West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: M Dogg™ on December 17, 2009, 05:51:30 AM
-
8)
http://www.youtube.com/v/HT1ar9cZZ0U&hl=en_US&fs=1&
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
-
Olbermann talking bipartisanship is like Hitler talking about the value of Jewish life.
He's the left wing equivalent of Glenn Beck.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
Then what is, because right now with less government, that's not the answer either.
Olbermann talking bipartisanship is like Hitler talking about the value of Jewish life.
He's the left wing equivalent of Glenn Beck.
Please, Keith Olbermann has stay consistent on his stance. He doesn't see a D with a blue tie, or an R with a red tie, he sees issues he believes in and his willing to go out and rally the troops.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.
A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.
A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.
In the industrial world, we have the worst health system. We are just above Cuba, and if you have no money in our country you are shit out of luck. The free market has no business in certain areas and peoples lives is one of them. In Canada, there is an issue with their health care, but at the same time you have a better health care than we do. You look at it like this. We are tied to jobs because we need health care, we have an issue because people that have ideas are tied to their jobs. If you have an idea for a small business, and you want to invest your money in this, you can't. You are tied to a job just so you can have health care, and leaving your job means you and your family are not protected. This system does not foster creativity and allow people to venture out and grow, what this system creates is conservative minded people afraid to invest in themselves and stay at their jobs. Are countries creativity comes from 20 somethings that are not afraid of their health, and they are not afraid of risk, but it cripples are older population that may have had a great idea but can't risk leaving their job. That's how our system, in case you wanted it in free market terms.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.
A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.
In the industrial world, we have the worst health system. We are just above Cuba, and if you have no money in our country you are shit out of luck. The free market has no business in certain areas and peoples lives is one of them. In Canada, there is an issue with their health care, but at the same time you have a better health care than we do. You look at it like this. We are tied to jobs because we need health care, we have an issue because people that have ideas are tied to their jobs. If you have an idea for a small business, and you want to invest your money in this, you can't. You are tied to a job just so you can have health care, and leaving your job means you and your family are not protected. This system does not foster creativity and allow people to venture out and grow, what this system creates is conservative minded people afraid to invest in themselves and stay at their jobs. Are countries creativity comes from 20 somethings that are not afraid of their health, and they are not afraid of risk, but it cripples are older population that may have had a great idea but can't risk leaving their job. That's how our system, in case you wanted it in free market terms.
Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said but I'll respond to it anyway;
You want to bring up growth and creativity, and you want to mention Canada? That makes no sense. Anyone up here that has an idea and wants to make it big, goes down south. You guys are filled with people that stay put for health care. We're filled with taxes that drive people away. You will not grow as a market one bit by going with public heath the way we have it. It would cripple you with the costs.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
The problem with the US system M Dogg is you have less Government with regards to health care, but not with regards to medicine and practice of medicine. The FDA and legal mumbo jumbo gets right in the face of drug companies and doctors making sure they charge as much as possible for shit, and then lets the insurance companies run lenient. The question Americans should be asking isn't why aren't insurance companies covering us? It's; why is the coverage so much to begin with? And that is where less government should be key.
A doctor could not perform a operation free of charge, and a medical genius could not pass his tried and true drug through the motions with out big business greasing the wheels.
In the industrial world, we have the worst health system. We are just above Cuba, and if you have no money in our country you are shit out of luck. The free market has no business in certain areas and peoples lives is one of them. In Canada, there is an issue with their health care, but at the same time you have a better health care than we do. You look at it like this. We are tied to jobs because we need health care, we have an issue because people that have ideas are tied to their jobs. If you have an idea for a small business, and you want to invest your money in this, you can't. You are tied to a job just so you can have health care, and leaving your job means you and your family are not protected. This system does not foster creativity and allow people to venture out and grow, what this system creates is conservative minded people afraid to invest in themselves and stay at their jobs. Are countries creativity comes from 20 somethings that are not afraid of their health, and they are not afraid of risk, but it cripples are older population that may have had a great idea but can't risk leaving their job. That's how our system, in case you wanted it in free market terms.
Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said but I'll respond to it anyway;
You want to bring up growth and creativity, and you want to mention Canada? That makes no sense. Anyone up here that has an idea and wants to make it big, goes down south. You guys are filled with people that stay put for health care. We're filled with taxes that drive people away. You will not grow as a market one bit by going with public heath the way we have it. It would cripple you with the costs.
