# Universal Healthcare...



## Roose Hurro (Sep 8, 2009)

Found this:  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090908/D9AJEKCO1.html

Discuss!


----------



## furry fan (Sep 8, 2009)

wtf the only reason most of us dont have health insurance is cause we cant afford it and they want to make us pay for being poor why dont they take a paycut for once and use that to pay for our health care if there so fu**ing worried about it


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 8, 2009)

Ive grown up in socialist health-care, and proud of it..  I mean, doesnt America have the worst health-care system of the world? (might be exaggerating, but ya gotta admit its one of the suckiest)  Heck, even Cuba got a better system than America, and that explains ALOT!


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Sep 8, 2009)

So long for 'free' healthcare... =\

These ain't even as close to what other countries have got for socialized health, is it?


----------



## Ibuuyk (Sep 8, 2009)

In London, totally free, they even pay you back if you spent something.

In France, totally free, and they send you nurses if you dun wanna move from your house.

In Quebec, America started infecting our health-care system, thus the higher taxes to make up for free care & insurance.


----------



## Kangamutt (Sep 8, 2009)

> Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance *once the system is overhauled.*




This means that there might still be a chance for universal healthcare, or at least at a reasonable price so that you don't have an excuse NOT to have coverage.

Regardless, I find the whole thing a load of shit.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 8, 2009)

Wasn't there, like, seven other threads that talked about this?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 8, 2009)

furry fan said:


> wtf the only reason most of us dont have health insurance is cause we cant afford it and they want to make us pay for being poor why dont they take a paycut for once and use that to pay for our health care if there so fu**ing worried about it


 
The reason why many Americans dont have health insurance is because they cannot afford it...

Because partying with their friends and getting smashed up every weekend, along with buying hundreds of cigarettes a month is more important than concern for one's own well being or the well being of their children. Jesus Fucking Christ. It will never work for Americans because too many Americans are just not responsible enough with the money they do have already... So what, now when they get cirrhosis from alcohol, or a heart attack from crack, or just dont work in general, that they want healthcare to be given to them on a silver platter?


----------



## Kangamutt (Sep 8, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Wasn't there, like, seven other threads that talked about this?



About universal healthcare in general, yes. About this new bill, no.


----------



## 8-bit (Sep 8, 2009)

furry fan said:


> wtf the only reason most of us dont have health insurance is cause we cant afford it and they want to make us pay for being poor why dont they take a paycut for once and use that to pay for our health care if there so fu**ing worried about it




Sorry, my friend, but that's not the whole story. :3

*Note* Yeh, Yeh, We get it, U.S. sucks. Cept for Obama. That guys like, fuckin' magic, I swear.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 8, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> This means that there might still be a chance for universal healthcare, or at least *at a reasonable price* so that you don't have an excuse NOT to have coverage.
> 
> Regardless, I find the whole thing a load of shit.
> [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]



The question is, who determines what that "reasonable" price is... and, if I can't afford even that, then why will my life be made worse by fining me with an even greater strain on my non-existant funds?  If I can't afford, say $100 a month, for healthcare, then I certainly can't afford a $3800 fine...

Can't get blood out of a turnip, as the saying goes.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm with Jesusfish here. Too many stupid people in America, doing stupid things, AND being rewarded for it (see: truTV).


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 8, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The question is, who determines what that "reasonable" price is... and, if I can't afford even that, then why will my life be made worse by fining me with an even greater strain on my non-existant funds?  If I can't afford, say $100 a month, for healthcare, then I certainly can't afford a $3800 fine...
> 
> Can't get blood out of a turnip, as the saying goes.


It costs less for the taxes than the insurance. Don't worry, you saving peoples lives will actually cost you less.


----------



## Bacu (Sep 9, 2009)

Durhur


----------



## Kangamutt (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It costs less for the taxes than the insurance. Don't worry, you saving peoples lives will actually cost you less.



But the problem is, is that it's:
SOCIALISM
And a man in a fancy suit said it's bad, so it must be true.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It costs less for the taxes than the insurance. Don't worry, you saving peoples lives will actually cost you less.



Newf, did you even read the article?  I did, and the whole thing is a mess... reform, my ass!  Fining people who can't afford the premiums is bullshit.  In fact, it's worse than bullshit... it's a rip.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 9, 2009)

If you weren't going to follow the UK / Australia / NZ model of funding public healthcare from general taxation, and were going to follow the Swiss compulsory insurance model, I can see why making health insurance compulsory would be necessary - basically in exchange for giving insurance companies a guaranteed market that enables them to cover their costs, the government regulates the minimum standard of cover the health insurance companies MUST provide to EVERY customer regardless of "pre-existing" conditions. 


> FAQ
> *Can a health insurance fund refuse to insure me or attach conditions?*
> No. As far as compulsory health insurance (basic insurance) is concerned, _all health insurance funds are obliged to accept your application irrespective of your age and state of health, and without stipulating any conditions or waiting period_.
> 
> ...



If people are allowed to opt-out and not pay for insurance, the spreading of risk is lessened which means premiums go up... which brings you back to the current US system.

I would agree that fining people for not getting insurance does seem counterproductive, much like penalty fees on bounced cheques. According to the Swiss model, if you don't choose a health insurer the government chooses one _for_ you, instead of fining you. 


> *What happens if I do not take out insurance?*
> The authority designated by the canton will automatically register anyone required to take out insurance who fails to comply with this obligation in good time. The health insurance fund will then be chosen by the cantonal authority on your behalf.



Dunno how that would go with the "freedom of choice" brigade, but as far as I can see any decent health system has to have _some_ element of compulsion - everyone pays in, so everyone benefits. The "compulsory insurance model" to me still seems to be a lot of unnecessary shagging about with parallel payment regulation compared to the tax-funded model which uses existing taxation processes, but that's just me.

I rather suspect the "fining" for the current US bill is a result of either health-insurance lobbying, or a simple lack of imagination / research - heck, if a Kiwi can find some of this stuff out in ten minutes on Wikipedia, how come US research groups can't?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't mind paying taxes for it, I just don't want anyone telling me they'll rip my ass for not taking part, if I cannot afford to use it (no compulsory insurance modeling allowed, in my book).


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Newf, did you even read the article?  I did, and the whole thing is a mess... reform, my ass!  Fining people who can't afford the premiums is bullshit.  In fact, it's worse than bullshit... it's a rip.


Wasn't talking about your link, was talking about proper universal healthcare in general. Regardless of what your link says universal healthcare is -the best- type of healthcare and what the US has currently is second to worse only by none.


----------



## onewingedweasel (Sep 9, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> The reason why many Americans dont have health insurance is because they cannot afford it...
> 
> Because partying with their friends and getting smashed up every weekend, along with buying hundreds of cigarettes a month is more important than concern for one's own well being or the well being of their children. Jesus Fucking Christ. It will never work for Americans because too many Americans are just not responsible enough with the money they do have already... So what, now when they get cirrhosis from alcohol, or a heart attack from crack, or just dont work in general, that they want healthcare to be given to them on a silver platter?



I quit smoking last year,  i drink about 3 times a year, have no children, take no illicit drugs. Have cut down on just about every non-essential expense and me and my husband cant afford all the care we need without racking up bills i cant pay. and if we cold come up with that money some how we couldnt afford rent or our own place. 
the dental work we need  would cost more than our car is worth. we both work.
thats a pretty brash assumption about a lot of people. and even when i did have insurance which i did for three years before i lost that job in janurary, i couldnt afford all my care between premiums, high co-pays and deductibles. And still be able to keep all our bills paid.  not to mention the insurance through my work routinely denied the most basic of visits.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 9, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> About universal healthcare in general, yes. About this new bill, no.


???  There were a bunch of them.  Yeah, they often degraded into a debate about whether socialized medicine is good or not.  But they generally started by discussing this bill.

I'm not opposed to the idea of providing some level of health care for those who otherwise can't afford private insurance.  I certainly support some key components of the bill, such as banning insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.  But, as always, the devil's in the details.  The bill as it's written now is simply terrible.  It's a clusterfuck of a bill because every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to get in on writing it.  The text is out there.  Just read it yourself.  The really choice stuff starts on page 16.  

Most of the so-called "rumors" the proponents are saying are false are true.  The bill doesn't even attempt to hide them.  Your existing health care plan is grandfathered in, true.  Until ANYTHING about it changes.  Health care plans change ALL THE TIME, and they have to just to reflect the changing needs of its customers.  And when it changes, it suddenly has to abide by a LONG list of restrictions.  Doing so is hideously expensive, so your new plan will be quite expensive.  Or... you have the public option, which is taxpayer funded.  So it's "free."  Not only that, but if you DON'T take the public option they'll tax your existing health care plan!  Needless to say, only the richest of the rich will end up on the public plan.

So of course the proponents want to keep the public option.  The whole bill's built around it!  W/o the public option, there is no bill!

And yes, there are nations with public health systems that work well.  And there are ones that it works poorly.  Based on what's in the bill, ours would be the latter.  It's a pie-in-the-sky plan that seeks to offer everyone the highest quality care possible.  But the fact is, the highest quality care is VERY expensive and there are only so many specialists to go around.  What's worse, the bill authorizes the government to regulate doctors' pay.  Medical school's expensive, and continuing beyond that to become a specialist is even more so.  Remove the financial incentive to go through all that schooling and you WILL have fewer doctors and specialists.  And they say this bill WON'T result in rationing?

I'm waiting to see what Obama says tonight.  Hopefully, the House will trash the existing bill and write a new one that doesn't suck balls.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 9, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> In London, totally free, they even pay you back if you spent something.
> 
> In France, totally free, and they send you nurses if you dun wanna move from your house.
> 
> In Quebec, America started infecting our health-care system, thus the higher taxes to make up for free care & insurance.




Why are you talking about Countries, cities and regions as if they are the same thing?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 9, 2009)

onewingedweasel said:


> thats a pretty brash assumption about a lot of people. and even when i did have insurance which i did for three years before i lost that job in janurary, i couldnt afford all my care between premiums, high co-pays and deductibles. And still be able to keep all our bills paid.  not to mention the insurance through my work routinely denied the most basic of visits.



Sadly, certain people have never let facts or reality get in the way of a stereotype that conveniently excuses them from giving a damn about anyone else :-(


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

The biggest, most obstructive opponents of universal health care are (IMO):

Health insurance lobbies
The wealthy who are so allergic to paying taxes that they raised the creation of tax shelters to an artform
The people who are wealthy enough to afford their own fantastic health care plans, and say "I'VE GOT MINE SO SCREW EVERYBODY ELSE, I'M AN ISLAND DAMMIT"
The people who have been frightened by "death panels" who are gonna unplug Grandma, OH NO
The people who believe everything people like Beck and Limbaugh feed them, and scream "SOCIALISM" without anything but the most HAZY understanding of what the concept of socialism really is

Some of these overlap, of course.

