Political discussion, including, but not limited to, the Iraq war and Bush II

[Jon L]

Maybe off-topic here (in off-topic forum \), but from outsider's perspective, things I'm truly (seriously) grateful for the USA:

5. tom waits

Amen, brother.

I will also add that as much I despise political hacks here in America, the political hacks in other countries are far, far, FAR worse, especially in countries where politicians have heavy influence on the media.

That brings up another point. As much as I despise American media hacks, the media hacks in other countries tend to be far worse.

Damn, I LOVE this country

[tyrion]

aardvark, so what is it that Glen Beck said in the You Tube clip do you find to be so informative and supportive of some argument against Clinton or Obama for that matter. I watched the entire clip and found nothing profound. Do you enjoy paying $3.50/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits. Or is it our fault for buying it and if we don't like it we can stop and the price will go down? As if this is a possibility as our society exist at present. I can't imagine what it's like for someone making say $50,000 a year, paying $50 or more a week just so he or she can get back and forth to work and take the kids where they need to go. Is it our fault for letting it happen, absolutely but it's not like much has been done in the last 7 years or 15 to change it. There are a number of studies that suggest that Medicare is a far more efficient provider of health coverage than are private insurers. I've read those that say this is not so but they seem to be industry sponsored in some way. If medicare was a the single payer, think of the clout if would have in the marketplace to negotiate costs with drug companies for example. Is it the best possible system? I don't know but I am willing to give it or some form of it a try to see if it's better than what we have now. Especially if it will give those 47,000,000 (9,000,000 of which are children) do not have access to heath insurance. This is America, is that how we want to treat our own? What does that say about us? If it means those that have, need to sacrifice a bit, so what. I thought sacrifice for our country was an honorable thing to do. Military service, Peace Corp, etc are all sacrifices some make for others. One of the reasons there aren't riots in the streets over this war is because no one other than the soldiers, sailors, marines and their families have been asked to sacrifice. I'm not rich but I certainly do well. I would bet I will pay more in taxes than some on this board make in a year for a living. Having said that, if it means I have to pay some more so those 47,000,000 get insurance coverage then so be it. I believe that providing for those that need help is what makes this country great. The fact that in times of need people are willing to sacrifice to help others. Sure there are those that are just lazy and don't deserve our help but are you going to punish those that just aren't able to make enough money to buy health insurance despite their hard work because of those lazy ones? I hope not. Something needs to change and I don't pretend for a moment to think that the Dems have all the answers but I am certain that the Rebublicans don't. I'm ready for another party but not at the sacrifice of putting another Republican in the Oval Office. Put in a Dem and then I will be ready to look to supporting a third party.

[deepak]

And in Univ. Health care, the Doctors end up getting paid less, which long term means fewer doctors. Kind of like the OBGYN in America, that has deteriorated due to the multitude of lawsuits against doctors. Now no one wants to go into that field.

I think the main fault with universal health care is its high dose of "The law of unintended consequences".

Obgyn is still competitive. You won't be raking it in like the good old days, but if you go specialize in infertility you can still make a million a year.

[saint.panda]

I've read that one problem with not having universal health care is that a lot of people, when young and/or unsickly, do not pay for health insurance and gamble against needing a doctor, safe in the knowledge that they can free-load off those paying insurance if they find themselves in hospital. So there are proportionally more elder and sick people in the insurance schemes and since those without insurance coverage usually cannot pay for that care, the bill is passed on to everyone else, driving up premiums. Higher premiums, in turn, increase the ranks of the uninsured. Adverse selection, free riding and rising costs.

I'm sure this isn't the only explanation but there must be some reason why Americans pay the most per head on health (16% per GDP, almost double that of Germany or Britian) but at the same have experienced the least decline in avoidable deaths according to a study. Note that big improvements were recorded in countries that started with both low levels of avoidable deaths like France and those with already higher levels like Britain.

I believe the American health system is also one with the least IT penetration, which could reduce costs if pursued mor vigilantly.