I didn't respond because I thought you'd like a more free market answer. But I'll tell you how we lower cost. Quiet simply, government run hospitals, put the same kind of funding in pharmacy as NASA at it's height and adjust America's priorities so that medical takes place of military as our tax dollars number one concern. Were Canada messes up, they have no private insurance or private hospital. I'd keep them, you want private care, that's fine, America has the best private care in the history of this world. But that excludes so many from this country. Isn't it funny, a poor American goes to Canada to get care, but a rich Canadian will come to the US for care.
To keep prices down, you want cheaper care, let tax dollars fund it so that pay and expenses become public. Private care can have out of control cost, we need a public care system than covers more people and allows for health care to be available to all.
As for Canadians coming down south to make it big. It might be true of younger people, since younger people have less need for health care. But in an older person, that is not true at all. Once you hit your 30's and you have kids to think of, you are tied to health care. If you are young, single, and are completely healthy, then you have no worries and you can take risk. You can take advantage of the US's lower taxes. But this is not the case once you have a family.
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc).
As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc).
As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc).
As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
You've never worked for an insurance company. I spent one month training to work with CIGNA, and I can honestly say I left because I felt like I was working to the detriment of society. You are trained to deny coverage, well I was being trained to explain the denial of coverage. They had doctors there that's specialty was to find a reason to deny coverage and save the company money. I was told straight up, "sometimes the doctors ask for too much, and so our job is to only cover what is needed. Then I was trained on how to talk to doctor's offices, because they'll be mad, then obviously the patients, because they'll be mad. Think of it, I was training to be on a floor full of people who's job it was to explain why they are getting denied coverage. Isn't that weird. I left after one month and took a nice clean shower. It was amazing, and it was an experience that shaped my belief that private money making insurance companies have no business in the medical field. The ironic thing is that eventually when I got my next job, my insurance denied me coverage for treating my allergies, and denied me coverage for even seeing a doctor about it, claiming I can just by Zyrtec. Why was I trying to see a doctor, because my allergies were bad even when I take Zyrtec everyday. And I'm lucky, I can live with allergies, though my allergies did cause me my lungs to fill with fluid and get very sick. I know someone who's husband cannot leave his job, because their son has cancer, and if he changes insurances his son will be denied based on having a pre-existing condition. Sad part is, her husband's job has been laying off, and every round they get very nervous that his next. You can take your private insurance and stick it, as I've said before there are very few things I truly agree completely with the right, and health care is one.
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc).
As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
Yeah man exactly. Bureaucracy = red tape, legal BS, and a business (not hospital) being run. Rules being set up to "ensure" quality, but really they'd just be ensuring a clumsy and out of touch medical business that doesn't put realistic goals for patient health first. I work in education and I know how standards being taught to the students sound great, but in reality tie the hands of teachers to teach what they want or think is ok.
Sure with government run health care everyone would be technically covered, but what does that really mean? How do you or I know that all of a sudden the government, which doesnt always have the peoples best interest in mind (thats putting it lightly), will help every person to the extent that an independent insurance provider wouldnt go (referring to your story M Dogg)? People fall through the cracks in society, and to think that we can somehow make that not true, in my opinion, is pure fantasy. And putting the strain on our economy and society that a healthcare free for all would create, just to try and create this fantasy land would be irresponsible.
I find it intriguing that the people I've heard talk about this subject that are from countries where gov't run health care is taking place (Canada, UK) don't think the system works. Is that the consensus among people you know Virtuoso or anyone else?
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc).
As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
Yeah man exactly. Bureaucracy = red tape, legal BS, and a business (not hospital) being run. Rules being set up to "ensure" quality, but really they'd just be ensuring a clumsy and out of touch medical business that doesn't put realistic goals for patient health first. I work in education and I know how standards being taught to the students sound great, but in reality tie the hands of teachers to teach what they want or think is ok.
Sure with government run health care everyone would be technically covered, but what does that really mean? How do you or I know that all of a sudden the government, which doesnt always have the peoples best interest in mind (thats putting it lightly), will help every person to the extent that an independent insurance provider wouldnt go (referring to your story M Dogg)? People fall through the cracks in society, and to think that we can somehow make that not true, in my opinion, is pure fantasy. And putting the strain on our economy and society that a healthcare free for all would create, just to try and create this fantasy land would be irresponsible.
I find it intriguing that the people I've heard talk about this subject that are from countries where gov't run health care is taking place (Canada, UK) don't think the system works. Is that the consensus among people you know Virtuoso or anyone else?
