UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
name another nation that covers ALL of their citizens, pays LESS than we do, and does it your way.
just one.
just one single nation, and i will not laugh at you every time you post.
Florida Republicans fight to keep medical Marijuana off ballot
- Thread starter randybishop
- Start date
name another nation that covers ALL of their citizens, pays LESS than we do, and does it your way.
just one.
just one single nation, and i will not laugh at you every time you post.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
name a another government that does this without government involvement? (my way). Is that really your question?
If I have to compromise with you central planners, the best plan is universal catastrophic coverage, everything else up to the individual. Any other involvement increases costs, reduces advancements.
Tell me how your support of the UCA is better?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you can't name a single nation that does it your way, because your way does not work.
funny thing, that whole reality deal.
Anytime I get into a discussion there is someone who has to go around mentioning I used to be a junky, stole from family members, did some shoplifting and was an all around bad person; no shit, I was a junky. A fact I freely admit to anyone who asks and don't care to reveal all the gory details.
Anyway, I was not responding to you directly until my last post.
All drugs should be decriminalized. A person who will sell anything they own for a fix deserves the assistance of society, not to be shit on by it. Jail just seems to be the place this country wants to send everyone.
The simple fact is there are far more people out there that used to do drugs than there are currently doing drugs. With the money we spend on jails and prisons we could build treatment centers and staff them.
There are a world of people who get clean with the help of suboxone, they ought to give it to any addict willing to take it.
I couldn't design a worse system if I sat down with that objective in mind.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Human thought isn't reality, just a crude approximation of it.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
The freest society that had the #1 medical system as far as outcomes and satisfaction and advancement and health used to be us dude. There has been a gradual decline as you not only allow a system that further entrenches most things wrong with our system, you support it.
You want what you want, to hell with what other individuals want. Let them force their views on you and you rightfully complain. The fact you think it's OK for you tell others how to live, but understand that you don't want THEM telling you, makes you a hypotwit.
I don't mind you wanting to live in a hive, but I'm a pack animal, you have no right to make me your worker bee. I will take care of me and mine, you take care of you and yours. If you need my help, ask for it and I'll most likely give it. If you force and threaten and take my help, you are treating others in a way you yourself would not want to be subjected to. Again, hypotwit.
I think an armed society is a polite society. I also think I have no right to pool resources from you to help others pay for theirs. If the party in power decided I am wrong and takes from you because Billy Bob can't afford his own, I'll stand up for your right to not pay for something you don't want or need. There are as many people who think an armed society is polite society that think saving someone a buck or two on their birth control is paramount to the "good of society".
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
unless, of course, you were lower middle class or working poor. in which case we might as well be a third world nation.
no, i want what most individuals want, universal healthcare at costs comparable to what other nations pay.
the fact that you can't name a single nation that does it your way means YOU are the one who wants what you want, everyone else be damned.
there you go, talking a lot and saying absolutely nothing.
LIBERTY FREEDOM. DIVISIVE RHETORIC. AGENDA. INDEPENDENCE, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. APPLE PIE.
I HAVE WON THE DEBATE.
Lower middle and working poor can get top notch health care, we do poorly at preventative care for them, but they survive heart attacks pretty well when they dial 911. Their diabetes management is probably sub-par, though. But a job that provides decent health care was fairly obtainable.
I'm not sure if another nation does it his way or not. Prior to a certain date no nation allowed women to vote, was that a bad idea because no one else did it?
I'm not saying his idea is great, terrible, or anything in-between. I'm saying your measuring stick for it is a piss poor one.
I'm not sure if another nation does it his way or not. Prior to a certain date no nation allowed women to vote, was that a bad idea because no one else did it?
I'm not saying his idea is great, terrible, or anything in-between. I'm saying your measuring stick for it is a piss poor one.
I look at it like this, although there are services provided by my insurance company I will never use, or might but still don't want to pay for them because I don't know, it is beneficial.
My dads business did many things, one of which was a retailer for DirecTV. I'm sure the cable companies get the same questions.
We would have customers see the programming, and say something like "well I'll watch this and that channel, but I will never watch those and these channels, can't I take them off and save money?" we say no. "why?" they ask. Well, because it doesn't work that way.
Fact is, there was a television provider that attempted to offer channels this way. You could add individual channels. The result was a service where you ended up paying more, and getting fewer stations. If you had more than 10 channels on their service, your bill was higher than if you had the best Directv package. Not counting premiums like bho.
Also, the advent of cable and satellite tv spawned the development of many new tv stations. They each got a cut of total revenue, which allowed them all to prosper.
I can see this health insurance through that light. It feels icky, but I'm pragmatic over idealistic. It makes sense, and has worked better in other industries I am more familiar with.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Why is it the party of self sufficency and responsibility always comes around to saying people without the means can get treatment at the emergency room?
Can you get the follow up visits there as well?
Can you get the follow up visits there as well?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the EMERGENCY ROOM is the REPUBLICAN PLANTATION.
the EVIL REPUBLICANS want a CULTURE OF DEBT as evidenced by their maniacal propensities to INCREASE THE DEFICIT.
whereas DEMOCRATS are known to BALANCE THE BUDGET and REDUCE DEFICITS.
they do this because LESS DEBT means INDEPENDENCE and LIBERTY and FREEDOM and FREE MARKETS and APPLE PIES COOLING ON WINDOWSILLS.
the DIVISIVE REPUBLICAN RHETORIC that suggests that THE EMERGENCY ROOM IS FOR THE POOR and the BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD IS FOR THE RICH ONLY has an AGENDA OF HATE.
EVIL REPUBLICANS say that HEALTH CARE IS A PRIVILEGE.
RATIONAL PEOPLE say that HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT.
AMERICA FREEDOM LIBERTY LIBERTY DON'T TREAD ON ME WHITE PICKET FENCES BASEBALL.
I HAVE PWNT THE DEBATE.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ooooo the healthcare thread how original.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Sure. We have a high infant mortality rate, we are more, morbidly obese than any country on earth, our health care dollars are the most ineffectve. We eat and drink and smoke ourselves to death, we eat more fast food, more "snacks", we move less and we do less than most if not all the countries on earth and yet we are, in your opinion "advancing". What the sort of freedom you describe brings us is premature death and a cattle like mentality.
canndo
Well-Known Member
And so we have the Marlboro man, riding off in the sunset with his code of conduct and his lack of need for anyone at all. What a small crock this is when viewed in perspective. We NEVER had the #1 medical system in the world when it came to over all care. The further entrenchment is a result of a free enterprise system runnimg rampant on citizens. This is not a society of individuals alone, it is a United STATES, not a inited individual E pluibus Unum, not in many..... many.
People in this country have been telling others how to live from day one, from the pilgrims themselves. The right wishes to impose it's will upon the people, fearing national debt they want to impose their will on the status quo, the poor, the working class while masterfully asserting that the rich (and by virtue of that assertion, everyone) be "free" and unencumbered.
This country now is interconnected in ways we cannot even untangle but you still want to believe that you have no help and need no help. Bullshit, you simply don't want to see the help you have gotten, and believe me, should you need government assistance, and you are cornered, you will take it. All conservatives are against "government handouts" until one is offered to them. then they don't call it a hand out any more.
An armed society is a polite society unless the person in front of you is texting during a movie.
Like it or not we are a community and like it or not, the more there is a disparity between one member of that community and another the fewer rights you actually preserve, but you see it differently. You actually believe you are independen and self sustaining. Resenting anyone who might take abit of what you think is all, rightfully yours.
Living in he United States costs money, some can't afford it, others can afford to pay their ticket, that is the ship we happen to be sailing on and all your and other's wailing about somebody somewhere getting something for nothing only demonstrates your lack of understanding of this country.
Or did you think the founders did everything they did simply for themselves and their own immediate gain.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, Democrats are doing their best to keep it illegal everywhere and double down on the war on drugs:
http://learnaboutsam.com/
"A newly formed group, Project SAM, launched this month in Denver and headed by former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, has emerged as one of the main adversaries of legalizing pot.
"I believe that drug use, which is to alter the mind, is injurious to the mind ... It's nothing that society should sanction," Kennedy, a Democrat from Rhode Island who spearheaded legislation in Congress to expand access to mental health care, said in a phone interview. Kennedy has admitted to past drug use and has been treated for addiction to prescription painkillers."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/patrick-kennedy-project-sam-marijuana_n_2535944.html
As to the bolded above, I say why not?
SNAP is the only government assistance I have ever been on, and my oh my is that program a crock of shit.
First, I was signed up against my will illegally. I was using drugs and my parents sent me to a rehab. The rehab enrolled everyone into the food stamp program. Everyone got $200 in SNAP benefits. They held your card and spent $150 of it to buy groceries for their rehab. They then gave you the card and you could spend the last $50 on what ever you chose.
I got the card when I left. I got a job and called to cancel it because it made me feel dirty. I made $9hr and they told me I still qualified. So I kept it. Well I eventually relapsed.
Damn near every drug addict is incapable of holding down a job, much less landing and keeping a good one, so they are ALL on food stamps. I mean every drug addict I was running around with had a SNAP card. I don't know any of them that keep the card on them. They have an arrangement with someone who keeps their card and gives them half (if not less) of the cards value in cash each month.
Are there people who use the program like it should be used? Sure. I doubt there are any statistics on it, if there are I don't know how accurate they would be (people do not typically admit selling their SNAP to strangers.) I will just pull a number out of my ass here, but I wouldn't be surprised if over half the people on SNAP abuse it.
TL/DR - Government programs are abused beyond comprehension.
Second, most people here label me a "right winger" and I took food stamps, does this somehow make me a hypocrite, like you imply? I don't think so. I think a right winger is less likely to become to depend on government programs for life. I have paid a lot into taxes in my life, prior to being a drug addict I had several good jobs. The year before I went to law school I earned $60,000. Not huge money, but enough to have a hefty tax bill.
Furthermore, while I was on SNAP I relied heavily on my parents for support. My dad has made good money for the last 30 years as a small business owner. Every dime I got was a dime they didn't have to give me. So yeah, I don't have a problem with people who need, and don't abuse it getting government support. I have a problem with people who have no motivation to get off of it.
I'm no longer on SNAP, and am now paying plenty in taxes.
As to the rest of your post, I will just say that although help is provided by the government, many would be able to, and would prefer to do it on their own. No reason for anyone not take advantage of government schools, and other stuff that their taxes have paid for.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
the infant mortality rate is based on the fact that us and Canada are the only two countries that count premies. Canada rates down the list with us. When you count only full term births we are top 5.
We are obese because the foods our FDA and HHS tells us to eat and the USDA tells us is safe are in fact very unhealthy. We would have a better outcome without these agencies. It's very hard to overcome the lies of entities we are told exist solely for the safety of our citizens.
If you think the US hasn't had a hand in the most medical advancements the past century then I see why you think we are so bad, if you actually looked at the history of medicine, you would see that your thinking is wrong. Our advancements occurred while medicine was less shackled, not so much anymore.
We've become an instant gratification society that demands a pill for any discomfort. A pill that the government mandates must be purchased from an American company (who makes them in Malaysia), and approved by the same FDA that has us eating corn fillers in all processed food, and not some cheaper, just as safe version from those third world countries like Canada.
For you to blame all of this on our health care industry is very naive.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
But canndo, we are not one society under the flag, we are many. Our founders understood this and designed a hierarchy that had a power flow from my house to my community to my state to my country. The progressives have been trying for a century to reverse these powers and we are starting to see the affect.
I'm sorry, but one size fits all governance only fits those doing the governing. At this time it's your side making the rules so you are cool with it. When the other side does it, you protest. The side affects of one-sized fits all brought us Jim Crow laws, DOMA, The Patriot Act and ACA to name but a few. We allow the central planners to bend us over, then we demand the central planners to fix what they've created.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
a great number of the advancements in the medical field actually came from the space program which...
...wait for it...
wait...
is thanks to the government!
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Many lifesaving vaccines came about because of the government granting studies then getting out of the way. That was then. Now they rely on outdated studies to base care and force you to properly dot your i before you can legally partake. Paperwork and documentation is the foundation of government health care now, not actual healthcare. A hospital corp will have only a fraction of people doing actual care compared to the people who figure out how to comply with the new and old regulations.
We watered our gremlins dude.
Similar threads