Is the current plan flawed? Yes, it definitely has flaws.  It really doesn't help that Obama has had to back down on some of the most important issues addressed by the plan because of the withering barrage of bullshit being flung at him by the people I listed above, and that the idea of adopting a system like France's or Sweden's or even Canada's frightens the fuck out of some of those people, since it threatens to take a bit more of a bite out of their LARGE slices of the American pie, and it's "UNAMERICAN" - yes, because we hate the French and pretty much everyone else.

FUCK, people, we have to START somewhere, UHC has to get a foot in the door to have a PRAYER of getting anywhere.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I don't mind paying taxes for it, I just don't want anyone telling me they'll rip my ass for not taking part, if I cannot afford to use it (no compulsory insurance modeling allowed, in my book).



To me a tax-based system of funding public health care is fairer, as tax is calculated on your ability to pay.

I suspect with the US proposals there's a shitload of frantic lobbying from the vested interests of the for-profit health system to either kill the initiative or to form it in a way that they profit even more. And I also suspect that the current dogs-breakfast of the current health system doesn't help either in trying to come up with some kind of a coherent transition plan from the old to the new either...


----------



## Wreth (Sep 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> The biggest, most obstructive opponents of universal health care are (IMO):
> 
> Health insurance lobbies
> The wealthy who are so allergic to paying taxes that they raised the creation of tax shelters to an artform
> ...



So basically, there are very few good reasons not to have universal healthcare


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> So basically, there are very few good reasons not to have universal healthcare



Unless you're a neocon capitalista prick or an overzealous fundie fearmongering sheep.


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> The biggest, most obstructive opponents of universal health care are (IMO):
> 
> Health insurance lobbies
> The wealthy who are so allergic to paying taxes that they raised the creation of tax shelters to an artform
> ...


What about people who take good care of their bodies and don't need the unnecessary expense?  This is a fast dwindling minority in America. I happen to be one of these people.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> What about people who take good care of their bodies and don't need the unnecessary expense?  This is a fast dwindling minority in America. I happen to be one of these people.



There should probably be tax exemptions/breaks (or something for people in certain income brackets who keep themselves in good running order (they aren't putting a load on the system with frequent hospital visits and stuff, after all).  I dunno for sure, but it makes sense.

Doesn't the military have its own health care system? (Probably needs a fair amount of fixing if the Walter Reid hospital incident is any indication) If so, they should probably not have to shoulder as much of the burden for the public health care.  I need to try and read the bill again and see what provisions if any there are for military personnel.


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> There should probably be tax exemptions/breaks (or something for people in certain income brackets who keep themselves in good running order (they aren't putting a load on the system with frequent hospital visits and stuff, after all).  I dunno for sure, but it makes sense.
> 
> Doesn't the military have its own health care system? (Probably needs a fair amount of fixing if the Walter Reid hospital incident is any indication) If so, they should probably not have to shoulder as much of the burden for the public health care.


Ask your bro about the military healthcare system.  It's got it's own ups and downs, but they don't exactly treat vet's very well.  The Walter Reid situation is pretty pitiful, especially since these people take risks willingly, instead of being a dumbass like most normal people.


----------



## Wreth (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> What about people who take good care of their bodies and don't need the unnecessary expense?  This is a fast dwindling minority in America. I happen to be one of these people.




Some accidents are just unavoidable. Doesn't matter how careful you are things can still happen


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> Some accidents are just unavoidable. Doesn't matter how careful you are things can still happen


That's why I have car insurance.  It covers shit like that.  I'd rather be allowed to take my risks, thanks very much.  It's no  small sum being demanded here, and honestly I have other shit to do with my money than worry about the what ifs of life.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 9, 2009)

Every thread Roose has ever started said:
			
		

> Hey I found this on another forum: A link
> 
> A few token words


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Ask your bro about the military healthcare system.  It's got it's own ups and downs, but they don't exactly treat vet's very well.  The Walter Reid situation is pretty pitiful, especially since these people take risks willingly, instead of being a dumbass like most normal people.



There needs to be a revamp of health care for people who are serving or have served in the military, obviously.  I thought they had tried a number of times in the past to push legislation through to make that happen (no idea whether they were successful or not).


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> That's why I have car insurance.  It covers shit like that.  I'd rather be allowed to take my risks, thanks very much.  It's no  small sum being demanded here, and honestly I have other shit to do with my money than worry about the what ifs of life.


Car insurance is mandatory, however.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Car insurance is mandatory, however.


Only liability.


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Only liability.


Yup. And only because it involves property.  My body isn't anyone's property, last I checked, and my health my own concern, not that of others.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Yup. And only because it involves property.  My body isn't anyone's property, last I checked, and my health my own concern, not that of others.


Exactly.  The reason we're required to have liability is so that when Billy Bob over there runs a red light and side swipes me, he can pay for it instead of me getting screwed over.  

Last time I checked, your personal health doesn't directly cause damage to other people, so you shouldn't be required to have coverage on it.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Only liability.


Only liability? Here if you don't have it you can lose your license and/or have your car impounded.
But yeah, sorry but -any- argument against national healthcare is simply dumb. There is no actual or even close to valid reason not to have it.

The whole "it's my body" thing doesn't work, at all...in any way...ever.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Only liability? Here if you don't have it you can lose your license and/or have your car impounded.


Only as in "you aren't required anything more than liability.", not only as in "it's not a big deal".


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 9, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Hey I found this on another forum: A link
> 
> A few token words



Youre link doesn't work, LK...


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Youre link doesn't work, LK...


He's making fun of you.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> He's making fun of you.


I think Roose was being sarcastic.


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The whole "it's my body" thing doesn't work, at all...in any way...ever.


Tell me, why not?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 9, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I think Roose was being sarcastic.



*Bing!*  "Give this man a prize!"


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> *Bing!*  "Give this man a prize!"


What do I win?


AzurePhoenix said:


> Tell me, why not?


inb4drugsbeingillegalwhileignoringthedamagetheyactuallycauseinsociety

^There is no space between that t and u in actually.  That's odd.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Tell me, why not?


Everybody wants healthcare, saying you don't means clearly you need it for something.

Saying that you want to be able to choose a better healthcare than somebody else because you think you're better than them says a lot about your personality.
Saying that you want to be able to choose not to have any healthcare is, again, a reason you need it.

To even think that people don't deserve healthcare because lines will be longer is a reason your argument doesn't work, ever.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> *Bing!*  "Give this man a prize!"


You need lessons on sarcasm, a lot of them.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You need lessons on sarcasm, a lot of them.


Lesson one: :V goes here--> :V


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 9, 2009)

Proof, if anymore were needed, that 90% of politicians really really *REALLY* have no idea about what an actual middle class person goes through. 

I think that most people vying for congress should be required to have lived at least 5-10+ years in lower middle class working blue collar jobs that can be cut at any second, or live in places like Detroit or Flint, or have been unemployed during middle age. Similar to how some countries require 6 months of military service and how someone here proposed most people be forced to work 6 months in retail.


----------



## Random_Observer (Sep 9, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Ive grown up in socialist health-care, and proud of it.. I mean, doesnt America have the worst health-care system of the world? (might be exaggerating, but ya gotta admit its one of the suckiest) Heck, even Cuba got a better system than America, and that explains ALOT!


 
Oh, So that's why Canadians are crossing the boarder just to get American treatment that they can't get in Canada.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Random_Observer said:


> Oh, So that's why Canadians are crossing the boarder just to get American treatment that they can't get in Canada.


They aren't, that's a lie you've been told.


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They aren't, that's a lie you've been told.



Some wealthy folks cross the border for elective procedures Newf, but the Americans abusing Canada's public system make his argument moot. Statistically speaking the U.S.A's health care system is ranked 33rd in the world in terms of overall performance. It's great if you have money to burn and you want an elective procedure A.S.A.P, but for almost anything else it's the worst in the developed world. Just ask Glenn Beck :V .


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Some wealthy folks cross the border for elective procedures Newf, but the Americans abusing Canada's public system make his argument moot. Statistically speaking the U.S.A's health care system is ranked 33rd in the world in terms of overall performance. It's great if you have money to burn and you want an elective procedure A.S.A.P, but for almost anything else it's the worst in the developed world. Just ask Glenn Beck :V .


This is true.


----------



## onewingedweasel (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> What about people who take good care of their bodies and don't need the unnecessary expense?  This is a fast dwindling minority in America. I happen to be one of these people.



You dont have to smoke to get cancer. 
You can diet and exercise and still suffer a heart attack. You can suffer a heart attack from exercise. 
You can develop genetic diseases later in life without symptoms of them before the onset say
Huntingtons (1 in 2,500 people)
so you being "healthy" now doesn't mean much if you have the genetic disposition to any number of life threatening ailments.  saying "im healthy  i dont need healthcare" is like saying "i dont need car insurance im a good driver." you cant predict the future. and without preventive and routine care you could have issues you are not aware of or put yourself at risk for not having serious problems address early.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

You know what the biggest problem is? People.  THE people.  The people who have adopted this "FUCK YOU AND YOURS, I GOT ME AND MINE" one-man-IS-an-island shit as their way of life.  America is a seething pot of hatred and schadenfreude.  We hate each other.  These people have elected other people into high office who they believe will help them force their brand of hate upon everyone else.  These people have no sense of responsibility to their country.  They suck from Lady Liberty's tit greedily and resent any call for aid from her.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

It's neither universal nor care.  Discuss.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> It's neither universal nor care.  Discuss.



By the time Capitol Hill's done with it, it won't be "health" either.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> By the time Capitol Hill's done with it, it won't be "health" either.



It'll be the Medicaid-Medicare-Perscription Abortion Reform Act.


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

onewingedweasel said:


> You dont have to smoke to get cancer.
> You can diet and exercise and still suffer a heart attack. You can suffer a heart attack from exercise.
> You can develop genetic diseases later in life without symptoms of them before the onset say
> Huntingtons (1 in 2,500 people)
> so you being "healthy" now doesn't mean much if you have the genetic disposition to any number of life threatening ailments.  saying "im healthy  i dont need healthcare" is like saying "i dont need car insurance im a good driver." you cant predict the future. and without preventive and routine care you could have issues you are not aware of or put yourself at risk for not having serious problems address early.


Lol. And you know what?  If I got cancer, I'd get to wait in line.  Just like if I got any of these "rare" diseases.  Proof is in the pudding.  It's about choice, anyway. If I don't want it, or partake of it, I shouldn't have to.  Besides, with car insurance, at least I get to choose my coverage.



NewfDraggie said:


> Everybody wants healthcare, saying you don't means clearly you need it for something.
> 
> Saying that you want to be able to choose a better healthcare than somebody else because you think you're better than them says a lot about your personality.
> Saying that you want to be able to choose not to have any healthcare is, again, a reason you need it.
> ...


Great job using absolutes to justify your flimsy argument. This is why you'll never understand politics of the people.  Ever.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Lol. And you know what?  If I got cancer, I'd get to wait in line.  Just like if I got any of these "rare" diseases.



At least the government doesn't try to "wait you out" until you die of untreated cancer, so it doesn't have to pony up for the treatment it said it would pay for when you signed on with their health plan.



AzurePhoenix said:


> Proof is in the pudding.  It's about choice, anyway. If I don't want it, or partake of it, I shouldn't have to.  Besides, with car insurance, at least I get to choose my coverage.



Car insurance and health insurance are not the same.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 9, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> About universal healthcare in general, yes. About this new bill, no.



It all leads to the same thing.

Person A: My family and/or member got in a bad accident, and thank God that we had universal healthcare or they would be dead, and it cost us nothing to get them fixed up. 

Person B: Only poor people who can't afford insurance want universal healthcare. Why should my access to a professional become limited because some bum wants a free ride? 

I'm all for open discussion. I love it, but it's just this topic gets posted every other week, and every time it's up it's the same people saying the same same thing.


----------



## onewingedweasel (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Lol. And you know what?  If I got cancer, I'd get to wait in line.  Just like if I got any of these "rare" diseases.  Proof is in the pudding.  It's about choice, anyway. If I don't want it, or partake of it, I shouldn't have to.  Besides, with car insurance, at least I get to choose my coverage.



wait i dont get your point, really.
wait in line? you actually have enough money for the biopsies or diagnostic procedures, and kemo... or any other treatment plans for cancer? its not even the waiting in line... you have the money to afford the treatments and specialists?
 im not following on what the proof is or what the  pudding is here either.
1 in 2,500 isnt that rare.... and there are over 1 million cancer diagnosis' each year in the US. 1 out of 5 deaths in the US are from coronary heart disease.
 Not to mention even if you had universal care then sure, you could choose not to go to the doctor.
just like you pay for the roads but you could choose to walk. 
it sounds more like your politics here are based on the "nothing bad can happen to me" mentality.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> At least the government doesn't try to "wait you out" until you die of untreated cancer, so it doesn't have to pony up for the treatment it said it would pay for when you signed on with their health plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Car insurance and health insurance are not the same.



So there is no bureaucracy bullshit to deal with?


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

onewingedweasel said:


> wait i dont get your point, really.
> wait in line? you actually have enough money for the biopsies or diagnostic procedures, and kemo... or any other treatment plans for cancer? its not even the waiting in line... you have the money to afford the treatments and specialists?
> im not following on what the proof is or what the  pudding is here either.
> 1 in 2,500 isnt that rare.... and there are over 1 million cancer diagnosis' each year in the US. 1 out of 5 deaths in the US are from coronary heart disease.
> ...


Whether I do or not is the not the point.  My point, is that if I wanted to buy insurance, I'd fucking do it, not be told by some twit who isn't even going to participate in the system they create how much I'm going to pay for it, and if I don't, how much they're going to charge me.  It's my choice to make, not someone elses.  Which is why I think our system still has some merit.  And you know those people who die from heart attacks?  THEY ATE TOO MUCH.  And if I had "Universal Care"(BTW, this isn't what we'd recieve IF they pass this shit heap of a bill), even if I went to the doctor, I'd have to wait.  I can go to Urgent Care right away, as it stands.  So no, clearly you don't see my point. I've lived the better part of 30 years, and nothing has happened yet that I haven't had a serious problem with.  Maybe if Americans didn't treat their bodies like shit, they'd spend less money on healthcare. What ya think of that?



Tycho said:


> At least the government doesn't try to "wait you out" until you die of untreated cancer, so it doesn't have to pony up for the treatment it said it would pay for when you signed on with their health plan.
> 
> 
> 
> Car insurance and health insurance are not the same.


Hey, it's happening all over the world right now man.  1 in 5 people dying in line for treatment?  It's more likely than you think.  And no, car insurance and health insurance cannot even begin to have a respectable parallel drawn between.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> Some wealthy folks cross the border for elective procedures Newf, but the Americans abusing Canada's public system make his argument moot. Statistically speaking the U.S.A's health care system is ranked 33rd in the world in terms of overall performance. It's great if you have money to burn and you want an elective procedure A.S.A.P, but for almost anything else it's the worst in the developed world. Just ask Glenn Beck :V .



Coverage.  It ranks 33rd in coverage.  The US ranks either #1 or close to #1 in actual care.

Furthermore, coverage could be solved if they allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines like auto insurance companies can.


----------



## Nattea (Sep 9, 2009)

People forget a very important detail about America's history: we were formed because we *didn't want to pay taxes.*


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

Nattea said:


> People forget a very important detail about America's history: we were formed because we *didn't want to pay taxes.*



Well, at least not the kind of taxes that we were paying.  It was agreed after the failure of the Articles of Confederation shortly after the Revolution that the central government needed to be able to collect taxes to function properly.

They just never supported taxes on inheritance or income.


----------



## Azure (Sep 9, 2009)

Nattea said:


> People forget a very important detail about America's history: we were formed because we *didn't want to pay taxes.*


Don't leave everything out.  We were formed by a group of white, slave holding, upper class landowners who didn't want to pay taxes.  See how much better that sounds?  Honestly, I don't think that healthcare is a bad idea, but the way our congress has been going about it is most certainly not near the most effective.  I'm waiting for a better deal, that allows me to pay less, or opt out completely. This current bill is too far gone to even be picked up.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Great job using absolutes to justify your flimsy argument. This is why you'll never understand politics of the people.  Ever.


There is no valid reason.
Not wanting to wait in line is not a valid reason.
Not wanting to pay more is illogical, seeing as you'll actually pay less.
Absolutes work when it's actually absolute, however it doesn't work when you tell somebody what they do and do not know.


AzurePhoenix said:


> Whether I do or not is the not the point.  My point, is that if I wanted to buy insurance, I'd fucking do it, not be told by some twit who isn't even going to participate in the system they create how much I'm going to pay for it, and if I don't, how much they're going to charge me.  It's my choice to make, not someone elses.


So you don't buy car insurance or pay for your roads, pay for your police, pay for your fire department, pay for your courtrooms, pay for your government buildings, or pay for your prisons? Why should you be allowed to select a better treatment then joe down the road? you shouldn't. Same doctors, same treatments. It would actually save you money, like I've been saying, yet your entire argument is based around not wanting to wait in line, yet you're trying to cover that up for some reason.


> Hey, it's happening all over the world right now man.  1 in 5 people dying in line for treatment?  It's more likely than you think.  And no, car insurance and health insurance cannot even begin to have a respectable parallel drawn between.


This is a false, or illogical statistic. People die everywhere from waiting in line, but I doubt it's that many; your statistic doesn't even include the amount of people that die because they don't go to the doctor because they can't afford health insurance; your statistic includes your current healthcare system so what you're saying is nothing will change anyway.


Hyenaworks said:


> Coverage.  It ranks 33rd in coverage.  The US ranks either #1 or close to #1 in actual care.
> 
> Furthermore, coverage could be solved if they allowed insurance companies to compete across state lines like auto insurance companies can.


No it dose not. Not at all.
It's nowhere near number one, it's treated like a business instead of helping people. That's so much care.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No it dose not. Not at all.
> It's nowhere near number one, it's treated like a business instead of helping people. That's so much care.



You seem to not understand what the "care" portion of health care means so I'll enlighten you.

The care portion is services provided.  The US has some of the best, if not the best, health care services in the world.  The coverage is not universal but if you got the green you can get anything you want here.

Ask my grandparents neighbors, natives of Great Britain, why they moved to Arizona for specialized treatment in the states.  One of them is a doctor.  They would tell you because the best care they can get is in the US and not in their home country.


----------



## Dass (Sep 9, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> Coverage.  It ranks 33rd in coverage.  The US ranks either #1 or close to #1 in actual care.



try 37th in overall performance (not even close to #1)

this system is likely flawed however, as Colombia (22) is 8 places higher than Canada (30)


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Sep 9, 2009)

Can you people _*please*_ cite your sources on these rankings!?


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> You seem to not understand what the "care" portion of health care means so I'll enlighten you.
> 
> The care portion is services provided.  The US has some of the best, if not the best, health care services in the world.  The coverage is not universal but if you got the green you can get anything you want here.


Alright, seeing as I'm so blind (and not the one saying my country has the best health care in the world without a shred of evidence) I'll just leave some proof and shut you up.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
*USA - 37th place*



> Ask my grandparents neighbors, natives of Great Britain, why they moved to Arizona for specialized treatment in the states.  One of them is a doctor.  They would tell you because the best care they can get is in the US and not in their home country.


So one personal instance instantly means best in the world?
Well I can give you examples of people that should have died but didn't due to several hospitals in several countries. I doubt that will be difficult to do.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 9, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> You seem to not understand what the "care" portion of health care means so I'll enlighten you.
> 
> The care portion is services provided.  The US has some of the best, if not the best, health care services in the world.  The coverage is not universal but if you got the green you can get anything you want here.
> 
> Ask my grandparents neighbors, natives of Great Britain, why they moved to Arizona for specialized treatment in the states.  One of them is a doctor.  They would tell you because the best care they can get is in the US and not in their home country.



Oh shi- the Brits here will have your head. Don't you know that the U.K.'s healthcare system is a hybrid, so it totally has the best of both worlds which makes it the best.


----------



## Dass (Sep 9, 2009)

Adelio Altomar said:


> Can you people _*please*_ cite your sources on these rankings!?





That WHO report from 2000.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Alright, seeing as I'm so blind (and not the one saying my country has the best health care in the world without a shred of evidence) I'll just leave some proof and shut you up.
> http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
> *USA - 37th place*
> 
> ...





> The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.



Kinda hard to use this as evidence when they decided that the ranking system was too complex to properly evaluate and haven't as a result had a ranking list since 2000.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Oh and this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html
I'm just taking some of the first things from google, yet people blindly say "USA NUMBAR ONE" without even checking google really quick. If it were truely number one you'd expect the USA to shove it into people's faces like other things they're good at doing (or things they lie about or falsify but those lies are instead plastered over google).


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> Kinda hard to use this as evidence when they decided that the ranking system was too complex to properly evaluate and haven't as a result had a ranking list since 2000.


Oh shut up and google it.
My source may be older, but it's still a source unlike your grandma story which I doubt happened just yesterday


----------



## Hyenaworks (Sep 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Oh shut up and google it.
> My source may be older, but it's still a source unlike your grandma story which I doubt happened just yesterday



You provided me with the direct link and I provided you with a direct quote from that link.  WHO no longer conducts those rankings because they were too complex to properly quantify.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 9, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> You provided me with the direct link and I provided you with a direct quote from that link.  WHO no longer conducts those rankings because they were too complex to properly quantify.


Alright, well you quoting my link for something irrelevant doesn't disregard the fact you can't find one to support you. I actually linked a New York Times article as well, so +2 for me and +.001 for you.


----------



## Kitsune Dzelda (Sep 9, 2009)

*sigh* When it costs money to live.... I should hope Baucus is laughed out of court.  

But Obama should know that he cant have an all for one strategem without someone taking the blow for it.  Personally this kind of sacrifice would be a great folly, as it would sink several hundreds of thousands of families at once.


----------



## onewingedweasel (Sep 9, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Maybe if Americans didn't treat their bodies like shit, they'd spend less money on healthcare. What ya think of that?



i think, actually, that universial health care should be paid in part by a small tax on things like soda, cigarettes and alcohol. we tax them enough already i feel it should at least be going back to the people who need it.
i  also think in other systems of universal care doctors are encouraged to keep their patients healthy and can do this when people can afford to come in for preventative and routine care. 

I also think you're forgetting there are people out there who have chronic conditions that have little to do with what they eat or smoke.  Asthma, cancer, diabetes,  and high blood pressure all run in my family. You can get or be sick and not be negligent to your health.
having a healthy lifestyle does not mean you wont get sick or have a serious illness. My great grandmother died of cancer. she did not smoke, drink or work near chemicals.

and whether you would have the money if one of these things did happen to you *is* the point. you cannot receive anything but basic emergency care unless you have insurance or can pay for it out of pocket.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 10, 2009)

A female with an intellectual opinion that's well versed in the written English language?
Bullshit. :V

I kid, <3~

I don't really have much else to say on this matter, I mean...it's quite clear that national healthcare is better than insurance-based business-care, though people somehow still manage to argue against it with really strange points that make no real sense, or make you question their ethical/moral reasoning.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2009)

Hyenaworks said:


> The care portion is services provided.  The US has some of the best, if not the best, health care services in the world.  The coverage is not universal but *if you got the green* you can get anything you want here.



And if you DON'T have the green... well, tough shit.

The best care in the world may as well not exist if the people who need it can't get access to it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Person B: Only poor people who can't afford insurance want universal healthcare. Why should my access to a professional become limited because some bum wants a free ride?



The response to this argument is: _"If an infant is born to poor parents, would we be more ethical to give medicine to that child so he or she does not die prematurely of preventable diseases, or *would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money*?

Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer. I've been asked to discuss whether we are more ethical if we provide such people medicine that lessens their pain. Or *would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?*"_


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2009)

Random_Observer said:


> Oh, So that's why Canadians are crossing the boarder just to get American treatment that they can't get in Canada.



In a way yes, but not for the reasons you think - 

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427


> *Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.*
> Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.


----------



## Kitsune Dzelda (Sep 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> _Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer. I've been asked to discuss whether we are more ethical if we provide such people medicine that lessens their pain. Or *would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?*"_


 
Definitely watch them die penniless and in extreme agony.  Karmic backlash cannot be avoided, no matter how little it is.

Now, one of the main reasons why i dont want Unibversal healthcare is that theres really nothing wrong with me, so why do I have to pay as you say, to give a bum a free ride?  Being in the U.S. shouldnt involve paying just so the government can feel relaxed about you not doing anything stupid, like accidentally wandering int he water after the fish when the household currents still in it.  For once, humans should have some common sense.  When people abuse their rights, often they are taken away.


----------



## Azure (Sep 10, 2009)

onewingedweasel said:


> i think, actually, that universial health care should be paid in part by a small tax on things like soda, cigarettes and alcohol. we tax them enough already i feel it should at least be going back to the people who need it.
> i  also think in other systems of universal care doctors are encouraged to keep their patients healthy and can do this when people can afford to come in for preventative and routine care.


So a lifestyle tax?  Sounds great.  Lets tax more shit, so some chump can have his next coronary bought and paid for because he ate that crap anyway. And by your sentence you imply that doctors here are not compelled to keep their patients healthy?  Is that what I detect? In reality, the whole economics of how Congress plans to pay for this is so incredibly hazy, I could see clearer on a foggy day in San Francisco.



onewingedweasel said:


> I also think you're forgetting there are people out there who have chronic conditions that have little to do with what they eat or smoke.  Asthma, cancer, diabetes,  and high blood pressure all run in my family. You can get or be sick and not be negligent to your health.
> having a healthy lifestyle does not mean you wont get sick or have a serious illness. My great grandmother died of cancer. she did not smoke, drink or work near chemicals.


Oh, that's right, I forgot about that incredible tiny minority.  Let's inconvenience the whole fucking system just for them, right? Let's dabble in the minutiae, and appease the tiniest slice of the voter base, so we can appear to be Samaritans.



onewingedweasel said:


> and whether you would have the money if one of these things did happen to you *is* the point. you cannot receive anything but basic emergency care unless you have insurance or can pay for it out of pocket.


The point is that choice doesn't seem to enter into your mind. Unlike you, I'd rather take that chance. And I believe I have that right.  Did you miss the part where I supported healthcare, as long as I have the option to opt out? Do whatever the fuck you want, that's fine, I'd simply rather not participate.  Just like I'd rather not participate in programs like Social Security, and Medicare.  When I get old, I'd like to die, instead of this current generation, who prolongs their misery to the burden of others, just to squeeze a few more low quality years in there.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2009)

Kitsune Dzelda said:


> Definitely watch them die penniless and in extreme agony.



Words fail me as to the inhumanity just exhibited here...



Kitsune Dzelda said:


> Now, one of the main reasons why i dont want Unibversal healthcare *is that theres really nothing wrong with me*, so why do I have to pay as you say, to give a bum a free ride?



It may well be true that "there's nothing really wrong with you" - but that's AT THE MOMENT.
Can you _guarantee_ that nothing, absolutely NOTHING, will affect your health for the rest of your life? No 'flu, no cancer, no infectious disease, no food poisoning, no injury, no mental degradation, no tumours, no heart attacks or strokes, no poisonous insect or animal bite, no exposure to harmful substances... NOTHING?
Are you really THAT arrogant?

And as far as "giving a bum a free ride", I'd say that in a system *where you can voluntarily opt out of contributing* to a health-care system which is OBLIGED to treat accident and emergency victims, *that non-contributor IS "the bum getting a free ride"* if they were ever unfortunate enough to require that sort of treatment. Because I can't see people with those kind of views telling the paramedics at a road accident "Don't worry about saving my life, I've opted out of the system..."


----------



## onewingedweasel (Sep 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> A female with an intellectual opinion that's well versed in the written English language?
> Bullshit. :V
> 
> I kid, <3~



Lol  and in the forums.. what am i thinking?


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Sep 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Words fail me as to the inhumanity just exhibited here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't you just love American people? Such a friendly, helpful bunch, eh? :razz:


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> The response to this argument is: _"If an infant is born to poor parents, would we be more ethical to give medicine to that child so he or she does not die prematurely of preventable diseases, or *would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money*?_
> 
> _Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer. I've been asked to discuss whether we are more ethical if we provide such people medicine that lessens their pain. Or *would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?*"_


 

There was this documentary that I think was called "Rising sun over Tiananmen Square." It was narrated by a man who grew up in China while the Cold War was happening. In one part of the movie he brings up how their government used to say to them that American were children were dying on the streets of New York everyday. You remind me of that part of the documentary.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 10, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> There was this documentary that I think was called "Rising sun over Tiananmen Square." It was narrated by a man who grew up in China while the Cold War was happening. In one part of the movie he brings up how *their government used to say to them that American *(*were*)* children were dying on the streets of New York everyday*. You remind me of that part of the documentary.



And yet they butchered their own children IN Tiananmen Square, just for politically protesting their government...


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 10, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> And yet they butchered their own children IN Tiananmen Square, just for politically protesting their government...


Deflecting.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 11, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Deflecting.



Just commenting on someone else's deflection, not to mention I'm the OP... feel free to carry on with the topic, the comments here are quite interesting.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 11, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> There was this documentary that I think was called "Rising sun over Tiananmen Square." It was narrated by a man who grew up in China while the Cold War was happening. In one part of the movie he brings up how their government used to say to them that American were children were dying on the streets of New York everyday. You remind me of that part of the documentary.



Cute. Real cute. Equating a hypothetical question with propaganda. Nice one.

I bet you think your shit doesn't stink either.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 11, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Cute. Real cute. Equating a hypothetical question with propaganda. Nice one.
> 
> I bet you think your shit doesn't stink either.


 
Hey, I'm not using the suffering of others (The people who got screwed by Enron) to push an agenda in a country that is not even mine. Like I said is that other thread, you're only using them because it benefits your argument. I'm pretty sure you don't give a shit about those Americans.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 11, 2009)

Going to make a long one, Mayfurr?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 11, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Hey, I'm not using the suffering of others (The people who got screwed by Enron) to push an agenda in a country that is not even mine.



Whereas you seem intent on *ignoring* the suffering of *your fellow citizens* for the sake of *ideology* - and I'd wager that if the US health system and resultant outcomes were that of _China_, you and your ilk would be screaming to the heavens about what an inhumane system it was and how evil the leadership would be for allowing it to happen. But because it's _America_, it's not only _not a bad_ thing, it's practically _ordained by God..._

*I'm *"pushing an agenda"? Hey, it's not MY country's health system that's in the crapper - I'm just standing up against the complete and utter BULLSHIT that certain Americans keep pushing about what public health care systems are like in the rest of the world. 

I can't believe that there's this attitude that people _don't_ have a right to some kind of health care, that health care only belongs to those who can pay for it or otherwise "deserve" it, that it's apparently _just fine_ for people to suffer and go BANKRUPT due to illness or injury because they're not sufficiently god-like to anticipate *every* freakin' event in their life... and that it somehow is a horrible horrible *sin* for tax money to go towards _helping people who need it_.

It beggars belief that I'm even having to argue for feckin' *basic human morality* with people like you from a supposedly _civilised_ country, never mind the whys and wherefores about what might actually _fix things._ But oh, I forgot - Americans like you automatically know EVERYTHING, the rest of the world has NOTHING to teach you, and anyone who might want to actually HELP or give _advice_ is actually plotting to bring down your oh-so-perfect nation. 

Perhaps a fitting modification to the Statue of Liberty to properly reflect your views might be to replace the torch of liberty with a hand showing a raised index finger, and the lines about "bring me your huddled masses yearning to breath free" replaced with "I've got mine, fuck off the rest of you." Or failing that, replace the entire damn statue with a monument consisting of a giant dollar sign...


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 11, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Just commenting on someone else's deflection, not to mention I'm the OP... feel free to carry on with the topic, the comments here are quite interesting.


Nope, still deflecting.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 11, 2009)

Nattea said:


> People forget a very important detail about America's history: we were formed because we *didn't want to pay taxes.*



Funny thing about that...we didn't want to pay taxes that weren't going to help us in any way. 

Another funny thing is supposedly, there were actually more people in support of the british in the 13 colonies than who were keen on rebelling. (It was mostly France that helped turn it around. Then Spain&Holland were helping supply the rebels, and Spain apparently was threatening to declare war on England. Spain&France definitely had a bone to pick with England.)


----------



## Tycho (Sep 11, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> Spain&France definitely had a bone to pick with England.



Been that way for centuries.  3 of the biggest colonialist powers vying for dominance.  Massive pissing match/turf war.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 11, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Whereas you seem intent on *ignoring* the suffering of *your fellow citizens* for the sake of *ideology* - and I'd wager that if the US health system and resultant outcomes were that of _China_, you and your ilk would be screaming to the heavens about what an inhumane system it was and how evil the leadership would be for allowing it to happen. But because it's _America_, it's not only _not a bad_ thing, it's practically _ordained by God..._
> 
> *I'm *"pushing an agenda"? Hey, it's not MY country's health system that's in the crapper - I'm just standing up against the complete and utter BULLSHIT that certain Americans keep pushing about what public health care systems are like in the rest of the world.
> 
> ...


 

Man you're pissed, you have a double standard, and you card stack to boot. You clearly don't care about the well being of America or its people, as you just showed your distain for us. You come off as a militant Marxist that thinks the upper-class is hoarding all the resources for their own. No. No they don't. That is a lie I hear from college kids who wear Che shirts. 

May your reply be very lulzy.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 11, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> Funny thing about that...we didn't want to pay taxes that weren't going to help us in any way.
> 
> Another funny thing is supposedly, there were actually more people in support of the british in the 13 colonies than who were keen on rebelling. (It was mostly France that helped turn it around. Then Spain&Holland were helping supply the rebels, and Spain apparently was threatening to declare war on England. Spain&France definitely had a bone to pick with England.)



I also recall reading that the taxes being levied on the American colonists were LESS than what was being levied on the British people at home...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 11, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Man you're pissed, you have a double standard, and you card stack to boot. You clearly don't care about the well being of America or its people, as you just showed your distain for us.



Oh right, so expressing concern that not all Americans have access to the same levels of health care in their country _as I have in mine_ is "not caring about the well-being of America or its people". Next you'll be arguing that black is white, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is wisdom. 
What IS the colour of the sky on your planet?



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You come off as a militant Marxist that thinks the upper-class is hoarding all the resources for their own.



And where did I say I thought "the upper-class is hoarding all the resources for their own"?  You're only projecting me being a Marxist because you've run out of actual arguments, and it makes you feel oh-so-righteous to invoke the spirit of McCarthyism to save yourself the bother of thinking. 
In fact, I expect you'd class Jesus Christ as a "militant Marxist" seeing as he was saying things like "give all your worldly goods to the poor". If you'd actually _bothered _to follow the link I posted previously you'd see that the quote about _"would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money?"_ came from *an American pastor*. That's right, an *American.*

If I _do_ come across as a "Marxist" (which I think would only be possible to someone who thinks that Genghis Khan is a wussy liberal), then it's a damn sight better than coming across as some arrogant snot-nosed _child _mouthing off words they appear to have no comprehension as to their meaning. Pissed? You bet I am when it comes to someone insinuating that _helping people_ is somehow _evil._


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I also recall reading that the taxes being levied on the American colonists were LESS than what was being levied on the British people at home...



American colonists were receiving no representation in Parliament.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Pissed? You bet I am when it comes to someone insinuating that _helping people_ is somehow _evil._



It is, when I am forced to help people, rather than allowed to volunteer my help... *that* is what crosses the line, Mayfurr.  It is in the same vein as those "Good Samaritan" laws that tell me I must give aid, even if I judge the situation too dangerous to my own health and well-being.  Forcing someone to help, by threat of punishment, *is* evil...




Tycho said:


> American colonists were receiving no representation in Parliament.



Therefor, the whole "Taxation without Representation" thing...


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 12, 2009)

We Americans prefer things unequal: marriage for straights but not for gays, paying immigrants less than normal citizens, that kind of thing.

I put it to you that there are people in America that feel superior and even overjoyed that they can afford private insurance and there are others who can't even get their foot in the door. 

America likes it; let's just own up to it, shall we? We like the idea that there are those below us who are below us, and we want it to stay that way, because if they were elevated to our level, we wouldn't be important any more. We must perpetuate an antiquated and rigid social hierarchy and be the judge and jury of the lower classes; let them live in the muck and suffer while we sip coffee on the veranda. Health care for the lower classes? Don't be ridiculous! They don't deserve it; WE deserve it, because we're not them, obviously. To hell with them; they're not as important as we are.


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 12, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> It is, when I am forced to help people, rather than allowed to volunteer my help... *that* is what crosses the line, Mayfurr.  It is in the same vein as those "Good Samaritan" laws that tell me I must give aid, even if I judge the situation too dangerous to my own health and well-being.  Forcing someone to help, by threat of punishment, *is* evil...


lol.
That's like saying "being forced to breath is evil", or many other silly statements along those lines.


----------



## Kitsune Dzelda (Sep 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol.
> That's like saying "being forced to breath is evil", or many other silly statements along those lines.


 
Hes got a point yknow, I love to help folks, but the minute they get demanding of it, I either dont give them help or I just pretend to "Forget" what Im doing and wander off.

I think your comparison of help to breathing is overdone.  We need to breathe, we dont NEED to help, just some of us want to.


----------



## AlexInsane (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm hearing an argument:
"Don't you want to help people?"
"No, I don't. Not when I don't want to."
"Well, you're just selfish and evil and heartless."

What's so heartless about putting yourself first and others last? It's not like nobody else on the planet thinks the same way.

Humans are selfish, greedy, egotistical, elitist, and quite happy to push someone off the sled when there are wolves on their trail. We are hypocritical about a lot of stuff; that's part of what makes us human. We don't practice what we preach; we don't do what we say.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Sep 12, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> We Americans prefer things unequal: marriage for straights but not for gays, paying immigrants less than normal citizens, that kind of thing.
> 
> I put it to you that there are people in America that feel superior and even overjoyed that they can afford private insurance and there are others who can't even get their foot in the door.
> 
> America likes it; let's just own up to it, shall we? We like the idea that there are those below us who are below us, and we want it to stay that way, because if they were elevated to our level, we wouldn't be important any more. We must perpetuate an antiquated and rigid social hierarchy and be the judge and jury of the lower classes; let them live in the muck and suffer while we sip coffee on the veranda. Health care for the lower classes? Don't be ridiculous! They don't deserve it; WE deserve it, because we're not them, obviously. To hell with them; they're not as important as we are.



I was thinking the exact opposite. We Americans prefer things equal. Equal opportunity that is. We like the idea that there is a greener side and we have the possibility of reaching it. Guess it's really all about attitude, glass half full/half empty kind of thing. But if you never aspire to be greater, you wont get there. And if you just think that you are above everyone else, probably means you're the low man on the pole in a lot of other ways. I don't want the government to take over health care for quite a few reasons including: They aren't good at managing anything else (why do you think they would do good on healthcare?), I prefer to have choice (even if I can't afford it I still have the choice), and based on everything I've read and heard they aren't going about it in a beneficial manner. If they weren't misappropriating our social security for pork projects... If they could manage the post office in a manner to make it profitable... If they could get rid of all this debt or just start getting a budget surplus going... If they didn't do underhanded things to _hide_ where money was being spent (including welfare). If they could manage their own cafeteria to make it just break even.... If they read the bills they were voting on rather than saying stuff like we don't have enough time to read it... If there wasn't a new criminal charge or scandal every week... If they had sound reasoning on what would work and how rather than saying it has to be done quickly or people will die.... Perhaps I would consider. But now it's all just a huge political circus full of idiots and criminals on both sides of the aisle that makes me worry more every day that this country is going down the shitter and going fast. When half of your population strongly disagrees with the other half, there's problems. Esspecially when you try to centralize government over the 2 halfs. I say let state governments take more power so that instead of 150 million people disagreeing with 150 million people, it's more along the lines of the culture of the state. This is how things are supposed to be anyways based on the constitution.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 12, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> If they could manage the post office in a manner to make it profitable.



I thought the whole point of the government running the post office was because it could NEVER be profitable.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Sep 12, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I thought the whole point of the government running the post office was because it could NEVER be profitable.



I think that was why they took it over. It doesn't mean it can't be. Look at UPS and other delivery services. They have been struggling recently but that's what happens when you can't raise rates because you have to remain competitive with the government or you put yourself out of business. Kind of like what would happen with private insurance if Obamacare passed.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 12, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> It is, when I am forced to help people, rather than allowed to volunteer my help... *that* is what crosses the line, Mayfurr.  It is in the same vein as those "Good Samaritan" laws that tell me I must give aid, even if I judge the situation too dangerous to my own health and well-being.  Forcing someone to help, by threat of punishment, *is* evil...



Roose, based on your postings in other threads you're a Christian, right? If so, how do you reconcile the above with the following:



> Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
> 
> Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."
> 
> ...



Hmm,  seems like your God is *commanding *you to do _precisely_ the sort of thing that you consider "evil".

Now, if the above isn't "socialist" enough:


> Acts 4:32-35. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and *not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.* And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. *For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need. *_(emphasis added)_



Common property? No private ownership? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need? Sounds rather like the Communist Manifesto - *except this is your Bible speaking.*


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 12, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> I think that was why they took it over. It doesn't mean it can't be. Look at UPS and other delivery services. They have been struggling recently but that's what happens when you can't raise rates because you have to remain competitive with the government or you put yourself out of business. Kind of like what would happen with private insurance if Obamacare passed.



Can UPS take a letter to Alaska for 44 cents?


Cause if they can I'll switch over


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 12, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> It is, when I am forced to help people, rather than allowed to volunteer my help... *that* is what crosses the line, Mayfurr.  It is in the same vein as those "Good Samaritan" laws that tell me I must give aid, even if I judge the situation too dangerous to my own health and well-being.  Forcing someone to help, by threat of punishment, *is* evil...
> .



Umm the Good Samaritan laws are in place to protect people who are certified in first aid and CPR from being sued by the very people who's life they save, i.e. if you did the hiemlich maneuver on someone and saved their life, but in the process broke their breastbone. Not to mention sexual harassment lawsuits. Unless your thinking of a very different set of laws I've never heard of, there's nothing that says you HAVE to help if you don't want to.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 12, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> I think that was why they took it over. It doesn't mean it can't be. Look at UPS and other delivery services. They have been struggling recently but that's what happens when you can't raise rates because you have to remain competitive with the government or you put yourself out of business. Kind of like what would happen with private insurance if Obamacare passed.



I see government-run businesses as a "keep the bastards honest" type operation for areas where there there is a significant public good to be maintained in areas which lend themselves to natural monopolies or duopolies, using market forces rather than government regulation for the greater good. An example of this in my country is the government-owned (but run along business lines) Kiwibank, which is a small but significant competitor to large trading banks and helps keep them competitive with reasonable rates - in contrast to business like the oil companies who suspiciously raise prices within days of each other, or the Telecom / Vodafone mobile phone duopoly which charges Kiwis some of the highest mobile calling rates in the OECD...

I don't believe keeping the massive profits of health insurance companies is more important than making sure people have adequate access to health care - I don't have a problem with someone making a profit as long as they're not raping the wallets of the weak and vulnerable.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 12, 2009)

moonchylde said:


> Umm the Good Samaritan laws are in place to protect people who are certified in first aid and CPR from being sued by the very people who's life they save, i.e. if you did the hiemlich maneuver on someone and saved their life, but in the process broke their breastbone. Not to mention sexual harassment lawsuits.



You're right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law


> Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Similarly, in Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. *Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake in treatment.*


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2009)

Stupid America: "WE NEED BETTER HEALTHCARE"
Gov't: "Well, OK, let's try to draw something up here..."
Stupid America: "NO NO NO YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG"
Gov't: "Do you have a better suggestion?"
Stupid America: "I DON'T KNOW THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR JOB NOW GIVE US BETTER HEALTHCARE"
Gov't : "OK, but we'll need to raise taxes to pay f-"
Stupid America: "NO I DON'T WANNA"
Gov't: "But how are we going to pay f-"
Stupid America: "I DON'T KNOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THESE THINGS OH LOOK AMERICAN IDOL IS ON YAAAAY"


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh right, so expressing concern that not all Americans have access to the same levels of health care in their country _as I have in mine_ is "not caring about the well-being of America or its people". Next you'll be arguing that black is white, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is wisdom.
> What IS the colour of the sky on your planet?



Well when the subject isn't about America and health care, but  about something else that has to do with America, you always have something negative to say about the horrible and unforgivable acts America does. I will bring up one of those parts. Remember when you were listing off the bad stuff America is doing, and you brought up how America denies Iran to have nukes, and I said that's a Muslim country, and that I know for a fact you think anybody who believes in a deity should not be trusted. 

How did I come up with that? By judging from past experiences you have shown great disdain for religion and the people who follow it. From that I think I can safely assume that you do not trust or care about Iran, and you only used them so could say "look at how America oppresses people."
Same can be said when you bring up the suffering of people in America. You're only using them so you can push socialism in America because you are a Socialist.



> And where did I say I thought "the upper-class is hoarding all the resources for their own"?  You're only projecting me being a Marxist because you've run out of actual arguments, and it makes you feel oh-so-righteous to invoke the spirit of McCarthyism to save yourself the bother of thinking.
> In fact, I expect you'd class Jesus Christ as a "militant Marxist" seeing as he was saying things like "give all your worldly goods to the poor". If you'd actually _bothered _to follow the link I posted previously you'd see that the quote about _"would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money?"_ came from *an American pastor*. That's right, an *American.*
> 
> If I _do_ come across as a "Marxist" (which I think would only be possible to someone who thinks that Genghis Khan is a wussy liberal), then it's a damn sight better than coming across as some arrogant snot-nosed _child _mouthing off words they appear to have no comprehension as to their meaning. Pissed? You bet I am when it comes to someone insinuating that _helping people_ is somehow _evil._


We'll do this again. Remember when I questioned you about you being a Marxist, or having Marx influence your ideology? Remember that? Then you asked "How did I feel about Feudalism?" That kind of raised a red flag that you were one, because anybody who has read up on Marx would know Marx wanted to make a system that got rid of Feudalism, and people who are with the socialist movement here, at least, think that neo-America is in a feudalistic state.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 12, 2009)

Crackers, every time you start spouting off about how "criticism of the US = America-hater", I'm reminded of the very similar lines used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Every time someone brought up how the Soviet Union wasn't the worker's paradise it proclaimed itself to be, the Communist Party immediately slapped the tag of "counter-revolutionary", "reactionary", "anti-Soviet" and "Soviet-hater" on whoever was doing the criticising. Swap "America" for "Soviet" and it's _exactly_ what you're pushing.

It's obvious that you only tolerate criticism if done in a suitably obsequious manner, and that you believe America shouldn't be held to the same standards it holds the rest of the world to.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I also recall reading that the taxes being levied on the American colonists were LESS than what was being levied on the British people at home...



Keep in mind the colonists were mostly ignored for a few years, then came the French and Indian War, the british felt that taxing them was their fair trade so basically they went "BAAAAAWWWWW WHY SHOULD WE PAY TAXES?!" Sure it's one thing if you pay taxes and not see any of it done to you but...

IMO they should make an offer...you don't have to pay taxes but:
-You have to pay for your health care out of your own pocket.
-You have to pay to set up electricity and water out of your own pocket.
-You can't use the roads because you did not pay for them.
-You cannot use the bridges because you did not pay for it. 
-You may not call for the firemen if your house is on fire, and even if someone else calls them you will have to pay for them to put it out and try to save people.
-You have to pay out of your own pocket for the police to come over to your house. Even if someone else calls it, you did not pay for them to come over. 
-You may not use the postal service because you did not pay for it. You must pay to privately send something over.
-You may either not join the military at all because you didn't pay for it or can join the military but won't be given any payment because you did not pay for the other people in the army.
-You may also not be defended by the military either because you are not paying for them to do so. Even if you're kidnapped by islamic terrorist groups...you BETTER be willing to pay for the army to go in and save your ass. And if you're not willing to pay, then they'll just send you right on back or you have to work to pay off your debt.
-You may not be kept in jail because you did not pay for it.
-In general, you may not use anything that is paid for by tax money.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Crackers, every time you start spouting off about how *"criticism of the US = America-hater",* I'm reminded of the very similar lines used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Every time someone brought up how the Soviet Union wasn't the worker's paradise it proclaimed itself to be, the Communist Party immediately slapped the tag of "counter-revolutionary", "reactionary", "anti-Soviet" and "Soviet-hater" on whoever was doing the criticising. Swap "America" for "Soviet" and it's _exactly_ what you're pushing.
> 
> It's obvious that you only tolerate criticism if done in a suitably obsequious manner, and that you believe America shouldn't be held to the same standards it holds the rest of the world to.



You sure talk as if you do. Anyone who reads your posts about America can see you do hate our country. I'm just telling it how I see. No need to be hatin' because I got you clocked.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lol.
> That's like saying "being forced to breath is evil", or many other silly statements along those lines.



The proper word is "breathe"... and I am perfectly able to hold my breath, if I wish.  And to put it bluntly, I choose to breathe because it makes me feel good.




Kitsune Dzelda said:


> Hes got a point yknow, I love to help folks, but the minute they get demanding of it, I either dont give them help or I just pretend to "Forget" what Im doing and wander off.
> 
> I think your comparison of help to breathing is overdone.  We need to breathe, we dont NEED to help, *just some of us want to*.



Exactly...




Mayfurr said:


> Roose, based on your postings in other threads you're a Christian, right? If so, how do you reconcile the above with the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Glad to see you bring up some very good points.  However, in your first block of quotes, you will note that there is no force being placed on a person's choice... it is not the providing of help that is evil, it is the force applied.  A "commandment" from God is one thing, a penalty levied by MAN is another.  I've bolded the last quoted verse as an example, since I helped a friend move twice within three months time, and loaned him $250, as well, this last time, to help with the unexpected expenses... so, with no one to force me, and only God _asking_ such a thing from me, I did what was right by my friend, in his and his family's time of need.  No one held a gun to my head, which is exactly what these laws are... guns held to the head.  Do this, or we will pull the trigger.

As for your second quote block?  It speaks of the "congregation of those who believed"... if you don't believe, then you obviously don't need to worry about it.  You should also notice it is speaking about the apostles, as well.  God has made it quite clear that those who believe should not neglect each other, and that we should gather together as a congregation... as a church, in other words.  You'll also note this had nothing to do with a government forcing people to do anything, it was all voluntary.  I would recommend you read that passage over again.  Carefully, this time... (remember:  "of one heart and soul")




moonchylde said:


> Umm the Good Samaritan laws are in place to protect people who are certified in first aid and CPR from being sued by the very people who's life they save, i.e. if you did the hiemlich maneuver on someone and saved their life, but in the process broke their breastbone. Not to mention sexual harassment lawsuits. Unless your thinking of a very different set of laws I've never heard of, there's nothing that says you HAVE to help if you don't want to.



Me bad... I was thinking of that Seinfeld episode, and didn't do my homework.  Sorry...  _*slaps self*_


----------



## darkfox118 (Sep 12, 2009)

my god.. ANOTHER political topic on this crap?!

we dont need it.. its not constitutional..EOS!

it'd be nice if the admins would make a politics subforum.. so I could ban myself from it.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2009)

darkfox118 said:


> my god.. ANOTHER political topic on this crap?!
> 
> we dont need it.. its not constitutional..EOS!
> 
> it'd be nice if the admins would make a politics subforum.. so I could ban myself from it.



By all means, don't let us keep you here in this DREADFUL forum, door's right over there.

You snotnosed brat libertardian.


----------



## darkfox118 (Sep 12, 2009)

oh I know.. but I said my peace.. "universal healthcare" is unconstitutional.. 