And people in the US without money also think that our system doesn't work either. 46 million in the US will debate your points.
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
What we need is better rules governing the system we have now. Can't get health care if youre over 25 (on your parents insurance). Why? If youre going to school full time who gives a shit if youre over 25. That could be changed and many more people could be covered. Also, we have free health care here in California available to those who are poor already. I say improve that system thats in place (widen coverage through better use of tax dollars or by raising luxury taxes, etc).
As for Olbermann and Beck being compared, they both spew propaganda for one side and one side only: their side. It isnt about issues, usually, with those guys. Dont get me wrong, I agree with both on some issues and they can be pretty entertaining. But thats my point I guess. How can you be honestly for "issues" when you only agree with one side, all the time? This is the problem with people in our country. They are so polarized they only see their side of the issue, and cant ever conceed anything. Politicians in congress voting strictly down party lines, shit makes me sick. I view Olbermann and Beck as mouthpieces for fools like this.
Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
Yeah man exactly. Bureaucracy = red tape, legal BS, and a business (not hospital) being run. Rules being set up to "ensure" quality, but really they'd just be ensuring a clumsy and out of touch medical business that doesn't put realistic goals for patient health first. I work in education and I know how standards being taught to the students sound great, but in reality tie the hands of teachers to teach what they want or think is ok.
Sure with government run health care everyone would be technically covered, but what does that really mean? How do you or I know that all of a sudden the government, which doesnt always have the peoples best interest in mind (thats putting it lightly), will help every person to the extent that an independent insurance provider wouldnt go (referring to your story M Dogg)? People fall through the cracks in society, and to think that we can somehow make that not true, in my opinion, is pure fantasy. And putting the strain on our economy and society that a healthcare free for all would create, just to try and create this fantasy land would be irresponsible.
I find it intriguing that the people I've heard talk about this subject that are from countries where gov't run health care is taking place (Canada, UK) don't think the system works. Is that the consensus among people you know Virtuoso or anyone else?
And people in the US without money also think that our system doesn't work either. 46 million in the US will debate your points.
Well, of course they would. I dont blame em. Im not covered either and dont have the money to buy an insurance plan, just gonna have to go without till i get a full time position. Thats the nature of life, some people have, some people have not. Its just a cold hard fact that kinda sucks but mostly cant be changed (except for maybe people changing their situations Horatio Alger style, cause even if they try the govt aint gonna save you). But that doesnt change the fact I dont think this plan will work efficiently enough to justify it. I say fix the current system to cover more people and stop some of the shady shit the insurance companies are doing, dont get rid of it and replace insurance company shady shit with government shady shit.
-
Since you asked, yeah, what you have with the NHS is huge sums (and i mean huge sums) which simply sink into a black hole. Now that would be all well and good if we got a great return, but in fact the NHS is understaffed, doctors work insanely long hours, the government sets thousands of targets which have been to the direct detriment of patient health by such things as measuring them by the number of operations which they manage in a year, so of course said hospital does not want to get on the wrong side of the governments efficiency and performance department, so it pushes serious operations to the back of the line and instead focuses on minor operations.
The second thing to note is that there has been trillions of tax payers money sunk into the NHS over the decades and yet, there is never enough money. So now we have to try and reconcile the fact that there is going to be something approaching a 20% cut in the funding. One of the reasons of course why the national health system does not function as it perhaps could and should do is constant government interference, it's an autocratic approach that does no favours to anyone (understatement). However another reason why is because of the unsavoury relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and national government which in turn keeps medical prices high and ensures that very few cheaper drugs are purchased.
I understand what m dogg is saying but firstly America has no intention of stopping any of these occupations, so no money is going to be saved there. In fact it will only be increased, but even if the occupiers pulled out, it would not free up enough immediate money to make the system successful and b) America is essentially bankrupt, the reason why you people have had your title of the free nation is because of the middle class. The richest will get out of funding it, the poorest can't pay it, so the middle classes will take yet another yet. These constant hits are pushing many of the middle class down into lower class, there will be attempts to sell you on another tax, the infamous sales tax.
This drive downwards is going to lead to more and more and more dependance on the state and then leads to the spectre of the state rationing health care based on existing health, and especially on age. Are we to accept for instance that the old should get the bare minimum health treatment? Government power always does get abused and always will be abused, that is why the intention should always be to lessen it's hold, not tighten it.
