better outcomes.
The existing system is bad. A government-run system would be worse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
15 Aug 2007 02:35:25 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
The existing system is bad. A government-run system would be worse.
All of the available evidence points to private systems not being very
efficient. You have no evidence backing your claims, yet all of the
industrialized nations with government run systems seem to be producing
better results than the US.
What evidence do you have that the private system will be better, cheaper or
more efficient for the US as a whole than a government run one? You have
an hypothesis based on other claims but no evidence, may I suggest you need
to think this through.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Someonetoblame" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 11:13:00 AM |
|
|
On Aug 15, 3:35 pm, Art Clemons <ArtClem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
KK wrote:
The existing system is bad. A government-run system would be worse.
All of the available evidence points to private systems not being very
efficient. You have no evidence backing your claims, yet all of the
industrialized nations with government run systems seem to be producing
better results than the US.
What evidence do you have that the private system will be better, cheaper or
more efficient for the US as a whole than a government run one? You have
an hypothesis based on other claims but no evidence, may I suggest you need
to think this through.
You fail to mention how the working class live in these government run
systems. Yes, you may be able to walk into a clinic and not pay a dime
but the person paying for it cannot afford a plane ticket to visit his
nephew in the states. Yet if my uncle live here, he would be a
millionare. I don't put a visit above someones health but why not go
after the real problem. Forcing others problems on me is not a free
country. Helping people because your government didn't take all your
money is. And the invention my uncle created was for the medical field.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 02:27:29 PM |
|
|
Someonetoblame wrote:
You fail to mention how the working class live in these government run
systems. Yes, you may be able to walk into a clinic and not pay a dime
but the person paying for it cannot afford a plane ticket to visit his
nephew in the states. Yet if my uncle live here, he would be a
millionare. I don't put a visit above someones health but why not go
after the real problem. Forcing others problems on me is not a free
country. Helping people because your government didn't take all your
money is. And the invention my uncle created was for the medical field.
Uh how many working class folks working at let's say Walmart can afford to
take a trip to visit their relatives in Germany?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Someonetoblame" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
20 Aug 2007 08:17:08 AM |
|
|
On Aug 16, 3:27 pm, Art Clemons <ArtClem...@aolSPAM.com> wrote:
Someonetoblame wrote:
You fail to mention how the working class live in these government run
systems. Yes, you may be able to walk into a clinic and not pay a dime
but the person paying for it cannot afford a plane ticket to visit his
nephew in the states. Yet if my uncle live here, he would be a
millionare. I don't put a visit above someones health but why not go
after the real problem. Forcing others problems on me is not a free
country. Helping people because your government didn't take all your
money is. And the invention my uncle created was for the medical field.
Uh how many working class folks working at let's say Walmart can afford to
take a trip to visit their relatives in Germany?
Probably none, but at least it was their choice to work at Walmart.
But it sounds like you think anyone who is rich somehow owe the people
who decided to work at Walmart?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
20 Aug 2007 11:28:02 PM |
|
|
Someonetoblame wrote:
Probably none, but at least it was their choice to work at Walmart.
But it sounds like you think anyone who is rich somehow owe the people
who decided to work at Walmart?
Since I responded to a claim that working class folk in Europe couldn't
regularly fly to the US with the counter example of Walmart employees,
what's your point? I strongly suspect most folks working at Walmart are
there because there aren't readily available better jobs, which makes it a
choice between not having a job (or part time employment) or working for
Walmart.
One other point, may I suggest researching how executives of major firms are
beginning to complain about how the US is partially non-competitive with
the rest of the world because employers are expected to pay for medical
coverage, and at a higher rate than taxes in other countries. I don't have
much love for Walmart, and don't shop there, but then again, low quality at
low prices isn't really much of a bargain from my perspective.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 03:01:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:27:29 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
Someonetoblame wrote:
Uh how many working class folks working at let's say Walmart can afford to
take a trip to visit their relatives in Germany?
I flew standby to London from NYC a few years ago for $199.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Clemons" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
16 Aug 2007 05:24:54 PM |
|
|
KK wrote:
I flew standby to London from NYC a few years ago for $199.
That doesn't answer the question though, there are only a limited number of
cheap seats on most flights to Europe or indeed much of the US, so how many
working class people get to fly to Europe cheaply? I suggest that cheap
seats go fast and usually to those who can either travel on standby with
the risk it won't work, or those who understand the booking system and know
when to book a flight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "KK" |
|
| Title: Re: Costly 'affordable' health care - washington Times |
17 Aug 2007 08:10:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:24:54 -0400, Art Clemons wrote:
KK wrote:
I flew standby to London from NYC a few years ago for $199.
That doesn't answer the question though, there are only a limited number
of cheap seats on most flights to Europe or indeed much of the US, so how
many working class people get to fly to Europe cheaply? I suggest that
cheap seats go fast and usually to those who can either travel on standby
with the risk it won't work, or those who understand the booking system
and know when to book a flight.
So, what you're saying is that someone whose life choices led them to a
career at Wal-Mart should be entitled to jet over to Europe cheaply and
without inconvenience?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
