Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rick James on August 06, 2009, 01:12:18 am
-
Despite me being Canadian, I've been following the situation in the United States regarding health care reform for quite some time now. And I have to say that I am more than a little unnerved at what I'm seeing.
I could go into detail about why American health care scares me, but Keith Olbermann does it so much better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hki8hA1JyVg).
Now, as a Canadian, I realize that our own health care certainly isn't the absolute best out there. We do still end up paying for things like optometry, dentistry, and prescription meds, but we end up paying a hell of a lot less than our American counterparts because almost all employers (at least around where I live) provide some form of health insurance, which usually carries on into retirement as part of the Canada Pension Plan in addition to our regular pension. We can still pay for things like heart medication and teeth care and glasses after we retire. Pharmaceutical costs are set at a global median by government price controls.
But here's the thing: I don't live in America. I'm just a guy looking down across the border, sipping a beer and going, "Damn, what a cluster****."
So, to all our American forumites, I ask: is your health care really as ****ty compared to other health care systems abroad? To all non-American forumites: what's health care in your country like?
-
Part of it is because the government in Canada puts pressure on supply companies (like drug companies) to keep the prices reasonable, so often many Americans jump the border to get prescription drugs they otherwise would have to pay out of the ass for. According to wikipedia, in 2006 Canada spent 10% of its GDP on healthcare, while America spent 15%. According to a Harvard Medical School study, the number one cause of bankruptcy in America is, you guessed it, healthcare bills. The government hasn't done any price controls because of the massive amounts of legal corruption in the form of campaign contributions from Big Healthcare (they spend millions and millions of dollars every year).
My mom works in an insurance company (a clerk), and evidently hospitals often intentionally overcharge their patients in order to bilk the insuance companies as much as possible and to make extra $$$$. If your insurance company doesn't want to pay (and yes they sometimes will refuse to pay for important treatment if they think it costs too much), you're fracked. If you lose your job in America, in many cases you will also lose your employer provided healthcare as well so if you can't find a job pronto then you're in trouble. I read 4 years ago (when the economy was supposed to be good) that 40 million people didn't have health insurance, now no doubt that number has gotten much bigger. If you end up in the emergency room and you're without insurance, the hospital by law is required to give you full treatment for free, so many people without insurance wait until there is a huge emergency because they can't afford to get preventative treatment.
-
I can also write a section just on the shady stuff the drug companies do. One of the things they do is to flood every doctors office, tv and sometimes even radio station with advertising. The result? People coming into doctors offices convinced they have X disease and want Y medication, regardless of what they doctors actually say. Of course this crap is expensive, Big Pharma says the high drug prices are important for R&D, but in reality most of it is to pay the massive advertising budgets (drug ads are everywhere on TV), the lobbyists, and in some cases buy off the FDA (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/fda-scientists-complain-obama-corrupt).
EDIT: I'll also throw in some more. The biggest market Big Pharma has been trying to reach in the last couple of decades has been......children and teenagers. On the documentary "Generation RX", they show a coloring book for elementary school students describing a situation where a child's (people were represented with kangaroos) friend moves away so the child feels sad for a couple of days, then gets taken to a "special doctor" where he/she is loaded up with drugs and suddenly is much better. In addition to that, they are always pushing things like ADD (I refuse to use the term "ADHD"), depression, bi-polar, and a few others at various psychiatric and teacher conferences. Teacher sees a problem student, then refers him/her to someone else who will automatically give a diagnosis (usually ADHD) and put huge amounts of pressure on doctors to prescribe medication for it, regardless of what the doctor says. 1/30 kids is on Ridalin, and there are other drugs that are common (presecriptions for children with "bi-polar" are rising fast). Now, of all those kids I'll be willing to bet there might be a very small number of cases (such as extreme hyperactivity and asperger's syndrome) in which such medication is actually appropriate and very helpful, but for the majority of cases it isn't needed and is harmful. When you introduce those kinds of medications to a normal mind, it just causes problems (serious problems like brain atrophy and an increase in violent behavior or suicide).
-
I have US military healthcare. It's pretty great (very low copays) except for the part where almost no doctors outside military bases accept it. :<
-
Hospital overcharging is definitely no joke in America. You can get charged $200 for a "Mucus Disposal System", or something similarly named, which is a box of tissues. Tissues! It's recommended that even if you have insurance covering everything, you still scrutinize your bill, because your insurance company won't take the time, and if you have a lifetime limit on your insurance you could hit it that much sooner. You can also often straight negotiate with the hospital, they'd rather get some money than have you go bankrupt and get none of it. They're just like any other bill collector, except that sometimes it's actually 10 different collectors because each doctor handles his own billing sometimes, private practice won't usually go through the hospital.