As for Olbermann he showed some of his true colours when he went on the attack against those who attended the nationwide tea parties as "tea baggers" implying it was some kind of conspiracy by racists. The reality is that implication is complete bullshit and the actions of successive governments have angered millions and millions. The protests are just the very tip of that but Olbermann is the slick, articulate, hard hitting pundit who placates democratic supporters by offering opposition against unpopular policies while attacking anyone that is outside of the democrats. In that respect it's different to Glenn Beck because the latter is totally blind to the evils of the republicans but they are all playing the game.
-
Olbermann talking bipartisanship is like Hitler talking about the value of Jewish life.
He's the left wing equivalent of Glenn Beck.
I wouldn't go that far, although I agree with the general sentiment that Olbermann is a media shill, having put in work with disney/abc/espn/cnn.
Mdogg you must stop watching this stuff, they're shoveling mostly shit and you eat it up like it's a damn double double from in-n-out.
-
Olbermann talking bipartisanship is like Hitler talking about the value of Jewish life.
He's the left wing equivalent of Glenn Beck.
I wouldn't go that far, although I agree with the general sentiment that Olbermann is a media shill, having put in work with disney/abc/espn/cnn.
Mdogg you must stop watching this stuff, they're shoveling mostly shit and you eat it up like it's a damn double double from in-n-out.
WTF... I need to stop watching Olbermann. First off, I was for Universal Health Care WAY before Olbermann had a show on MSNBC, or before liberals were cool. I showed this because everyone is like, the media is pro-Obama, they are trying to sell you on this Illuminati agenda, Olbermann is taking talking points from Obama. This shows that this is false. We lefties are not in lock step with the president, we are not on lock step with the media, we just want real health care reform. Straight up, what is so hard for you to understand. Ideally, Medicare would be for all. People could buy into Medicare, ideally we'd have a public option for small businesses so that they can provide their employees health care without breaking their bank, ideally we would have government run hospitals that are cheaper and everyone can go to and ideally the private sector would stay to drive the market. What's wrong with that?
You complain about Canada's NHS, and you might have a point but here's the issue, Canada's, and everyone else with public health care's biggest problem is that they outlaw private insurance. You can't do that, people with money want to be insured they'll have the best health care. Also, if we have a public health care system, we can FINALLY take our money out of private insurance for subsidizes that go to over paying for health care, we can take our money out of private hospitals that get subsidizes for over charging for health care, we can take our money out of pharmacy, which we subsidized to make drugs cheaper. We can have a program to research our own drugs, we can build our own hospitals instead of subsidizing over charging hospitals, pay doctors directly, and offer insurance to all at rates we dictate. We let medicine go out of control the last 10 years, as medical cost have gone up 300%. We need to take back our health. More bankruptcies in the US were from health cost, and that helped trigger the housing crisis. You guys talk nonsense because you want this to just slightly change, but our system is broken. 45,000 people die a year from no health insurance, think of it. 45,000 people, in 2002 it was 18,000. You talk about a system that drains money, well I'll talk your talk.
THE UNITED STATES SPEND MORE MONEY PER PERSON ON HEALTH CARE THAN ANY OTHER NATION!.
* "The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. That was in 2000, we spend 3 times that now. It is more cost effective to go with a system like Canada's, it's not perfect but then again your NHS is not 1/6 of the economy. We are the least cost effective system in the world. You want to talk about Illuminati leaders, we have people who make BILLIONS of peoples deaths. That's wrong, people die and others get billions, that is the definition of Illuminati. Straight up, why is it your systems are failing, because of lack of funds. The system themselves are fine, but funding is getting in the way. In the US< we fund our health care like no one else business. We have the best health care in the world, but only if you are rich. Those with money get, those without are shit out of luck. As I said, keep the private insurance, let it be, you are mad at public health care, take your money to Kaiser and let them treat you. But lets get our moneys worth.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
Co-sign +1
-
Olbermann talking bipartisanship is like Hitler talking about the value of Jewish life.
He's the left wing equivalent of Glenn Beck.
Co-sign +1. By the way, Olberman is a Jew, just FYI
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
Then what is, because right now with less government, that's not the answer either.
Uhhh.. MDogg.. haven't you heard of Medicare, Medicaid and the FDA? The US government is already submerged in health care, and has been for around 50 years, and it's been fucked up ever since.