I would encourage any admin that happens by to consider making a subforum dedicated to politics so those of us (like myself) who cannot STAND the current political winds of the united states.. can steer clear of even seeing topics like this one. 

Have a nice day everyone.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Sep 12, 2009)

darkfox118 said:


> oh I know.. but I said my peace.. "universal healthcare" is unconstitutional..



Have you even read the constitution? Or bothered to look up that the system the United States uses today was first implemented under Nixon's presidency? 

Are you going to say "In God We Trust" has always been on American money as well?

*Edit*

Speculation, as "In God We Trust" was put on money to symbolize America and capatalism, in order to distance themselves from evil, evil communism and socialism, maybe the system the US uses now was a way to further distance themselves from communism. "Oh hey, look, we don't have universal health care, we're not like those dirty commies. Go America". 

Although I wouldn't think they would do something so drastic to separate themselves from The Soviet Union.


----------



## Takun (Sep 12, 2009)

darkfox118 said:


> oh I know.. but I said my peace.. "universal healthcare" is unconstitutional..
> 
> I would encourage any admin that happens by to consider making a subforum dedicated to politics so those of us (like myself) who cannot STAND the current political winds of the united states.. can steer clear of even seeing topics like this one.
> 
> Have a nice day everyone.




lolololololol


----------



## Ratte (Sep 13, 2009)

darkfox118 said:


> "universal healthcare" is unconstitutional..



lol


----------



## lilEmber (Sep 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The proper word is "breathe"... and I am perfectly able to hold my breath, if I wish.  And to put it bluntly, I choose to breathe because it makes me feel good.


More deflecting, this time with added bullshit.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Glad to see you bring up some very good points.  However, in your first block of quotes, you will note that there is no force being placed on a person's choice... it is not the providing of help that is evil, it is the force applied.  A "commandment" from God is one thing, a penalty levied by MAN is another.



Um, when did a *commandment *turn into something _voluntary_? It's not like there's the "Ten Suggestions"...
And don't those verses I quoted imply some kind of _obligation_ to help the needy?



Roose Hurro said:


> I've bolded the last quoted verse as an example, since I helped a friend move twice within three months time [...] No one held a gun to my head, which is exactly what these laws are... guns held to the head.  Do this, or we will pull the trigger.



I would like to know how you equate having a portion of your taxes assigned to helping people worse off than yourself to having a gun pointed at your head - care to elaborate?
And doesn't the Christian Bible say something like "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is Gods"?

Besides, according to the Christian Bible God isn't exactly saying to Christians "If you don't help, never mind it's okay" according to these passages:



> Ezek. 16:49. "Behold, *this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. *Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."



(In other words, Sodom got nuked by God primarily because they were a bunch of arrogant selfish pricks... looks like a penalty to me.)



> Ezek. 22:29,31. "The people of the land have practised oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice... Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD.
> 
> Jer. 5:28. "*[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?*"



And the _real_ kicker (I'm sure you remember this story):


> Mt. 25:31-46. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on His left.
> Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
> Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
> And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
> ...



I'd say that the last part of *eternal punishment* for lack of charity by Christians is _definitely_ a "gun at your head", considering any punishment given by man _stops_ at death...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 13, 2009)

darkfox118 said:


> oh I know.. but I said my peace.. *"universal healthcare" is unconstitutional.*



Really? Not according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:



> Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts *and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States*; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [etc...] _(emphasis added)_



Seems to me that healthcare can be included under "general welfare" - and if you want to say that it's unconstitutional because it's not directly specified, then the federal building of roads is unconstitutional as well. But we don't hear of anyone wanting your Interstate Highway System ripped up 'cos it's "unconstitutional"...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 13, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Um, when did a *commandment *turn into something _voluntary_? It's not like there's the "Ten Suggestions"...
> And don't those verses I quoted imply some kind of _obligation_ to help the needy?



Yes, obligation, but then, that is a duty to proudly take up, not an ultimatum.




Mayfurr said:


> I would like to know how you equate having a portion of your taxes assigned to helping people worse off than yourself to having a gun pointed at your head - care to elaborate?
> And doesn't the Christian Bible say something like "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is Gods"?
> 
> Besides, according to the Christian Bible God isn't exactly saying to Christians "If you don't help, never mind it's okay" according to these passages:



I didn't say taxes, the topic is being penalized (fined) for not *buying* health insurance, and that is what I wrote about.  I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, again.  Just so you understand.  And yes, the Bible does mention that, which is why I said I have no objection to paying a "health tax" to fund this "universal healthcare" scenario.  I just don't want some government flunky telling me I *have* to purchase my own insurance with money I don't have in pocket, or they will assess me a fine (in this case, $950 for a single individual).




Mayfurr said:


> (In other words, Sodom got nuked by God primarily because they were a bunch of arrogant selfish pricks... looks like a penalty to me.)



There was more to Sodom than that, as you are well aware.  In the line you didn't bold, it was their haughtiness and abominations that got them nuked.  You are also forgeting this quote comes from the Old Testament, when we were under Law, not under Grace, as we are now.




Mayfurr said:


> And the _real_ kicker (I'm sure you remember this story):



Yes, and did you notice, those who questioned were told that they'd done so freely, with no one forcing them to comply?  While the others were told they had the freedom to do so, but didn't?  That's the whole thing, you cannot force charity.  If it is not out of free will it is of no value.




Mayfurr said:


> I'd say that the last part of *eternal punishment* for lack of charity by Christians is _definitely_ a "gun at your head", considering any punishment given by man _stops_ at death...



You are forgetting something important.  God refers to those who believe in Him as his flock... his sheep.  Those who do not believe in Him are the goats.  So, I have no fear of punishment, you see, because I am one of His sheep...

No gun to my head, understand?




Mayfurr said:


> > Originally Posted by *darkfox118*
> > oh I know.. but I said my peace.. [b/"universal healthcare" is unconstitutional.[/b]
> 
> 
> ...



See?  Mayfurr knows whereof he speaks...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 13, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I didn't say taxes, the topic is being penalized (fined) for not *buying* health insurance, and that is what I wrote about.  I suggest you go back and read what I wrote, again.  Just so you understand.  And yes, the Bible does mention that, which is why I said I have no objection to paying a "health tax" to fund this "universal healthcare" scenario.  I just don't want some government flunky telling me I *have* to purchase my own insurance with money I don't have in pocket, or they will assess me a fine (in this case, $950 for a single individual).



Noted, and acknowledged.

You'd be surprised though (or maybe not, I don't know) that some American Christians I've talked to DO view paying income tax - especially when some of it goes to welfare - as the metaphorical "gun to the head" scenario... they seem to forget that line about paying Caesar. And a few other things, it seems. 



Roose Hurro said:


> Yes, and did you notice, those who questioned were told that they'd done so freely, with no one forcing them to comply?  While the others were told they had the freedom to do so, but didn't?  That's the whole thing, you cannot force charity.  If it is not out of free will it is of no value.



What's the important thing though? Helping people, or "allowing people to give to charity"? In other words, shouldn't charity be the means for people on the receiving end rather than an end for the givers in itself?
Let me put it this way - if I have lost my house and everything I owned in Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Asian Tsunami and was literally on the bones of my arse as a result, would I really care if the assistance I received came from a "charity" or as part of a government relief effort? I can tell you right now that it wouldn't.



Roose Hurro said:


> [US Constitutional stuff]
> See?  Mayfurr knows whereof he speaks...



Thanks mate, I feel all warm and fuzzy now


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Sep 13, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Can UPS take a letter to Alaska for 44 cents?
> 
> 
> Cause if they can I'll switch over



See that's the point. The US Postal Service couldn't do that if they were a profitable business and didn't have the leverage of 300,000,000 tax payers. 



Mayfurr said:


> I see government-run businesses as a "keep the bastards honest" type operation for areas where there there is a significant public good to be maintained in areas which lend themselves to natural monopolies or duopolies, using market forces rather than government regulation for the greater good. An example of this in my country is the government-owned (but run along business lines) Kiwibank, which is a small but significant competitor to large trading banks and helps keep them competitive with reasonable rates - in contrast to business like the oil companies who suspiciously raise prices within days of each other, or the Telecom / Vodafone mobile phone duopoly which charges Kiwis some of the highest mobile calling rates in the OECD...
> 
> I don't believe keeping the massive profits of health insurance companies is more important than making sure people have adequate access to health care - I don't have a problem with someone making a profit as long as they're not raping the wallets of the weak and vulnerable.



Regulations can be used to keep them honest. The problem here though is when the government does something, they create a monopoly. How many letter delivery services are there in the US? And now they basically want to get into health insurance and regulate out the competition. And where did you hear that health insurance companies are reaping massive profits? I believe all of them in the US are struggling and down-sizing and have been for about 7 years. They are companies so they will be concerned with profits. Want to change this? Then say insurance companies have to be Not-for-profits. Don't put them out of business and end up with tens of thousands of more unemployeed people...


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 13, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> See that's the point. The US Postal Service couldn't do that if they were a profitable business and didn't have the leverage of 300,000,000 tax payers.



Well I like that I have the ability to do that.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Sep 13, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Well I like that I have the ability to do that.



Hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in taxes are worth a 44 cent letter?


----------



## Azure (Sep 13, 2009)

I remember when it used to cost 17 cents.  Government sure sucks ass at cost control.


----------



## Jelly (Sep 13, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in taxes are worth a 44 cent letter?



Honestly, I don't mind it. Realistically, I don't pay that much into it, and its a service that is worth my while. However, corporations have a tendency to pee all over Alaska when it comes to shipping and offering long-distance services, and I really doubt that would stop due to its low population. :\


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 13, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in taxes are worth a 44 cent letter?



Yeah. Sure worth more than a million dollar space probe that crashes on landing.


You can give me some bullshit about how awful the post office is but they've been good to me.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Um, when did a *commandment *turn into something _voluntary_? It's not like there's the "Ten Suggestions"...
> And don't those verses I quoted imply some kind of _obligation_ to help the needy?
> 
> 
> ...


 
"Religion is the opiate of the people." -Karl Marx. This gives me an opportunity to bring up another reason why I think you're influenced by Marx. Some atheists find Marxism as a foundation for a utopia where people are free from religion.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 14, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> "Mayfurr's a Marxist... Mayfurr's a Marxist... Mayfurr's a Marxist... Mayfurr's a Marxist... Mayfurr's a Marxist..."



Can someone please change the record, I think it's stuck again.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 14, 2009)

Rostam The Grey said:


> Regulations can be used to keep them honest. The problem here though is *when the government does something, they create a monopoly*. How many letter delivery services are there in the US?



Not if it's done _right_. Here in NZ there are private letter-delivery companies operating in competition with the state-owned New Zealand Post, and even though NZ Post operates a courier business the likes of DHL and other private courier companies still manage to operate and turn a profit... 



Rostam The Grey said:


> And where did you hear that health insurance companies are reaping massive profits? I believe all of them in the US are struggling and down-sizing and have been for about 7 years. They are companies so they will be concerned with profits.



If what you say is true and US private health insurance companies really ARE on the bones of their collective arses, then where the fuck does the 16% of US GDP spent on healthcare - twice the amount of GDP spent by other OECD countries - actually GO? 

And if these companies can't make a profit in such an environment in the US when they can pick and choose their customers, their treatment and coverage with minimal regulation, do they REALLY deserve to keep going? I know several people were vocal in letting banks and motor companies go under if they couldn't compete... do US health insurance companies fit the same bill, and if so which way? Are they too big to fail, or are they dinosaurs that should be put out of their misery?



Rostam The Grey said:


> Want to change this? Then say insurance companies have to be Not-for-profits. Don't put them out of business and end up with tens of thousands of more unemployeed people...



<nod> Here in NZ, to my knowledge _all_ private health insurance companies are non-profit co-operatives... don't know if that's because it's law, or just that profit-oriented companies can't compete with non-profits AND a public funded health system.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Noted, and acknowledged.
> 
> *You'd be surprised* though (or maybe not, I don't know) that some American Christians I've talked to DO view paying income tax - especially when some of it goes to welfare - as the metaphorical "gun to the head" scenario... they seem to forget that line about paying Caesar. And a few other things, it seems.



Perhaps, but I've lived long enough to hear quite a lot of things from people of all kinds, both in writing, on tv, and in person, so I've listened to both the sane and the insane...




Mayfurr said:


> What's the important thing though? Helping people, or "allowing people to give to charity"? In other words, shouldn't charity be the means for people on the receiving end rather than an end for the givers in itself?
> Let me put it this way - if I have lost my house and everything I owned in Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Asian Tsunami and was literally on the bones of my arse as a result, would I really care if the assistance I received came from a "charity" or as part of a government relief effort? I can tell you right now that it wouldn't.



Well, you see, the important thing is accepting God's gift... everything else, charity included, flows from that.  But, without God to back them up, people who do "good works" don't have all the bricks they need to make the house, so to speak.  Charity is an empty gesture for the doer, if it isn't done with the backing of God's Spirit within that person, done for God and not for man.  However, as you have said, for those who receive, in all practicality, it doesn't matter where the charity comes from.




Mayfurr said:


> Thanks mate, I feel all warm and fuzzy now



I may not agree with everything you say, Mayfurr, but when you're right, you're right... and I ain't afraid to say so.




AzurePhoenix said:


> I remember when it used to cost 17 cents.  Government sure sucks ass at cost control.



I can remember when it cost less than ten cents...


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Can someone please change the record, I think it's stuck again.


 
You know, I would have never gone on with the belief of you being a Marxist if you didn't ask if I was pro-feudalism *right after *I was done questioning about you being a Marxist. Like, did you think you were being a cleaver smart ass? Did you think I knew nothing of Marx or Engels? Like, you thought I didn't know what was going on during that era of Europe. Come on. So yeah, you have convinced me that you are one, or at the very least, a sympathizer. 

Yes it is circumstantial evidence, but my hunches are *usually* right, and I probably am, and no, I don't expect anybody to take my word for it. I always say what I write is my opinion only.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 14, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I may not agree with everything you say, Mayfurr, but when you're right, you're right... and I ain't afraid to say so.



Ditto. 



Roose Hurro said:


> I can remember when <stamps> cost less than ten cents...



I can remember when NZ stamps were 20c. (=10c US)

Mind you, that _was _in the seventies... it's probably a bit of an ask to expect prices to have frozen at that level for almost forty years :-(


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 14, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> [noise]



That stuck record's getting pretty persistent...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Ditto.



Thanks...




Mayfurr said:


> I can remember when NZ stamps were 20c. (=10c US)
> 
> Mind you, that _was _in the seventies... it's probably a bit of an ask to expect prices to have frozen at that level for almost forty years :-(



Well, since I wasn't sure I remembered right farther back, I seem to remember when stamps were less than five cents... but then, my age was measured in single digits, back then.  When you think about it, over the last fourty plus years, postage has remained a bargain, compared to the price rise in many other things.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Sep 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Not if it's done _right_. Here in NZ there are private letter-delivery companies operating in competition with the state-owned New Zealand Post, and even though NZ Post operates a courier business the likes of DHL and other private courier companies still manage to operate and turn a profit...



This is America, our government hardly ever does anything right.



Mayfurr said:


> If what you say is true and US private health insurance companies really ARE on the bones of their collective arses, then where the fuck does the 16% of US GDP spent on healthcare - twice the amount of GDP spent by other OECD countries - actually GO?



I know malpractice insurance is expensive. Research is a large cost. Not sure where the rest goes. But doctor's do make good salaries.



Mayfurr said:


> And if these companies can't make a profit in such an environment in the US when they can pick and choose their customers, their treatment and coverage with minimal regulation, do they REALLY deserve to keep going? I know several people were vocal in letting banks and motor companies go under if they couldn't compete... do US health insurance companies fit the same bill, and if so which way? Are they too big to fail, or are they dinosaurs that should be put out of their misery?



No, if they are struggling it's due to competition and the state of the economy. It forces them to maintain lower rates and take risks that they wouldn't if they had a monopoly. If they are failing they should be allowed to fail. So companies with better business models can purchase their asssets and make the whole thing better.



Load_Blown said:


> You can give me some bullshit about how awful the post office is but they've been good to me.



I'm not saying they are awful. I'm saying they have an unsustainable business model and are using the resources of the government as much as possible.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> That stuck record's getting pretty persistent...



If you weren't such a self righteous punk then I wouldn't be so persistent.


----------



## Bambi (Sep 14, 2009)

Digitalpotato said:


> Proof, if anymore were needed, that 90% of politicians really really *REALLY* have no idea about what an actual middle class person goes through.
> 
> I think that most people vying for congress should be required to have lived at least 5-10+ years in lower middle class working blue collar jobs that can be cut at any second, or live in places like Detroit or Flint, or have been unemployed during middle age. Similar to how some countries require 6 months of military service and how someone here proposed most people be forced to work 6 months in retail.


Middle class?

What about, "lower class?"

Oh wait, soccer moms driving mini-vans in suburbia matter more than Elejah in the Bronx.


----------



## Bambi (Sep 14, 2009)

Wow.

Roose: link discuss
Poster #23: Unconstitutional! Socialism, evil!
Poster #42: Constitutional, can be done right, this and that.
Roose: If you don't believe in God, your charity is meaningless, and don't force me to help people because God doesn't force me too.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## 8-bit (Sep 14, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Wasn't there, like, seven other threads that talked about this?



I think it was closer to twelve.


----------



## Bambi (Sep 14, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> I choose to breathe because it makes me feel good.


And homosexuals choose to fuck because it makes them feel good, too.

I'am assuming either lacks the due or appropriate punishment because we are under grace, not law.


Roose Hurro said:


> There was more to Sodom than that, as you are well aware. In the line you didn't bold, it was their haughtiness and abominations that got them nuked. You are also forgeting this quote comes from the Old Testament, when we were under Law, not under Grace, as we are now.


Abominations like ...?


Roose Hurro said:


> It is, when I am forced to help people, rather than allowed to volunteer my help... *that* is what crosses the line, Mayfurr.


What crosses the line is when an individual argues in the defense of charity and choice, but than self-admittedly, has nothing to do with either unless it suits him or her. Suppose there was no *charge/fine*; would there still be a problem with that plan?


----------



## 8-bit (Sep 14, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Okay, I don't get it.
> 
> God nuked Sodom because they refused to do what he wanted them to; because in sodom, things like "breathing" and "having homosexual sex", "felt good" to the people there. On the other hand, your god can't nuke people now if they don't listen to him (because of said imaginary grace period), but we can't force you to do good by humanity because it's not gods work. However, if God forced you to support free health care, than you'd be obligated to do it, and you'd consider gods proposition good because it would be charitable.
> 
> Hmmm... I'am not getting this here.




They're idiots.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 16, 2010)

Ishnuvalok said:


> Have you even read the constitution? Or bothered to look up that the system the United States uses today was first implemented under Nixon's presidency?
> 
> Are you going to say "In God We Trust" has always been on American money as well?
> 
> ...



Why is it that the Nazis killed 12 million, and after that facism is dead and burried and no sympathy left for them. But for one the PRC killed 78 million and yet some democrats still have the CHEEK to say we over-judged commies?

And FYI also, if it wasn't for our exceptional tabbaco market then there's no way Britain could afford to hold up a free healthcare service, which ironicly kills and severly damages the health of many to begin with.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 16, 2010)

That was a horrible thing to do. You are a horrible person.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2010)

Get-dancing said:


> Why is it that the Nazis killed 12 million, and after that facism is dead and burried and no sympathy left for them. But for one the PRC killed 78 million...



Boy, obsessive over the Nazi / Communist massacre scorecard much? Are you suggesting the Nazis weren't as bad as Communists because they "killed less people"?

Besides, you'll probably find that most of the deaths you ascribe to communism in China resulted from *grossly mismanaged dogmatic and ideological fuck-ups* like the Great Leap Forward where people died from famine, as opposed to deliberate SLAUGHTER like the Nazis performed in death camps.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 16, 2010)

I don't know, that all seems to be dancing around the issue that the commies killed more people, intentionally or not. Also, I don't see any other way you can judge "more" or "less" evil aside from total death count. Is that not what makes them bad in the first place, killing people? It stands to reason that if what makes you bad is killing people, killing more people is more bad.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 16, 2010)

Whats with these threads being revived? Oh no. It's ture. Blackest Night is here.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I don't know, that all seems to be dancing around the issue that the commies killed more people, intentionally or not. Also, I don't see any other way you can judge "more" or "less" evil aside from total death count. Is that not what makes them bad in the first place, killing people? It stands to reason that if what makes you bad is killing people, killing more people is more bad.



There is however a difference between "mass murder", where the killing is pre-meditated and deliberate, and "gross negligence / gross incompetence" where the deaths arise from misguided decisions where the intention wasn't for mass deaths to take place.

If you're going to determine "worst regime" by death count under the regime's watch, you have to be consistent and compare apples with apples - else if you simply go by uncategorised death counts, places like Bangladesh (who get regularly hit by natural disasters where thousands die) would be considered under a worse regime than a country which is very repressive but "only" kills dozens of dissidents a year.


----------