Anyways, the situation in Europe is far form ideal either, but I would say that it's better. I often read that the problem with health care is not how you raise the money but how you spend it. Britain does it via taxation, Germany via social security (which raises labour costs, which is bad, too). Britian has injected competition into the health market by giving more and more hospitals a "foundation" status, which gives them more independence and therefore encourages them to compete for business. Also, many hospitals are starting to get paid according to the amount of work they do. So the focus is not about how to raise the money but how to tackle the roots of rising health-care costs by getting medical markets to function more effectively. I think Milton Friedman already said that 50 years ago.

[deepak]

aardvark, so what is it that Glen Beck said in the You Tube clip do you find to be so informative and supportive of some argument against Clinton or Obama for that matter. I watched the entire clip and found nothing profound. Do you enjoy paying $3.50/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits. Or is it our fault for buying it and if we don't like it we can stop and the price will go down? As if this is a possibility as our society exist at present. I can't imagine what it's like for someone making say $50,000 a year, paying $50 or more a week just so he or she can get back and forth to work and take the kids where they need to go. Is it our fault for letting it happen, absolutely but it's not like much has been done in the last 7 years or 15 to change it. There are a number of studies that suggest that Medicare is a far more efficient provider of health coverage than are private insurers. I've read those that say this is not so but they seem to be industry sponsored in some way. If medicare was a the single payer, think of the clout if would have in the marketplace to negotiate costs with drug companies for example. Is it the best possible system? I don't know but I am willing to give it or some form of it a try to see if it's better than what we have now. Especially if it will give those 47,000,000 (9,000,000 of which are children) do not have access to heath insurance. This is America, is that how we want to treat our own? What does that say about us? If it means those that have, need to sacrifice a bit, so what. I thought sacrifice for our country was an honorable thing to do. Military service, Peace Corp, etc are all sacrifices some make for others. One of the reasons there aren't riots in the streets over this war is because no one other than the soldiers, sailors, marines and their families have been asked to sacrifice. I'm not rich but I certainly do well. I would bet I will pay more in taxes than some on this board make in a year for a living. Having said that, if it means I have to pay some more so those 47,000,000 get insurance coverage then so be it. I believe that providing for those that need help is what makes this country great. The fact that in times of need people are willing to sacrifice to help others. Sure there are those that are just lazy and don't deserve our help but are you going to punish those that just aren't able to make enough money to buy health insurance despite their hard work because of those lazy ones? I hope not. Something needs to change and I don't pretend for a moment to think that the Dems have all the answers but I am certain that the Rebublicans don't. I'm ready for another party but not at the sacrifice of putting another Republican in the Oval Office. Put in a Dem and then I will be ready to look to supporting a third party.

In general (these are very big generalizations) from what I've seen Americans are more for country and self and Europeans (especially Norwegians and French) are more progressive thinking about their health care systems. But their socialized health care has been around for a long time so it's not such a stretch.

In it's current state I think the US health care system would collapse if even attempted to go universal or full social security.

[Dusty Chalk]

Why do I suspect that I am ecstatic to have missed this entire thread?

You know, I keep accidentally clicking on it myself.

[ojnihs]

Sorry to hear about that David. And sorry about mentioning Liebman Sachs in that other thread, I can see how that came off as brisk \

hey, no worries deepak. my response to the liebman sachs post was more in concern about your patient than my ex, although it does get me worrying at times. but, in all seriousness, i happen to enjoy the random medical discussions that pop up here

[aerius]

I'm sure this isn't the only explanation but there must be some reason why Americans pay the most per head on health (16% per GDP, almost double that of Germany or Britian) but at the same have experienced the least decline in avoidable deaths according to a study. Note that big improvements were recorded in countries that started with both low levels of avoidable deaths like France and those with already higher levels like Britain.

Think of it this way, in the American system the insurance companies and HMO's need to show a profit and pay out dividends for their shareholders as well as shelling out multi-million dollar salaries for their senior executives. All of that takes away from the money that's actually being spent on providing medical care.