-
I have US military healthcare. It's pretty great (very low copays) except for the part where almost no doctors outside military bases accept it. :<
you can't but love the people who claim that government-run healthcare simply cannot work and either ignore or, even worse, praise the military healthcare in the next sentence
it's just so weird
-
So, to all our American forumites, I ask: is your health care really as ****ty compared to other health care systems abroad? To all non-American forumites: what's health care in your country like?
Wow, seeing how bad the US system is makes me thankfull of the one here, the problem with health care in my country is that 50% of it works, 50% lets you die on the waiting line (yes, this kind of thing does happen here.).
I'll let wiki explain some more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Brazil
The government has its own health care system (SUS) which is free for everyone; covers treatment for most diseases/accidents/etc; needed medication is handed freely to patients and this is one of the crucial things I like, here you dont see none of the BS those companies make, the government pretty much told the pharmaceutical companies to go ****ck themselves over what they were charging and started making generic versions of their medications and its not only common drugs, for example, every drug HIV treatment needs is given for free (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/157628.php), the result? Health improved by leaps and bounds for the entire population, specially those who could have never afforded the drugs before.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1338
The price the companies charge for the medicine they make is completely absurd, some drugs can cost $50 (usually more) on a drugstore but the generic version which is also sold can cost only a 1/4 of the price.
Of course, there's the other 50%, the whole system is understaffed, underpaid and barely receives enough investment and you have to count on a lot of patience depending on what treatment is yours because the waiting lines can go for years, specially if its a transplant. The private health care here is also 50/50, you have to be really careful of which you choose, some work and work well, others are as bad as the US ones but for both you have to work as a slave to pay them.
-
I have US military healthcare. It's pretty great (very low copays) except for the part where almost no doctors outside military bases accept it. :<
:nod: Very true...
-
But here's the thing: I don't live in America. I'm just a guy looking down across the border, sipping a beer and going, "Damn, what a cluster****."
So, to all our American forumites, I ask: is your health care really as ****ty compared to other health care systems abroad? To all non-American forumites: what's health care in your country like?
The care is (in general) very, very good. The costs are...insane. And, in some cases, baffling.
For example, I know someone who had a failed pregnancy. The baby didn't miscarry normally, so the doctors had to perform a DNC and basically vacuum out the inside of the womb. Did I mention that said person didn't have insurance that covered maternity costs? And that they couldn't get on Medicaid (or whatever) since they had changed states immediately after the start of the pregnancy? Total out-of-pocket cost to them was over $6000.
You know what's even worse? Had it been an elective abortion, it would have cost less than $500 out of pocket. And the procedure at that stage of pregnancy is EXACTLY THE SAME.
The system is pretty screwed up, and it makes me furious. The current healthcare proposals in congress don't convince me that they will improve the situation at all. IMO the basic problem is that healthcare costs (as charged by doctors & hospitals) are out of control, for a whole host of reasons I don't claim to fully grok. THAT's the problem that needs to be solved. I'd be totally happy paying out-of-pocket for non-catastrophic healthcare as long as the costs were reasonable (which they aren't).
I'm open to the idea of a single-payer system, but what I DON'T want is a system that tries to combine a free-market system with socialized care and end up with the worst of both worlds (indeed, you can argue that the current mess is because we've been trying to do exactly that). If we're going to go down the socialized medicine path, let's do it all at once and go pure single-payer.
What I'd REALLY prefer is for states to have the latitude to set up their own systems (be it pure free-market, pure single-payer, or some bastard mix of both). In other words, get the Federal government out of healthcare completely and let the states do what they want. That way, people have more choice in the system they participate in AND we let natural selection show which systems actually work.
-
My family here in America is very happy with its healthcare.
-
America is the only developed country that does not have an health plan for its citizens.
So why the hell do we call it an developed country anyway?
-
The system is pretty screwed up, and it makes me furious.
I agree and understand your anger on the matter. Sadly these expensive prices and a lot of it just being hoaxes to make people buy their stuff even if it means kids who are fine get hurt in the process is the result of a greedy superficial culture like here. I feel anger thinking how they use those kids as lab experiments or just drugging them up even if they know nothing is wrong with the kid. It is like saying that the kids should be emotionless and heartless, and if they are not, they have depression. Like saying that if a person acts human, there is something wrong. It makes you want to move. It is scary to think about those kids being drugged up and also knowing the Ridalin is said to cause brain damage. I don't believe in much of that western medicine. As you all know, I prefer just eating healthy with no vitamins and I'm healthier than many who take oral medicine and vitamins. Only sometimes will I use topical medicine for anti-fungal treatment.