-
In the industrial world, we have the worst health system. We are just above Cuba, and if you have no money in our country you are shit out of luck. The free market has no business in certain areas and peoples lives is one of them. In Canada, there is an issue with their health care, but at the same time you have a better health care than we do. You look at it like this. We are tied to jobs because we need health care, we have an issue because people that have ideas are tied to their jobs. If you have an idea for a small business, and you want to invest your money in this, you can't. You are tied to a job just so you can have health care, and leaving your job means you and your family are not protected. This system does not foster creativity and allow people to venture out and grow, what this system creates is conservative minded people afraid to invest in themselves and stay at their jobs. Are countries creativity comes from 20 somethings that are not afraid of their health, and they are not afraid of risk, but it cripples are older population that may have had a great idea but can't risk leaving their job. That's how our system, in case you wanted it in free market terms.
homie, you got it backwards, it's your socialism that discourages creativity. With government taking over health care back in the 60's (with Medicare, Medicaid, FDA and expanding it ever since), criminal charges can be placed upon anyone who tries to come up with better medicine, or practice health care at a reduced price, or think outside the box in ways to manage health care. No, it's a one size fits all government system.
If government had been in charge of the computer, we would still have a gigantic computer in front of us that could only add and subtract. So why do we want government to control health care?
-
In my opinion the government handing out so-called free health care to the masses is a great idea. But thats in theory. I just do not have faith in this government, or any for that matter, to run it correctly. When you have government run industry mixed with the need to serve mass amounts of people you get legal red tape everywhere. Look at the school system, hell, look at the DMV. Why does it take 3 hours to get a new pic for a license? Better question: how long would it take if the government didnt run that place? Not three hours.
Exactly, government is slow and inefficient. While the free market is streamlined and user-friendly. If the free-market was handling education a high school kid could go to school for 3 hours a day and learn what a government student learns in an 8 hour day. Also, it would be cheaper because there would be dozens of private institutions competing to provide him the most cost-efficient and effective education.
-
Word, the other thing is governments want to run every facet of the health system (like in the UK) therefore constantly dictating to the doctors what is and isn't acceptable, constantly being judged on "efficiency". The government actually degrades the quality of the health care by setting target after target, which aren't actually improving, instead it forces the hospitals to meet them to the detriment of care.
Co-sign +1
Your exactly right. I work in hospitals and nursing homes, and employees and administration are more focused on meeting "state regulations" than actually providing the most effective care. So much time and money is wasted in following bullshit state regulations made by politicians the doing the shit that actually matters in the real world.
-
Do these American idiots actually want something that even resembles the Canadian model? Because it would collapse in the US, and maybe collapse the US. Keep an eyer out in Canada please and see how we slowly pay more and coverage slowly becomes less, and we slowly increase debt because of it. It's a horrible model that will self destruct soon. The US needs to change their system, but more government is not the answer.
Then what is, because right now with less government, that's not the answer either.
Uhhh.. MDogg.. haven't you heard of Medicare, Medicaid and the FDA? The US government is already submerged in health care, and has been for around 50 years, and it's been fucked up ever since.
Government was in charge of the space mission, we got to the moon just fine, government is in charge of the military, we do a good job of getting shit that goes boom, government has brought us fire fighters, they seem to respond on time, government produces the mail system, which delivers mail on time, government fought a couple of World Wars, we seem to have won those.
-
Government was in charge of the space mission, we got to the moon just fine, government is in charge of the military, we do a good job of getting shit that goes boom, government has brought us fire fighters, they seem to respond on time, government produces the mail system, which delivers mail on time, government fought a couple of World Wars, we seem to have won those.
-The space mission was hugely expensive, and hasn't proved it's worth just because astronauts reached the moon. If spending billions to travel to space leads to inventions, technology or wisdom that improves the standard of living, then their may be some worth to it; but then why couldn't a private company do it if it is in fact profitable?
-Military is fucked up. The defense department wasn't enough so they created the FBI. The Defense department and FBI weren't enough so they created the CIA. The Defense department, CIA, FBI, weren't enough so they created the Department of Homeland Security, INS, and so on... A trillion dollars later people still don't feel safe! When you cause massive destruction worldwide then money and resources are being squandered in an effort to repair and rebuild what was already there; rather then being used to increase the goods and services we enjoy and that elevate our happiness and raise our standard of living.
-US postal service is another waste. Private companies like FedEx are just as capable or more capable of providing such services in an efficient and affordable manner, without the violations of privacy one may experience with the government.
-US involvement in the first world war led to the second World War. The war was drawing to a stalemate, in which all parties would have been neutralized. Yet, when the US entered the war, they were victorious, and insisted on a subjugation of the Central Powers that was neither practical nor sustaining and ultimately led to the extreme measures taken by those nations ever since, such as WW2.