taks

i get tired of people that do not even understand the basic principles of the arguments they're presenting. calax' comment was in no way contributory to what has otherwise been a good discussion. he/she simply wanted to make some politically motivated statement further indicating ignorance of the issues at hand. as i've stated, i've tried to offer "education" on even simple issues to calax, ones that we are _supposed_ to be taught in grade school, yet still we get such ridiculous statements from said poster. why not tell calax to shut up or contribute, rather than make such ill-informed statements? taks

and i've already posted on part of the reason why this is. we're funding world's research costs and general profit. the companies that provide health care make little, if any, profit on the socialized world outside of the US (in fact, they lose money). US citizens then have to bear the cost of making these companies profitable. in other words, the "cost" in other countries is not the true cost of what is provided. granted, not all of health care/drugs/etc. is created in the US, but we are the only system even close to a free market in this regard. based on what, the WHO assessment? life expectancy is not simply a function of quality of health care. the differences, btw, are only a few years, hardly enough to draw conclusions about health care. we also lead more stressful lives and work longer hours. that there are fewer doctors really doesn't mean anything, either. our doctors also make more money, so the "bar" for hiring them is much higher than most places. i agree, and i think you see that in my posts. the current hybrid system is terrible, but socializing it can in no way improve things. it will also increase the costs borne by foreign countries more than anyone wants to admit. taks

which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and is nothing more than your sorry-ass trying to be cute making an otherwise ill-informed, nonsensical, political statement. i tried to be reasonable with you earlier but your obvious adherence to dogma and ideology gets scorn instead. a) educate yourself. b) shut up in the mean-time. taks

it's not that the government only screws things up, its that government was not ever intended to solve all of society's ills. when it tinkers in things that it was not intended to cure, it will ultimately fail, making the problems worse. health care is one of those areas it has undoubtedly made worse. certainly a government's task is made easier with a much smaller population base to govern. opinions are far less divided for one thing. i had more to say on this... but my brain is otherwise occupied at the moment. taks

i am godless, and you certainly are the very FIRST poster in here to recognize that. i don't know how many times i get called a right-wing fanatic in spite of my mostly liberal positions (albeit not many that i discuss in here). taks

i've worked with some fine finlandian engineers in my time. in fact, one that i correspond with on occasion is a researcher/professor type at the university of helsinki. i have a book by aapo hyvarinen as well, a god among component analysis types (my opinion, of course). ditto at the university of missouri-rolla. we did make fun of the college republicans (a group called that), however, as most of us couldn't have cared less about politics at the time. ditto here as well. personally, i think compromise actually one of the downfalls of democracy. the result is something that doesn't work well, and nobody is really happy. IMO, the "best" solution involves pissing off half of the people since they don't agree. such outcomes are next to impossible in reality, however. i am unable to do otherwise, but i understand your point. taks

mine don't either with firefox anymore, but the link i put in above intentionally had the underline tag, which allowed me to see it again. taks

yeah, right. hehe... taks

GDP is not what the government makes. GDP is what the entire country makes, private industry included. it's actually more like 20% since our current GDP is $13T and tax revenues are $2.4T. the US _can_ afford health care, and we are already paying for it. the question is whether or not the government can, and the answer is no, at least not with out resorting to even more socialism. taks

a) only doctors and lawyers have higher average salaries (considering traditional jobs, not rich stockbrokers or banking execs, etc.) and b) engineers are fueled by logic, not compassion. face it, socialist policies require compassion as they logically do not work. engineers also don't end up in liberal colleges, and if they do, the engineering sections are usually isolated from the rest of the campus (we tend to spend a lot more time drinking and studying than our liberal arts counterparts). we can share a short bus then! taks

yeah, the the savings of the economies of scale are all going to the state-sponsored systems. yes, and which country's populace do you think is paying the private companies to cover these costs? remember, $120 inhaler in the US, 5 cent inhaler (probably manufacturing cost minus gov't kick-in) in cuba. to say that michael moore doesn't understand simple economic theory is a gross understatement. of course, he probably does, and probably doesn't care since his point wouldn't be very valid if he made note of that. the US spends 4.06% of its GDP on the military, portugal 2.3%. the US has a $1.7T health care industry, with only $2.4T in income. taxes would essentially have to double in order to make it work, and that doesn't count the extra layer(s) of bureaucracy for an already bloated system. taks