In a national system such as the Canadian or European model, almost every dollar that comes in can be spent on providing medical services. There's no need to show quarterly profits, no shareholders taking dividends, and no board of directors taking their golden parachutes. All you have is the the administrative system taking a slice, but that's also there in the American system. It's a more efficient system, and it's reflected in the costs and results, we pay less while enjoying better life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates and so on.

[deepak]

hey, no worries deepak. my response to the liebman sachs post was more in concern about your patient than my ex, although it does get me worrying at times. but, in all seriousness, i happen to enjoy the random medical discussions that pop up here

Oh ok didn't realize it was your ex. Is this the girl doing homeopathic voodoo?

we pay less while enjoying better life expectancies, lower infant mortality rates and so on.

You're paying for it in your taxes. Either way someone wins, someone loses.

[aerius]

You're paying for it in your taxes. Either way someone wins, someone loses.

Of course I am, that's what taxes are for, to gather money for providing services. I view healthcare as a basic essential right for all citizens and have no problem with my tax dollars going towards providing this service. Others may disagree.

As a sidenote, Hiltlery Clinton's nationalized healthcare proposal is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard of. Her plan forces you to be insured by a private sector insurance company, and then fines your ass if you can't or refuse to get insured. Because fining people who can't afford insurance is really going to help them, stupid fucking cunt.

[ojnihs]

Oh ok didn't realize it was your ex. Is this the girl doing homeopathic voodoo?

indeed it is good sir!

[ojnihs]

As a sidenote, Hiltlery Clinton's nationalized healthcare proposal is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard of.

x2

[saint.panda]

I thought Hillary already blew it once with a similar idea some years ago.

[aerius]

Hitlery isn't exactly a fast learner to say the least...

[aardvark baguette]

aardvark, so what is it that Glen Beck said in the You Tube clip do you find to be so informative and supportive of some argument against Clinton or Obama for that matter. I watched the entire clip and found nothing profound. Do you enjoy paying $3.50/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits. Or is it our fault for buying it and if we don't like it we can stop and the price will go down? As if this is a possibility as our society exist at present. I can't imagine what it's like for someone making say $50,000 a year, paying $50 or more a week just so he or she can get back and forth to work and take the kids where they need to go. Is it our fault for letting it happen, absolutely but it's not like much has been done in the last 7 years or 15 to change it. There are a number of studies that suggest that Medicare is a far more efficient provider of health coverage than are private insurers. I've read those that say this is not so but they seem to be industry sponsored in some way. If medicare was a the single payer, think of the clout if would have in the marketplace to negotiate costs with drug companies for example. Is it the best possible system? I don't know but I am willing to give it or some form of it a try to see if it's better than what we have now. Especially if it will give those 47,000,000 (9,000,000 of which are children) do not have access to heath insurance. This is America, is that how we want to treat our own? What does that say about us? If it means those that have, need to sacrifice a bit, so what. I thought sacrifice for our country was an honorable thing to do. Military service, Peace Corp, etc are all sacrifices some make for others. One of the reasons there aren't riots in the streets over this war is because no one other than the soldiers, sailors, marines and their families have been asked to sacrifice. I'm not rich but I certainly do well. I would bet I will pay more in taxes than some on this board make in a year for a living. Having said that, if it means I have to pay some more so those 47,000,000 get insurance coverage then so be it. I believe that providing for those that need help is what makes this country great. The fact that in times of need people are willing to sacrifice to help others. Sure there are those that are just lazy and don't deserve our help but are you going to punish those that just aren't able to make enough money to buy health insurance despite their hard work because of those lazy ones? I hope not. Something needs to change and I don't pretend for a moment to think that the Dems have all the answers but I am certain that the Rebublicans don't. I'm ready for another party but not at the sacrifice of putting another Republican in the Oval Office. Put in a Dem and then I will be ready to look to supporting a third party.

Whew! How about hitting that lovely enter key here and there

I never said the Glenn Beck piece was profound; I just feel it effectively articulates many of the gaping flaws in universal health care. If after watching it, you see no negative aspects of the Clinton or Obama platforms, so be it. I see flaws in their platforms left and right (no pun intended) It was posted primarily for the health care info.

I never said I was anti health care. I am anti universal health care.