As a kid, I had bad experiences with certain medicine and I don't need it and I'm fine now as an adult. Most of the time, kids grow out of their behaviors, even if they were diagnosed with certain conditions (mild forms) and think back and feel silly for ever doing certain things and come to wish they never acted a certain way.
A lot of this medication advertizing is just a way for those companies to get your money. After all, they are a business and it is in the best interest of any business to make money. How immoral can people be to put kids in those situations and they don't even have a say in it since they are under 18? Sadly, it will get worse, probably.
-
Why does being developed require you to provide nationalized health care?
-
I have US military healthcare. It's pretty great (very low copays) except for the part where almost no doctors outside military bases accept it. :<
you can't but love the people who claim that government-run healthcare simply cannot work and either ignore or, even worse, praise the military healthcare in the next sentence
it's just so weird
like the other day when jon stewart nailed that guy.
but really, all capitialistic health 'insurance' should be evil: their goal is to make money while doing everything they can to not lose it to bay for some sorry fool's treatment just because they are poor.
-
And you think the corrupt politicians who have let it get the way it is are just suddenly going to be enlightened and create something that actually helps people?
-
Because of having the issues with very few to no doctors accepting my health insurance, the biggest thing I want out of government health insurance is a sort of guarantee that almost all doctors will accept your insurance. People talk about the freedom and choice and whatnot with private health insurance, but it doesn't seem very free OR choice-y to me that you don't really get to pick your doctors a lot of the time, and your career is likely to be based on which employers provide insurance.
In a couple years, I will lose my parents' insurance, and I don't know what comes after that. :<
-
Why does being developed require you to provide nationalized health care?
Nationalized health care != Universal Health Plan. It can also mean a 'compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards.' (copied from Wikipedia because I lacked the vocabulary to express it properly), Similar to the system in the Netherlands.
EDIT: Not entirely, actually, but you get the message. somewhat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_Netherlands
-
I'm going to come right out and say I have to disagree with compulsory health care of any kind. The poor can't afford health insurance, otherwise they would already have it, so that means everyone else ends up paying for the health care of the poor. The poor end up getting free health care simply because they are poor, and everyone who isn't poor gets stuck with the bill. And a compulsory health care system reduces competition in the marketplace since the providers have a captive market. There is a reduced incentive to keep prices down because you are forced to buy health care from one of the companies.
I also disagree with a single-payer government-run health care plan. There is no free-market incentive to keep prices down through competition, and unlike traditional insurance, you can't really opt of the plan and purchase medical care on your own terms, like you can with insurance today. It also spreads the costs around, so the healthier users subsidize the unhealthy users, and unlike traditional market-governed insurance plans there will most likely be a mandate to be in the government plan, so people will be forced to remain in a plan that they don't like.
-
I disagree, i pay taxes so i don't have to pay huge bills of rminor ailments.
-
I'm going to come right out and say I have to disagree with compulsory health care of any kind. The poor can't afford health insurance, otherwise they would already have it, so that means everyone else ends up paying for the health care of the poor. The poor end up getting free health care simply because they are poor, and everyone who isn't poor gets stuck with the bill. And a compulsory health care system reduces competition in the marketplace since the providers have a captive market. There is a reduced incentive to keep prices down because you are forced to buy health care from one of the companies.
I also disagree with a single-payer government-run health care plan. There is no free-market incentive to keep prices down through competition, and unlike traditional insurance, you can't really opt of the plan and purchase medical care on your own terms, like you can with insurance today. It also spreads the costs around, so the healthier users subsidize the unhealthy users, and unlike traditional market-governed insurance plans there will most likely be a mandate to be in the government plan, so people will be forced to remain in a plan that they don't like.
And may I ask what keeps the prices down in the current system? :P
-
I'm going to come right out and say I have to disagree with compulsory health care of any kind. The poor can't afford health insurance, otherwise they would already have it, so that means everyone else ends up paying for the health care of the poor. The poor end up getting free health care simply because they are poor, and everyone who isn't poor gets stuck with the bill. And a compulsory health care system reduces competition in the marketplace since the providers have a captive market. There is a reduced incentive to keep prices down because you are forced to buy health care from one of the companies.
