I for one do not want to have choice presented to me at every turn. I am busy enough as it is without having to wade through competing options for provision of gas, electricity, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Printable View
I for one do not want to have choice presented to me at every turn. I am busy enough as it is without having to wade through competing options for provision of gas, electricity, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Then you have made your choice. Don't force that on me, and I won't force my choice on you. Simple, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Why should I pay taxes for the socialist government provided single military for? If there were several choices, I could choose which military I'd want to defend me.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I think I'd prefer to choose a far cheaper one than the one I currently have. Surely we don't need that many planes, bombs and troops. New Zealand has a cheaper military, and they've never really been invaded.
Then ammend the Constitution and you're on your way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Many people, not just Americans would argue it is their large military presence that sorta mitigates anyone invading NZ, or CAnada for that matter. It is allowed some stupid people in this country to pretty much wipe out our military capabilities from what they were in the 50's and 60's. Still doesn't change the fact people need a military so they can at least assert some form of their sovreignty and participate as somewhat equal partners in UN based military actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
So let me get this straight: You look for the best deal for your utilities, or the way you get your TV (cable or dish?),the best deal to buy a car or a mortgage; and THEN it is too much hassle to shop for the best deal on health insurance? You just let the government assume that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Sorry Ben, I don't buy THAT for a second. You may be very left of center, but if you shop carefully for a tin of soup or anything else, you should be given the option of shopping for your insurance. I am not even given the option in my country....and that is my only wish. That I had a choice....
They wont say they want Canada's system in the bills before the Senate and Congress because they know they would lose half the "Blue Democrats" and not get the bill passed. They want to enter the free market with their version of health insurance, and use the private insurers to subsidize their scheme. When the private insurers find out they cannot compete because of this, they will mostly bail on the whole idea of providing health insurance and over time, you end up with a mainly private system. This is the theory I have heard, and it I do think there is some merit to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I have no problem with private insurers existing with public system, but the government in question here is losing money hand over fist with the medicare/medicaid systems in existence now. Why should they regulate the game and participate in it ? I have no love for profiteering and HMO's not doing right by their patients, but a more unrestricted competitive enviroment would punish bad insurers. What the government of the US wants to do is play in the game and regulate it further. Right now, health insurers have to go state by state, which is a LOT more inefficient......
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/...bama_economy_5
They can't even get the deficit number right. Who still believes that this health care plan will "only" cost $1,000,000,000,000? Anyone?
Forget all the other arguments, how do we afford this?
Did you read the link you posted? I quote from it:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The new numbers come as he prods Congress to enact a major overhaul of the health care system — one that could cost $1 trillion or more over 10 years.
$1 trillion over 10 years = $100 million per year.
If you wish that's only 4% of the $2.26 trillion on health that the U.S. spent care in 2007.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...s/proj2007.pdf
4% of total outlays to overhaul a system that at the moment isn't working sounds like an absolute bargain. Simple mathematics tells us that.
That would be $100 billion a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Yes it would. But it would still be only 4%.
<Dang. I wish I could go back in time and learn how to spell.
DOES SOMEONE HAVE A SPARE TARDIS I COULD BORROW? :D >
Haven't you heard. We are running deficits. Huge freaking deficits. About $9,000,000,000,000 in deficits in the next 10 years. That means WE HAVE NO MONEY. NONE. 4%, 1%, 0.5%, 0.000000004%, it doesn't matter, that would be MORE than we have. Don't you get that? If you are personally in bankruptcy, can't pay your bills, have more money going out than comming in, what is the solution? Buy a bunch of more stuff? Come on man, that's crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
And yes the system is broken. NO ONE disputes that. But there are about 75-80% of the people in this country that are at least somewhat satisfied with their healthcare. So why should we (further) mortgage the futures of our childeren's childeren's childeren's childeren, to "fix" a system that for the majority works? Let's work on fixing the system for the 15-20% of Americans that are currently using the broken system. You know the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid systems that are already administered by the government.
WoooooHoooooo.
Gotta love that British Universal healthcare.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-toilets.html
No, I don't shop for the best deal for my utilities. If there is a massive difference in price, then I would be tempted, but generally when I am responsible for the utilities where I live I get the gas from British Gas, the electricity from whatever the nearest thing to the local electricity board is, and so on. I can't be bothered to shop around for these things. It takes time I would rather spend doing other things and hassle I don't want. Far better the simple option. Likewise when I go shopping - I don't choose solely on the basis of value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Gotta love the fact that your choice of source is the paper of choice for unthinking morons.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The british are unthinking morons? Aren't you from a country that gave us Hitler and you call others unthinking morons?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Que Cojones!
Well the sad think is that you morons are still multiplying. What are you going to do with your kids - give them to the Islams for canon fodder?? Get real what have you young s done for the world. over populate deplete all the resources, cause global warming, arm rogue nations with nuclear arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
you people are disgusting and we brought you in to a pretty damn good world.
Look at you 1/3 of you are gay and incompetent and are cowards 1/3 of you are corrupt and have no integrity, and stretching it 1/3 of you may be a acceptable citizen!!
Get a frreaking mirror and have a look
The daily mail is a red top paper with an agenda to burn. Most educated people understand this and ignore it's opinions.
Vop, a low blow at Germany and Hitler is pretty pathetic. Can't you come up with a decent well thought ouyt reply instead of silly school boy insults?
Fousto, I have absolutely no idea where your rant comes from and how it relates to healthcare. Telling BDunnell to looking in the mirror is slighly rich with your extremest views.
No it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
I'm not defending that odious rag, but it isn't a red top.