I believe that providing for those that need help is what makes this country great. The fact that in times of need people are willing to sacrifice to help others.

Sure, to some extent. I think universal health care is too far in that direction.

are you going to punish those that just aren't able to make enough money to buy health insurance despite their hard work because of those lazy ones? I hope not.

I view it quite differently. It is not 'punishing' them, it is simply not 'rewarding them' by punishing me. Further, the chief reason I am opposed to universal health care is not because it rewards the lazy, it is because it puts undue economic strain on me. I believe that, since I earned my money, I deserve it more than them, and removing it from me is punishing me, as well as other hard working tax payers.

It is quite unfortunate that there are those struggling to afford coverage. But at the end of the day, it is not my responsibility to fix their economic situation.

I am sure it sounds cold, but thats how I feel.

The health care system is in bad shape. No one is debating that. Its how we solve it that is the obstacle.

The democratic answer is almost always to simply raise taxes.

In addition, there is always this connotation that, because Republicans oppose tax hikes and government aided programs, we hoard all our money. Nothing could be further from the truth. You'll find many of us contribute money to charities of our choosing, what we feel are very important situations that need our aid. We were not obligated to pay into these programs; we exercised our freedom of choice and contributed. Being ordered to help a cause is what I resent and dont agree with.

I am reminded of a quote from left media, which stated that Global Warming was the most dire situation facing civilization today. I would counter third world poverty and starvation are just a little more immediate. Instead of fixing a theoretically deteriorating quality of life 20 years from now, we can give people food today.

I'd like to think that these people we have elected in this great republic of ours (yes, republic, not democracy) can find alternate solutions than to simply empty the pockets of tax payers whenever there is trouble. I believe we are the crutch they always fall back on, and that it is wrong.

No doubt you will disagree with most if not everything I have said. That is to be expected; as you stated, you dont mind paying heavy taxes to help others. I dont share that same open stance on my money.

[aerius]

So to put it bluntly, it's my goddamn money, and fuck everyone else but me.

[aardvark baguette]

Your joking right?

Not wanting to give out too much of my money is not the same as "fuck you".

By your logic, anyone who ever spend a dime is a douche bag, because they should have given it all away to others.

Its like I said in my post; some help is necessary and unavoidable, but there needs to be a balance.

[909]

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zmFNUHlcLc8[/ame]

[aerius]

Your joking right?

Not wanting to give out too much of my money is not the same as "fuck you".

By your logic, anyone who ever spend a dime is a douche bag, because they should have given it all away to others.

Its like I said in my post; some help is necessary and unavoidable, but there needs to be a balance.

In your own words, with regards to people who can't afford healthcare coverage,

I view it quite differently. It is not 'punishing' them, it is simply not 'rewarding them' by punishing me. Further, the chief reason I am opposed to universal health care is not because it rewards the lazy, it is because it puts undue economic strain on me. I believe that, since I earned my money, I deserve it more than them, and removing it from me is punishing me, as well as other hard working tax payers.

It is quite unfortunate that there are those struggling to afford coverage. But at the end of the day, it is not my responsibility to fix their economic situation.

I am sure it sounds cold, but thats how I feel.

The health care system is in bad shape. No one is debating that. Its how we solve it that is the obstacle.

The democratic answer is almost always to simply raise taxes.

In other words, tough shit for those poor people, it's my fucking money so too bad for them. So I guess someone who's born with diabetes, a heart murmur, allergies, asthma or ends up with leukemia is just shit out of luck then since their pre-existing condition will either disqualify them from healthcare coverage or result in exhorbitantly high rates? I'm sure all those kids just chose to be born that way. But in your world, it's just fine to deny them care and hoard your money for yourself. Fuck those kids, it's my goddamn money and I have no obligation to help them in any way. And you wonder why the US ranks dead last among OECD countries in infant mortality rates.

[aerius]

what's to wonder about? the US has a larger divide between economic classes than most countries (much of which is a result of poor/illegal immigrants) which quite handily explains it.

I'd argue that the divide is caused by your country's dumbass social & economic policies more than anything else. The system is setup to fuck over the poor and middle class citizens while giving rich people everything they want for very little cost.