I also disagree with a single-payer government-run health care plan. There is no free-market incentive to keep prices down through competition, and unlike traditional insurance, you can't really opt of the plan and purchase medical care on your own terms, like you can with insurance today. It also spreads the costs around, so the healthier users subsidize the unhealthy users, and unlike traditional market-governed insurance plans there will most likely be a mandate to be in the government plan, so people will be forced to remain in a plan that they don't like.
Obviously, you missed the part where we end up paying for healthcare for the poor ANYWAY and a LOT more than we'd pay for their health insurance. Poor people don't not get sick. They get sick or hurt and then they wait until it's so bad they can't ignore it anymore, and they go to the hospital emergency rooms and can't even begin to pay the outrageous bills.
As things are now, even people with health insurance can be totally bankrupted by one bad illness or accident.
Healthcare just isn't one of those things that goes well in a free market situation. It's not in the companies' best interests to accept people who are likely to get sick or who already are sick, and it's really not in their best interests to pay for the medical care the people they insure need. So you have insurance companies trying to weasel their way out of paying for healthcare at every turn, and sick people at their mercy.
-
I have Bupa, but i don't use it.....
-
And may I ask what keeps the prices down in the current system? :P
Nothing and that's the REAL problem, it's not that there's a shortage or that it's poor quality health care. If you are sick you get help. The problem is a combination of unscrupulous, but legal business practices and totally uncontrolled payouts in malpractice suits.
Odds are that doctor you just paid $10k to save your life will see maybe $3000 by the time he/she pays they're malpractice insurance.
The problem you've got is that the people in favor of this approach to health care reform are babbling on about how broken the system is and how prevalent corruption and over/under-diagnosis is to meet some mythical cost quota. They further pronounce an overwhelming majority of Americans are dissatisfied by they're health care. Yet, in a recent study, something like 70 or 80% are at least satisfied with they're health care and the remaining percentage are typically uninsured due to unemployment or simply by choice.
I guess what it boils down to is that certain people in America want to use this issue to exert they're will over the populace en toto. I mean if the Government is in charge of making Life and Death decisions concerning your health, that basically gives them the right to force you to do pretty much anything they want to "ensure your continued health" including exerting said control on what and when you eat, what kind of car/truck/motorcycle you are allowed to drive, ect. This is the reason they were in such a hurry to get this passed(they dropped a 1000 page monster of a bill on House Republican's office doorstep at 3am when the vote was to be called on it later that morning.) before the August recess.
Lastly, you can't really trust PMSNBC or CNN or NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR news to report this accurately because they aren't objective about the purveyors of the plan. I mean you have got news anchors reporting that people at the various town meetings that are holding they're Representative's to the fire are in fact recieveing they're marching orders from some Republican somewhere. That they're being bussed in and being told where to go to talk to they're Representative.
Hmm, let's think about this. A meeting with a person ostensibly elected to represent your interested is being held in a town 200 miles from where you live, and you want to to talk to him about his position. You have 2 choices really, sit at home or call your local election board to find out where the meeting is. If there are enough people who want to go, it makes more sense to rent a bus than drive 40 cars that 200 miles and as far as taking marching orders from some Republican somewhere...since when is it taking marching orders to stand up and be counted for what you believe or don't believe in?
Community Organizers(and that's what this Administration is) shouldn't whine like a beat dog when the community organizes.
-
I guess what it boils down to is that certain people in America want to use this issue to exert they're will over the populace en toto. I mean if the Government is in charge of making Life and Death decisions concerning your health, that basically gives them the right to force you to do pretty much anything they want to "ensure your continued health" including exerting said control on what and when you eat, what kind of car/truck/motorcycle you are allowed to drive, ect. This is the reason they were in such a hurry to get this passed(they dropped a 1000 page monster of a bill on House Republican's office doorstep at 3am when the vote was to be called on it later that morning.) before the August recess.
I know it doesn't work like that here (Germany), and that's good enough for me.
Not that I believe anything of what you just said. Quote chapter and verse (or more accurately, paragraphs) where in the laws that were proposed it says that, and I might believe you. Unlikely, seeing as I am so far to the left and liberal side of the american political spectrum you won't be able to find it, but hey. I'm a european, it's what we are.
Also, they're != their. It's a bit amazing that you managed to use the wrong form everywhere in that whole text.