hehe, no, they don't. the US government income is documented all over the place, and the "hidden money" isn't nearly as much as people think. granted, there are a lot of superflous expenditures, but that's still immaterial to affordability. taks

hehe, arguing on the net is like running in the special olympics. even if you win... you're still tarded. this is the only outlet i get to debate people that disagree with me. i live in a society surrounded by either military, or engineers working in some fashion for the military. you can only guess where the average views on such things lie. of course, i'm the only true atheist i know since this is also a fairly religious town. taks

this is almost humorous. some of you really think that the US could simply go to a state-sponsored health care system and it would not impact the rest of the world. state-sponsored systems force the drug companies (and others) to offer their goods and services at just enough to cover the manufacturing/overhead costs, plus a nominal profit, at the risk of violating patents. not so in the US. foreign countries could not otherwise afford the true cost of goods, so stating that "portugal can afford it" falls on its face. taks

and exactly how high are the tax rates in portugal? and how small is portugal? the US would have to raise taxes to afford it. trying to compare tiny countries to the US isn't a very convincing way to argue such a point. plus, the costs don't scale exactly linearly, and the US is already shouldering the burden of new drug research (that's why the inhaler costs 5 cents in cuba, but $120 in the US). taks

also my point. part of the problem with high costs, insurance issues with the free-market aside, is all the bureaucracy involved. expenses have to be more than 7.5% of your gross income and only the expenses OVER that level count (uh, maybe net, either way, i can't get any deduction). it's a total joke that an employer can offer pre-tax coverage, and/or you can take out a medical expense plan, but you can't simply deduct the costs directly. if they dropped that ludicrous rule, there'd be less red-tape immediately, and no need for all the other bureaucracy that goes with it. sheesh. congress consists of a bunch of morons. taks

money that's already been taken from me. it's not a matter if the government has enough money already, since it came from the people paying the most taxes in the first place (of which i am included). an no, btw, the US does not already have enough tax income to pay for everyone's health care. medicare/medicaid is already measured in the hundreds of $B, full health care for everyone would be measured in the $Ts. taks

i thought the same. i made mention of the movie a few posts before you. they really screwed up the entire time travel thing, but overall, that's not really what i cared about with the movie. ultimately, it was very entertaining. taks

i think the takeaway is that insurance is sort of the free-market version of socialism. i.e., you're spreading the cost of otherwise rare occurrences across a wide body of consumers, most of whom never (or rarely) need the services. my father over the last several years has burned way more than his "fair share" of what he paid into it, btw. taks

there must be a setting in your control panel you can change to show such things. taks

i've said nothing contrary to freedom. in fact, my personal policies are all about freedom: live and let live (or die, such as it may be). requiring me to pay for your insurance (you simply as a rhetorical object of the statement) infringes upon my freedom. taks

sure, i agree it's not _entirely_ due to government involvement, but largely so. the whole concept of insurance is a bit of a scam in the first place. you're betting on getting hurt or sick. years ago, people only got major medical for extreme occurrences. now everyone wants even their doctor's visits to be insured. somewhere along the line, the consumer needs to be bearing the cost directly (consumers actually do, but indirectly). ultimately, government regulations are the reason insurance companies (HMOs in particular) and the like exist in the first place. taks

The underline doesn't show up in yours. shows up for me... taks

example link with an underline: linky. just put the underline tags around the url tags. taks

hopefully there are no survivors of the fallen cats. i have two, btw. one is a flake, completely skittish. she's lived with me for 9 years now and STILL i cannot make any moves towards her. then suddenly she'll jump up in my lap wanting attention. the other is a fat slob. we've given up trying to diet him because he'll eat all of the food in the dish, leaving none for the flake. she's skinny enough, and not capable of defending herself if fatso is hogging the dish. of course, she picks all the fights the two have, which makes absolutely no sense, even trying to use cat logic. taks