[aardvark baguette]

In other words, tough shit for those poor people, it's my fucking money so too bad for them. So I guess someone who's born with diabetes, a heart murmur, allergies, asthma or ends up with leukemia is just shit out of luck then since their pre-existing condition will either disqualify them from healthcare coverage or result in exhorbitantly high rates? I'm sure all those kids just chose to be born that way. But in your world, it's just fine to deny them care and hoard your money for yourself. Fuck those kids, it's my goddamn money and I have no obligation to help them in any way. And you wonder why the US ranks dead last among OECD countries in infant mortality rates.

I really think this is being dismissive of the idea of balance, that I have now mentioned twice.

It is comfortable and easier for you to interpret any attempt of salvaging money as greedy, than it is to admit that maybe, just maybe the tax payer should have some say in where they're money goes. An argument cant be made based on fact, so attack that person morally and try and cause discomfort.

And again, I never said I had no obligation, it is all about balance.

I absolutely believe everyone should be able to get coverage; its how they get it that is the problem. There is no ill will towards those less fortunate.

And they are not on their own, there are charities and organizations that are already in place, long before anyone began talking about universal health care. Both parties have a responsibility to at least attempt to solve problems within an existing budget, before raising taxes, in my opinion. Any idiot can stamp a form to raise the rates; its coming up with a solution without introducing new increases that is one of their chief responsibilities.

[aardvark baguette]

I'd argue that the divide is caused by your country's dumbass social & economic policies more than anything else. The system is setup to fuck over the poor and middle class citizens while giving rich people everything they want for very little cost.

Assuming we are still talking about health care, I'd argue it is not 'giving' it to the rich; it was created from they're taxes. Our social security is set up to pay out to you a certain percentage, based on how much you earned: if you put more money into social security than the next guy, its only fair you get that back.

I really think you have a major issue with class envy or something. That the idea that a wealthy person should get to keep their money is inherently greedy. In our country, we have a little thing called capitalism, and people are (hopefully) encouraged to work for what they want. I believe those who work hard deserve what they earned. I believe sick people have little to do with that money. I believe that, while some financial aid is necessary, it must be kept reasonable and fair.

[Smeggy]

i'd argue that the divide is caused by you touching yourself at night.

That does seem more likely all things considered.

[aerius]

I really think you have a major issue with class envy or something. That the idea that a wealthy person should get to keep their money is inherently greedy. In our country, we have a little thing called capitalism, and people are (hopefully) encouraged to work for what they want. I believe those who work hard deserve what they earned. I believe sick people have little to do with that money. I believe that, while some financial aid is necessary, it must be kept reasonable and fair.

Between my job and my investments, I'll likely be retired by age 40 with a fully paid off home and be set for life, so no, I don't have class envy.

I believe in social responsibility, I have a debt to pay back to the society which has allowed me to get to where I am, that means the social, healthcare, education, and 1001 other things which keep our society whole and functional. However, I also recognize that people, including myself tend to be selfish pricks, and that left to own devices we sure as hell ain't give back to society nearly as much as we take from it. And that's what taxes are for, I have no problem with paying my taxes to ensure that some kid with diabetes gets the treatment he requires to lead a good life and become a contributing member to our society. We sink a few thousand bucks into him now so that he can earn & produce many times that amount during the course of his career. Instead of marginalizing his healthcare, dicking over his quality of life and turning him into a net wealth sink as his health suffers, we have him become a positive wealth contributer.

Think of it as preventative maintenance and planning for the long run. We spend a few bucks to tide him over till he starts earning, then we rake in craploads of bucks when he becomes a productive citizen. By the way, with the drop in value of the greenback in recent times, the median income in Canada is now more than the US median income, and after cost of living and purchasing power is factored in it's skewed even more in our favour. I'd also note that there's a nice correlation between tax cuts for the rich, cutbacks on social spending, and the decline in health of the US economy.

[Chekhonte]

By what percent would taxes have to be raised in order for there to be socialized health care? Is there even such a number?