BBB you are right but I suppose I just view the stuff it publishes as nothing more than a red top with an axe to grind.
Yes, it is for those who share many of the views of red-top readers but believe that they are somehow a cut above the hoi polloi.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
So no one wants to talk about how we can actually afford this? Rollo? At least you are trying. Anyone?
I am British.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Again, you demonstrate why your opinions can never be taken seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by fousto
Let's face it, the quality of the national debate in the USA in general has been appalling, largely thanks to such wonderful insights such as those about Stephen Hawking that ought to have been the subject of some sort of law suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
So since it's been "appalling", let's just give up? Without SOMEONE trying to have a real, honest debate about this we'll end up with something NO ONE likes. Why give up? If you are right, prove it. If I or they, or whoever is wrong, prove it. If debate is given up on, we're all lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I am always suspicious when what is called for by politicians and others is a 'debate'. How is this meant to be conducted in a sensible manner, without the loudest, most extreme voices (like Sarah Palin in this 'debate') being those that gain the most attention? How is any conclusion supposed to be reached that will appeal to anything like everybody? Can everybody be expected to understand the issues being put to them anything like well enough to reach an informed judgement? I'm afraid I tend to think that such calls for debates are, by and large, meaningless, and an excuse to avoid taking an actual decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The obvious thing would be to not necessarily raise taxes, but to impose a levy on the existing medical insurance companies. As far as I can make out, they're on the take in a major and bloody obvious way. If there was some system of regulation of what the maximum allowable charges were for procedures and medical items, then the access to the system would be more equitable in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
People going into bankruptcy because they've had some medical procedure is quite frankly proves that people can not afford the existing system. Any overhaul has to be better in principle than what currently exists.
In Australia, there is a 1.5% tax imposed on income for the maintenance of the medical system, as well as a rebate for having private medical insurance. The system works as well as any other in the world I suppose.
But it took 11 years after the passing of the Health Insurance Act 1973, for Medicare as we know it in Australia to jump through all of the legal hoops.
The big problem with the American health care system is that so much power is vested with unelected people, making extravagant sums of money from it - and you're all paying for it.
What is it with you and mentioning Hitler?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I think he (foustina) actually has a deep seated, repressed admiration (dare I say 'love') for Adolf, presuming that is of course, that foustino is a real person ........
given that you can't have a normal discussion with him without the 'H' word being mentioned. :)
Come on foustus post a photo of yourself so that we know you are real..... :)
So why have any debate at all. Whatever party gets in the majority, just passes anything and everything they want. That sounds like a good system. At least try to have a debate. At the very least it could be fun, maybe. And if someone is so extreme and wrong, as you say Sarah Palin is, then it shouldn't be too hard for someone with all the facts on their side to disprove said extreme person. If you can't logically talk your way through the points to convince people (or at least try to) that your side is right, how do you know that your view point is the correct one?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'm not saying there should be no debate. But how does such a debate work? The only accurate means of coming to a conclusion is surely to have a national referendum. I always cringe when I hear politicians calling for 'an open and honest national debate' on something. What exactly does this mean? How should it be conducted?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...rofit-not-rec/
Sure they make profits, but why are profits so "evil"?
That, I'm convinced, will lead to shortages of doctors and services because of less incentive for the doctors to perform their jobs. As far as I can tell, the premise of all this seems to be that doctors and insurance companies are evil and greedy. Why is it that if you start telling doctors and insurance companies what they can make (and that is less than what they currently make) that they all of a sudden become compassionate individuals that will do all this "good" out of the kindness of their hearts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Yes, but why does the government have to take over the industry to do this? A simple bill that says insurance companies can not drop coverage for people activly undergoing treatment would go a long way to stopping this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
You said earlier that you didn't want to raise taxes, now you do? Obama has said over and over that he won't raise taxes on anyone that makes under $250,000 a year. How can you square that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
The power being vested in unelected people will not change even if the government takes over the entire system. Career beaurocrats will be running the system and they are unelected. There will always be people making loads of money, and sadly we're probably always going to pay for it one way or another. The trick is to harness the greed of those people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Well for starters, when the Senators and Congressmen are on break (like they are now) they should be required to have X number of OPEN townhall type meetings. And then actually listen to their constituents, instead of dismissing them as "right wing nut jobs".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
National referendums are a nice idea, and perhaps they should be discussed. But currently I'm not sure how that would work. I don't know if that has ever happened in the US. The US is not a direct democracy. We are a representative democracy, for better or worse.
But what happens at such events? The loudest, most extreme voices tend to be the ones that garner the most prominence whether or not they are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
If they aren't correct, then the Senator or Congressman needs to calmly and rationally dispel their concerns/fears. Instead all they do is shout back, or call them paid nut jobs, and ignore them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
How else do you propose to do things? National referendums for everything? That would be very hard to organize.
This news article is utter nonsense. This paper is just like Fox News...Lies, lies and more lies. Yet the sad thing is, that people actually believe this crap :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I have never ever heard of this happening in our hospitals...I asked a friend of mine whom works in a NHS hospital about this and her words were " first ive heard of it"
Then why is there a German Flag under you screen name?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Fox news is the only credible news organization in the US. All the others are just Democrat party mouthpieces. At least Fox is middle of the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
Look at all the crying over the death of teddy by the other networks. The numbers of viewers are down and yet they are treating it like the death of a sitting President. Not a senator.
Because one has a choice as to which flag one has under one's name. I am aware that choosing not to display the flag of one's own country might be considered practically treasonous by your sort, but I don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop