U.S. Universal Healthcare

[taks]

Not really, you just tried to explain that you said it was based on. Which you didn't actually say. Doesn't really matter which way you try to put it, we all know what you meant and hence we corrected your mistake.

no, let's review...

 

i said nazism is socialism. he said that i reversed it and said socialism is nazism. the first statement, while a little off, is true in that the nazi economy was based on a socialist economy. the second statement, however, is not true at all. socialism has many forms, communist being one of them.

 

oh, and nazis did not hate socialists, they hated communists.

 

Must be horrible to be wrong, huh?

and you're getting used to it, i suppose.

 

It's called making a point, we don't get any of Norways oil money. Be they 22% or 25%, it's still their own money.

and i've explained three times why it makes a difference, and i also gave the reasons why, individually, denmark and sweden both have the same benefit.

 

What you're trying to do is to dismiss the Scandinavian welfare model by crying about Norways oil. As for the other two, we're not the only nations in the world with good exports.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, i said, quite clearly, that ALL of scandinavia has a trade surplus. can you read? really...

 

what does good exports have to do with anything? the US has great exports, but still a deficit. i said, let's repeat, a trade surplus. that means more exports than imports which means more money, from the outside, for the economy. countries with surpluses tend to do better on the whole for this reason. oil rich countries are just ONE example.

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[taks]

I never called for any sources. You have me and REG mixed up.

sorry, difficult to tell one ideology from, well, an identical one.

 

Don't fret so much just because we corrected you before dear taks, it's not worth you getting all hysterical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, the other way around is more true. i make mistakes, and admit them. but i don't continue to make the same, tired, inability to comprehend the material before me mistakes so common in here...

 

taks

[Lucius]

I never called for any sources. You have me and REG mixed up.

sorry, difficult to tell one ideology from, well, an identical one.

 

Don't fret so much just because we corrected you before dear taks, it's not worth you getting all hysterical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, the other way around is more true. i make mistakes, and admit them. but i don't continue to make the same, tired, inability to comprehend the material before me mistakes so common in here...

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I meant that you fret in as much you mixed the two of us up. Here you almost admitted to making a mistake, yet still you didn't as you try to justify yourself at the end of the sentence by taking a jab at us. Tsk tsk taks.

 

Speaking of which, you didn't admit the other one either, by the way, since you still try to explain it away in your previous post. That's not admitting a mistake, it's running in circles.

 

Edit: They did indeed hate communists, but also socialists in general afaik.

Edited November 15, 2005 by Lucius

[taks]

Speaking of which, you didn't admit the other one either, by the way, since you still try to explain it away in your previous post. That's not admitting a mistake, it's running in circles.

actually i quite clearly stated that:

 

1. i said nazism is socialism

2. reg incorrectly attributed me to saying socialism is nazism

3. i followed up with nazi economic policy was socialist, explaining the error in my earlier statement, but noting that the point was not that much different.

 

duh.

 

Edit: They did indeed hate communists, but also socialists in general afaik.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

akaik? incorrect. they were socialist, that's why the nazis were the national socialist german workers party. hard to call yourself something you hate?

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[taks]

for the record, i never said "government is bad" either. not sure where reg got that "same ole tired..." claim from.

 

socialism's problem has nothing to do with government inability to implement it. the people working towards socialist policies have every intention of making it work. it is not their fault nor their goverment's fault.

 

the reason socialist systems, and programs, cannot work in reality is the lack of a means to curb demand. there is no way to make people want less of something that has a limited supply. period. capitalism does this by raising prices. supply and demand curves are present in both systems. they are a fact of life, and hence called the law of supply and demand. no economist in the world denies this...

 

the only method socialism can attempt, is to exercise tyrannical control over its people. this includes, but is not limited to, threats of force or harm and "education" in the ways of the system (not sure how many times communists tell me i'm brainwashed, yet they knew how much "better" socialism was over capitalism 10 years before i knew what they were???). it cannot counter demand, therefore it must seek to remove will from people.

 

taks

[Lucius]

You think you're good at admitting mistakes, but you aren't. You're no better than anyone else. Live with it.

 

Afaik: As Far As I Know.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Edit: They did indeed hate communists, but also socialists in general afaik.

The Nazis hated everyone, including themselves. As a newcomer to this thread, it was really hard to follow the arguments because so many mini-debates had spawned and crowded in over the main one, this being perhaps the most redundant of all.

no it's not.  it (Medicare?)'s grown 7 times faster than expected and always short, as well as marred by corruption and fraud.

What criteria can we use to decide whether a health service is working well or failing? Economic efficiency is one, of course - money lost to corruption or waste isn't desirable. However, processes and health outcomes are important criteria too, and need to be measured more accurately than just using anecdotal evidence. If a health programme has grown 7 times faster than expected, is that a bad thing or a good thing. Doesn't that suggest that many more people are receiving treatment that they need? A great success, perhaps, and a wise investment of public funds. I don't know much detail about the US system (not even sure if the name is right), but would the people who benefit from it regard it as a failure?

Edited November 15, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh

[taks]

The Nazis hated everyone, including themselves.

i'll buy that... at least, hitler hated everyone, and his people hopped on the BW. doesn't change the fact that they were by and large a socialist economy.

 

What criteria can we use to decide whether a health service is working well or failing?

depends, i think... i'll follow up...

 

Economic efficiency is one, of course - money lost to corruption or waste isn't desirable.

medicare loses on this front, big time.

 

However, processes and health outcomes are important criteria too, and need to be measured more accurately than just using anecdotal evidence.

i agree...

 

If a health programme has grown 7 times faster than expected, is that a bad thing or a good thing.

given that the people of the US, including the congress that voted it in, were sold a bill of goods at a certain price, yes, it is a bad thing. slip socialist policies under the rug by saying "it won't cost that much" when in fact, the designers more than likely knew the outcome in the first place (history dictates that every socialist program goes deeper than originally planned for, they had to know this).

 

Doesn't that suggest that many more people are receiving treatment that they need?

no, it means it is inefficient. private healthcare acheives better ends, with much less money.

 

A great success, perhaps, and a wise investment of public funds.  I don't know much detail about the US system (not even sure if the name is right), but would the people who benefit from it regard it was a failure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the people that are defrauding it, no. the people that work in the bloated bureaucracy, no. those that regularly get screwed by red-tape or other related nightmares, yes. it does not work. period. the care medicare patients get is substandard, and they have very little choice in their care givers.

 

there is one case when it succeeds, or at least one type of case. people with long-term care needs(diabetics, for example) probably benefit from the fact that they don't have a constant money siphon in their back pocket. however, they suffer many of theills of the bureaucracy just like everyone else...

 

but there are alternatives to this, which will work better and more efficiently in the end.

 

taks

[taks]

You think you're good at admitting mistakes, but you aren't. You're no better than anyone else. Live with it.

never said i was better. i said i make mistakes and i admit them when i do.

 

actually, i'm probably much more arrogant than the average bird. but, at least i can back up my claims with solid logic and rational thought.

 

Afaik:  As Far As I Know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no kidding. you making claims about nazism and then stating "as far as i know"... in other words, "i think this is right, but really, i don't know."

 

that's why i put the ? there.

 

taks

Edited November 15, 2005 by taks

[Kalfear]

There are tons of countries with universal healthcare, why can't the richest(suppposedly, no thanks to Bush and his record deficit) have a healthcare system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and most of those countries with universal healthcare cannot afford it, and, what they do provide, is substandard compared to US provisions. canadians that can afford better healthcare come the US and pay for it out of pocket (they aren't allowed to do that there...).

 

socializing healthcare will ruin it. there will be no incentives for medical professionals, no competition, and the quality of care will bottom out. HMOs have already damaged the level of care we get now.

 

the medicaid drug benefit, IMO, is the second worst travesty ever inflicted on the people of the US. first is social security.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The biggest problem with Canadian healthcare is that the USA doctors pay alot more so our trained doctors and nurses look to there for jobs rather then stay in Canada creating a doctor shortage. Which stesses out the system.

 

Thats not to say our doctors and nurses are poorly paid, they are not. Just why make 200k a year when you can make 2 mill?

 

Canadian health care also shouldnt be looked at as the model. Our taxes are high but not high enough to afford the coverage we want.

 

If you look at Sweden and countries like that, their health care systems are top notch and running well but they also pay a HUGE % of taxes (much much much higher then canada or the US).

 

Simple answer is USA taxes are very low, if you want Universal Health Care (that fully works) you are looking at jumping up to a 60% tax bracket minimum accross the board.

 

Dont take my reply as complaining about Canadian Health care though. I have a heriditary back disease and am lucky to live in Canada. In the States this disease would have no costed me something like 3 million dollars in treatments outta my own pocket vers the free treatment I get here.

 

Canadas health care is good but its not perfect!

[random evil guy]

however, the us used to have a surplus. why couldn't they employ a universal health care then?

uh, a VERY long time ago, and our economy was VERY different then. straw man argument anyway, since we aren't there now, are we (do you need a definition for straw man?)

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you sure you know what 'straw man' really is? my question is not straw man, it is principal. to put in terms even you can understand:

 

IF the us had a surplus, would you support a universal health care?

 

we'll leave the rest alone for now as you for one, doesn't provide sources for your claims(i won't check your facts...).

 

second, medicare is more efficient. administrative costs are much lower(the ones i found after just 1 search):

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/june/private_medicare_pla.php

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

http://www.adaction.org/BriefMedicare503.htm

 

i don't know, maybe because some of us are smart enough to take care of ourselves. not everbody wants to sit around and pray for mommy government to help us through our lives. self sufficiency, what a concept.

and those who aren't smart enough...?

[Lucius]

never said i was better.  i said i make mistakes and i admit them when i do.

Only you don't, at least not in a way that makes you seem like you mean it.

actually, i'm probably much more arrogant than the average bird.  but, at least i can back up my claims with solid logic and rational thought.

Finally we agree on something, the first part that is, the latter is just proof of the first.

 

 

 

no kidding.  you making claims about nazism and then stating "as far as i know"... in other words, "i think this is right, but really, i don't know."

that's why i put the ? there.

I felt the need to point it out since you spelled it wrong and made a question mark... that's usually a pretty good indication of the person not having a clue. Of course you could still find a way to come off as arrogant even to that, ****.

 

***EDITED FOR LANGUAGE***

[SteveThaiBinh]

I don't know anything about the US healthcare system, other than that in Europe it's popularly believed not to exist, but a few general points occur to me.

no, it means it is inefficient.  private healthcare acheives better ends, with much less money.

This I don't really follow. The US is a free market, so surely poor people already have the right to access private healthcare if they wish, and if they have the funds. The fact that public healthcare supposedly offers poor quality service and yet poor people continue to use it surely suggests that they don't have the funds to go private.

 

If you're suggesting that by embracing pure laissez-faire capitalism the poor would either disappear or shrink to a sufficiently small number that privately charity could make provision for them, that's an interesting suggestion. Many developing countries that have moved from state control to free markets have experienced dramatic increases in poverty as health and education programmes, not to mention government jobs and other subsidies, have been cut back. Whether it's beneficial in the long run is debatable, but what's less debatable is that there's a tremendous short-term shock and a lot of people who are just above the poverty line get plunged back down into poverty for years.

A great success, perhaps, and a wise investment of public funds.  I don't know much detail about the US system (not even sure if the name is right), but would the people who benefit from it regard it was a failure?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the people that are defrauding it, no. the people that work in the bloated bureaucracy, no. those that regularly get screwed by red-tape or other related nightmares, yes. it does not work. period. the care medicare patients get is substandard, and they have very little choice in their care givers.

So compared to an efficient private healthcare system for the poor, they're getting a substandard service, but they're at least getting something? The question is, would removing public health services cause such an efficient private healthcare system to come into being, if it doesn't already exist? It seems unlikely that poor Americans would be able to contribute sufficient funds to make pay for their treatments and make a profit. If it can work, why hasn't such a system come into being as a result of entrepreneurs who see a good opportunity?

[Commissar]

Alright, Steve, I'm going to do you a favor and clue you in on the way things work in America.

 

First of all, anybody who's poor? Yeah, they want to be poor. I'm not kidding. They just prefer not to work and collect those massive welfare and medicaid checks instead, secreting all of the funds in numbered Swiss accounts that they'll use for their retirement from being poor. Most yacht sales in the US are made to citizens who were living in a box on the street not two weeks previously.

 

How do I know? I know because no one, and I mean no one in America was born into the middle class. Taks, for example? I have no doubt he was born a poor black child in the worst ghetto imaginable. He worked hard all his life, facing adversity you and I couldn't possibly imagine. He wasn't "lower middle class," and he damn sure wasn't "comfortable." His parents didn't send him to college. In fact, I bet he doesn't have parents at all - he was left on the side of the road and raised by ghetto rats. Ghetto rats who couldn't teach him to read, and stole what money he managed to earn by demonstrating the value of clean living and self-reliance to others. But he made it. He didn't even have bootstraps to pull himself up by, so you know what he did? He made bootstraps out of his own flesh.

 

And everyone else who favors cutting all social spending? Yeah, exact same story, right down to the illiterate ghetto rats. None of them saw the suburbs until they moved there themselves. And I bet each and every one of them broke down crying because they managed to beat the odds, like everyone else.

 

Now, me? I can advocate national healthcare coverage for children under the age of 18 because I'm filthy rich. I don't care about a 1% hike in taxes, because A) I know that as long as the conservatives are in power, I'm going to be exempt from it, anyway; they rely on me to stimulate the economy through mansion purchases, and B) I have enough money not to care.

 

P.S. No one, and I mean no one, better bring up the irony of a guy who works for a defense contractor complaining about a government spending program going overbudget.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Commissar

[taks]

you sure you know what 'straw man' really is? my question is not straw man, it is principal. to put in terms even you can understand:

yes, it is a straw man. what the country did or did not do 'back in the day' is irrelevant and, due to hindsight, a much weaker argument easier for you to attack. that is the definition of a strawman. to put it into terms even you can understand... try education, perhaps www.fallacyfiles.org.

 

IF the us had a surplus, would you support a universal health care?

no. i merely pointed out to you the reason you can afford it is due to extra money (in part). of course, your tax rates are much higher, too... which is another problem.

 

we'll leave the rest alone for now as you for one, doesn't provide sources for your claims(i won't check your facts...).

hmmm, where are your sources?

 

second, medicare is more efficient. administrative costs are much lower(the ones i found after just 1 search):

uh, those don't talk about efficiency at all. try to be on point, please.

 

the first link is about medicare + private, which does not work. it is still medicare, with an attempt to "privatize" part of it. better explanation is that it is private, with socialized control. i.e. less efficient. the reason they want to add privitization is the hope that they can actually make it more efficient, in order to properly compete with private health care.

 

the second link is nothing more than kucinich's hope, which is harldy testament to any real world data.

 

the third, again, is nothing more than a hypothesis, so i'm not sure how this even comes close to proving your point.

 

the real cool part about logical arguments is that whe someone does not know how to put one together, it is easy for someone like me to spot it. your links aren't even a measure of the problems of medicare. btw, it helps if you actually pay taxes into the system to find out what goes in and comes out.

 

and those who aren't smart enough...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dunno, what are you doing?

 

let's review... so far, your "evidence" is a couple links to... hypothetical future implementations without comparison, a problem with semantics regarding nazism, the idea that i haven't provided "sources" (uh, when debating opinion, i am my own source) and what else... oh yeah, nothing.

 

at the very least, i have provided very detailed arguments and, whether you like the sources or not, i have provided them. you have provided nothing but "socialism works" without any proof. you have trounced my arguments without even an explanation as to why your way is better. as a matter of fact, i'm still wondering what it is that constitutes your way. oh yeah, scandinavia has free health care.

 

gee, that last bit is hard to overcome.

 

taks

[taks]

Many developing countries that have moved from state control to free markets have experienced dramatic increases in poverty as health and education programmes, not to mention government jobs and other subsidies, have been cut back.

well, you're starting out with a flawed position. switching over isn't an overnight thing. it takes a while for the mentality to switch from welfare state to working for what you get. it also takes solid law enforcement, which places like the former soviet union did not have after switching. what they experienced is tragic, but not the fault of capitalism.

 

Whether it's beneficial in the long run is debatable, but what's less debatable is that there's a tremendous short-term shock and a lot of people who are just above the poverty line get plunged back down into poverty for years.

the short term shock should be short term. in order to guarantee long term stability, there needs to be ample protection from the government, which most countries that "switched" did not have...

 

So compared to an efficient private healthcare system for the poor, they're getting a substandard service, but they're at least getting something?

thnk about what you're saying... "what we have sucks, but rather than try for something better, let's just settle for what sucks." that is a socialist mantra if i ever heard one. why not hope they try to better themselves and get even better health care? at least in a capitalist system, the option is there. in a socialist health care system, there isn't even an option...

 

The question is, would removing public health services cause such an efficient private healthcare system to come into being, if it doesn't already exist?  It seems unlikely that poor Americans would be able to contribute sufficient funds to make pay for their treatments and make a profit.  If it can work, why hasn't such a system come into being as a result of entrepreneurs who see a good opportunity?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're trying to base the function of a capitalist system on the perversion we already have. in general, costs for everything will go down. people will be paying less taxes, and have more money in their pockets. everything goes up, so more people can afford more. of course, there will always be those that can't afford anything, and charities will help with that... there are people without even state/federal health care now. this is not a problem of capitalism, it is just a problem of society.

 

taks

[taks]

that's usually a pretty good indication of the person not having a clue.

yeah, right... gotcha. i think you've pretty much dispelled that myth all by yourself.

 

Of course you could still find a way to come off as arrogant even to that, prick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oooh. you are good, aren't you... did you practice that one? i'm curious, how long did it take to stretch your vocabulary to these limits?

 

taks

[taks]

Taks, for example?  I have no doubt he was born a poor black child in the worst ghetto imaginable.  He worked hard all his life, facing adversity you and I couldn't possibly imagine.

just plain middle class, actually. i've surpassed my parents, however, but there are many reasons for that.

 

His parents didn't send him to college.

actually, i paid for most of my own college.

 

Now, me?  I can advocate national healthcare coverage for children under the age of 18 because I'm filthy rich.  I don't care about a 1% hike in taxes, because A) I know that as long as the conservatives are in power, I'm going to be exempt from it, anyway; they rely on me to stimulate the economy through mansion purchases, and B) I have enough money not to care.

oh goody. you don't mind a raise in taxes even though you're in the highest tax bracket. what about the rest of us that suddenly have to cut back? huh? i don't get exemptions and i certainly don't have enough money not to care. rather than think about yourself, why not think about the 20% of us that are paying all the bills. 30% of my income goes out the door to uncle sam. most people pay next to nothing.

 

P.S. No one, and I mean no one, better bring up the irony of a guy who works for a defense contractor complaining about a government spending program going overbudget.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, how is that ironic? like i have control over that? btw, it is the bureaucracy that causes over expenditures. laws and red-tape that cause the bog-down. i love how people that have no idea what they're talking about just love to criticize the system. well, you and the rest of your do-good friends that refuse to let the government conduct business made sure that the regulations were so stiff that even legit companies can't function without violating some sort of law. sarbannes-oxley? what a joke. just more red-tape and another class i have to go through because the left thinks big bad corporate america has to justify EVERYTHING it does, on paper, even if it is ludicrously obvious. in triplicate, too.

 

$700 toilet seat? how about 50 cent toilet seats that 20 people had to sign off on before approving it for use. that doesn't count the ridiculous amount of testing that goes into it... government accounting practices (uh, GAPP, i think) make sure that i bill out at $200/hour. if i touch something for two hours to make sure it works, it is immediately a $400 item, even if i can buy it for under a buck at walmart.

 

while i love your ironic story, please try to understand what you are talking about first, commissar, when talking about government contracting.

 

taks

Edited November 16, 2005 by taks

[Commissar]

Taks, for example?  I have no doubt he was born a poor black child in the worst ghetto imaginable.  He worked hard all his life, facing adversity you and I couldn't possibly imagine.

just plain middle class, actually. i've surpassed my parents, however, but there are many reasons for that.

 

His parents didn't send him to college.

actually, i paid for most of my own college.

 

Now, me?  I can advocate national healthcare coverage for children under the age of 18 because I'm filthy rich.  I don't care about a 1% hike in taxes, because A) I know that as long as the conservatives are in power, I'm going to be exempt from it, anyway; they rely on me to stimulate the economy through mansion purchases, and B) I have enough money not to care.

oh goody. you don't mind a raise in taxes even though you're in the highest tax bracket. what about the rest of us that suddenly have to cut back? huh? i don't get exemptions and i certainly don't have enough money not to care. rather than think about yourself, why not think about the 20% of us that are paying all the bills. 30% of my income goes out the door to uncle sam. most people pay next to nothing.

 

P.S. No one, and I mean no one, better bring up the irony of a guy who works for a defense contractor complaining about a government spending program going overbudget.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, how is that ironic? like i have control over that? btw, it is the bureaucracy that causes over expenditures. laws and red-tape that cause the bog-down. i love how people that have no idea what they're talking about just love to criticize the system. well, you and the rest of your do-good friends that refuse to let the government conduct business made sure that the regulations were so stiff that even legit companies can't function without violating some sort of law. sarbannes-oxley? what a joke. just more red-tape and another class i have to go through because the left thinks big bad corporate america has to justify EVERYTHING it does, on paper, even if it is ludicrously obvious. in triplicate, too.

 

$700 toilet seat? how about 50 cent toilet seats that 20 people had to sign off on before approving it for use. that doesn't count the ridiculous amount of testing that goes into it... government accounting practices (uh, GAPP, i think) make sure that i bill out at $200/hour. if i touch something for two hours to make sure it works, it is immediately a $400 item, even if i can buy it for under a buck at walmart.

 

while i love your ironic story, please try to understand what you are talking about first, commissar, when talking about government contracting.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, if you think I'm filthy rich...I'm not. Sorry, couldn't think of something caustic and sarcastic to finish that off with.

 

I still don't see how you can say no to universal healthcare for children, but what the hell.

 

And I've got two family members on LM's payroll, so my information isn't firsthand, but it's pretty close. Besides, it's not like the contractors aren't aware of the rules...why can't you guys just figure out what it's likely to cost, knowing all the bureaucratic crap that's involved, and go from there?

[taks]

First of all, if you think I'm filthy rich...I'm not.  Sorry, couldn't think of something caustic and sarcastic to finish that off with.

dang. actually, i thought i heard you say that once before? oh well, thought i had ya.

 

oh, lower middle class, btw... at least, my folks both came from relatively low income families. my father made it out with an education that he paid for himself. by the time i was in high school, we were probably upper middle class, but things changed yet again...

 

I still don't see how you can say no to universal healthcare for children, but what the hell.

i haven't really touched on that one, nor do i care to at the moment... i'm really not sure reconcile my logic and my emotion on this issue...

 

And I've got two family members on LM's payroll, so my information isn't firsthand, but it's pretty close.  Besides, it's not like the contractors aren't aware of the rules...why can't you guys just figure out what it's likely to cost, knowing all the bureaucratic crap that's involved, and go from there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my criticism was about as facetious as your tale of irony.

 

oh we do know how to cost, and we can. that's not the problem. the problem is that the larger the program, the larger the error bar in the estimation for many reasons. for example, a company i know just won a big program. big as in multi-billion over a decade or so. turns out there's an issue with weight which means they need a larger vehicle to carry the weight. the cost impact is not just the vehicle cost (to the tune of millions per unit), but the hourly cost in fuel (thousands or more per hour, adds up in a year). what do you do? they're retooling the entire design in hopes of removing the weight and providing a compromise solution. this is a huge hit just in R&D alone.

 

unfortunately, the program was bid before all the details were in, so the obvious answer would be to have more detail before the bid. however, those details come at a price, and in spite of the general complaining from the doves, defense contracting companies are anything but rich. even a multi-billion dollar company like LM can't afford to continuously throw 20 million at a job in hopes of winning (5-10 isn't out of the question, however). they'd go broke quick. so you go in with a SWAG and hope it's right. unforseen design changes ripple and become devastating quickly.

 

it is a very complex issue that the general public is just plain not aware of. agreed, btw, that it sucks. and, between me, you, the fence post and any idiot that reads this rant, i'd rather work commercial. just none around here, that's all... (i was commercial before moving to the springs in 2002).

 

taks

[taks]

btw, the bureaucratic mess is why i bill out at about $200/hour. if i ever manage to make principal engineer, that rate jumps to about $250/hour (no, not a $50/hour raise for me, more like $2 or $3). a chief scientist in our company (i won't make that till the phd is landed) is nearly $300/hour...

 

oh, sorry, derailment.

 

taks

[Lucius]

that's usually a pretty good indication of the person not having a clue.

yeah, right... gotcha. i think you've pretty much dispelled that myth all by yourself.

 

Of course you could still find a way to come off as arrogant even to that, prick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oooh. you are good, aren't you... did you practice that one? i'm curious, how long did it take to stretch your vocabulary to these limits?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm curious, were you always like this? Or did it start after you embraced hardcore capitalism and began to really step on the little guy?

 

And as far as vocabulary goes, well an arrogant right wing American such as yourself would probably forget that English is not a Danes first language, however I'll return the favour and give you something to think about;

 

***EDITED by Walsingham for gratuitous use of heathen lingos and quite possibly rude gestures***

Edited November 16, 2005 by Walsingham

[random evil guy]

yes, it is a straw man. what the country did or did not do 'back in the day' is irrelevant and, due to hindsight, a much weaker argument easier for you to attack.

no, it's not and you obviously don't know what straw man is. don't use terms you don't understand. the argument is the same, if the country can afford, it irrelevant of when, why should they spend money on universal health care.

 

your tax rates are much higher, too... which is another problem.

why is that a problem?

 

hmmm, where are your sources?

i'm not the one claiming anything, other than the fact that medicare is more efficient than private insurance companies. you, on the other hand, haven't provided a single source for your claims. telling me to go look something up, is not providing a source. there, you've learned something today as well...

 

uh, those don't talk about efficiency at all. try to be on point, please.

they all say that medicare spend less on administrative costs than private insurance companies. what other definition of ineffeciency do you want to use? remember, it has to be measurable.

 

dunno, what are you doing?

probably continue working on my phd in theoretical statistics. unless i decide to continue in abstract algebra. again, you didn't answer my question. i'll repeat:

what about all those too stupid, poor, weak, physicall/mentally handicapped etc etc. should the government 'mother' them or just leave them alone to themselves?

 

at the very least, i have provided very detailed arguments

not really. you've said government should protect us, but not baby us. you've said there are rich countries that can spend money on socialist concepts such as universal health care. however, no reasoning behind these claims. no documentation that supports your case. sure, you're entitled to your opinions but i'd expect you to be able to argue for them... guess not.

 

you have provided nothing but "socialism works" without any proof.

wrong again. i've not made a single claim concering socialism, other than the fact that nazism and socialism is very different(you learned something yesterday as well!).

 

to get back on topic:

 

why shouldn't the us have universal health care? could just cut spending on the millitary for instance...

Edited November 16, 2005 by random evil guy

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Wealthy people want to protect that wealth. Not really a suprise there. On the issue of fairness. You may think it's fair that everyone get the same access to services. However is it really fair that people who have worked their butts off through college/university and are still doing so pay so that others can freeload ?

 

Now I wouldnt for an instant claim that everyone is freeloader, but there is certainly a % that uses the system. Until that is addressed (by whatever means) people are not going to be overjoyed giving up their hard earned cash to government programs.

[random evil guy]

Wealthy people want to protect that wealth. Not really a suprise there. On the issue of fairness. You may think it's fair that everyone get the same access to services. However is it really fair that people who have worked their butts off through college/university and are still doing so pay so that others can freeload ?

 

Now I wouldnt for an instant claim that everyone is freeloader, but there is certainly a % that uses the system.

 

1.how many freeloaders are there?

2.so what if there is a minority of freeloaders; does that mean one shouldn't help the ones who are just too stupid, mentally or physically challenged, weak, poor, sick etc etc.

 

let me put it this way:

do you acknowledge the fact that people are different due to both nature and nurture? if so, you also acknowledge the fact that some people will never be successful. because people are different, it isn't their fault. they were just born that way. the left takes this into consideration and provides help through tax income from everyone else. it's not like everyone is supposed to be equal(socialism), but to balance out the differences somewhat through government funded programs such as public schools and universal health care.

 

the right wing has one of two problems. either they accept the fact that people are different, but just don't care or their entire political view is based on flawed logic(i.e. everyone have the same opportunities to 'make it').