-
I guess what it boils down to is that certain people in America want to use this issue to exert they're will over the populace en toto. I mean if the Government is in charge of making Life and Death decisions concerning your health, that basically gives them the right to force you to do pretty much anything they want to "ensure your continued health" including exerting said control on what and when you eat, what kind of car/truck/motorcycle you are allowed to drive, ect. This is the reason they were in such a hurry to get this passed(they dropped a 1000 page monster of a bill on House Republican's office doorstep at 3am when the vote was to be called on it later that morning.) before the August recess.
You really believe that? I mean, seriously?
-
Opinions are opinions........
-
He believes that government health insurance means the government will make "life and death decisions concerning your health." That reform will give them "the right to force you to do pretty much anything they want to "ensure your continued health" including exerting said control on what and when you eat, what kind of car/truck/motorcycle you are allowed to drive, ect."
Just...
I ALREADY HAVE GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE. I have it. Like, now. Right now. Socialized, evil librul health insurance. From the government. Already.
It's not an opinion, it's just *wrong.*
-
He believes that government health insurance means the government will make "life and death decisions concerning your health." That reform will give them "the right to force you to do pretty much anything they want to "ensure your continued health" including exerting said control on what and when you eat, what kind of car/truck/motorcycle you are allowed to drive, ect."
Just...
I ALREADY HAVE GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE. I have it. Like, now. Right now. Socialized, evil librul health insurance. From the government. Already.
It's not an opinion, it's just *wrong.*
But even you must admit taking that same care to the entire population is a completely different animal and opens up many other possibilities and changes.
-
I don't see a lot of people bringing up malpractice. Now, malpractice itself may not account for a large proportion of healthcare costs, but it engenders an increase in other parts of healthcare costs. Namely, malpractice insurance and extra testing that doctors order to cover their asses in case they get sued. Per capita, we spend about $7,200 annually and have an average life expectancy of 75 years. The UK spends less than half that per capita and has an average life expectancy of 77 years. Something isn't adding up, and I would offer that malpractice and associated fears are unnecessarily driving up the cost of healthcare in the US.
<Disengaging tl;dr mode before it can start...>
-
"...the Senate version (at least) of the 'stimulus' bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle, (known by some as 'The Snake') was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: 'Daschle says health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.'
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes."
That came across my email recently.
Also, I simply am tired of continually relying more and more on the government and of accepting their 'safety measures'. It seems the government simply finds more ways to make money so it can spend money on finding more ways to make money. Take red light/speed cameras. I'm sick of being watched like I'm already a criminal, and I'm sick of giving up my freedoms.
-
"...the Senate version (at least) of the 'stimulus' bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle, (known by some as 'The Snake') was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: 'Daschle says health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.'
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes."
That came across my email recently.
Also, I simply am tired of continually relying more and more on the government and of accepting their 'safety measures'. It seems the government simply finds more ways to make money so it can spend money on finding more ways to make money. Take red light/speed cameras. I'm sick of being watched like I'm already a criminal, and I'm sick of giving up my freedoms.
I tend to think if a bill like that passes, most of the ones who voted it in and likely our president could kiss their seats goodbye, and I don't think they are that stupid. My main concern over the healthcare bill is just more money being spent. You would think that after all the money Bush and Obama threw into stimulus packages we could get a break before we tally up more debt. Doesn't look likely.
-
71% of Americans in favour of healthcare reform doesn't make your prediction likely...
I think it's about time we started spending money in places where we are actually helping people, though.
-
What really concerns me about this proposal, other than my inbuilt aversion to the government getting its hands deeper in even more pies (and before anyone drags that out, yes, I have been unhappy with many occurrences of the same over the past several years), is just where the funding is going to be coming from. I can't help but be reminded of the trip our family took to Niagara Falls last summer. We decided to go out to breakfast at a Perkins on the Canadian side (for anyone not in the know, Perkins is a relatively-inexpensive restaurant chain which specializes in breakfast food), and with all of the national and provincial taxes, for a family of six, our bill came out to over $100. For a meal that probably would have cost $45 in the US. At a time when the US and Canadian dollars were exchanging just about equally. I don't know for a fact which (if any) of those taxes were as a result of Canada's healthcare system, but I do know that, if any plans for such a system involve me spending $6 for a glass of apple juice at breakfast, you can count me out. I'd rather pay out healthcare costs all at once than get nickel-and-dimed to death on a daily basis.
That aside, I do agree that there is a serious problem with healthcare in this country. There's something blatantly wrong when tens of millions of Americans can't even afford basic coverage, and there's something wrong when overly-exorbitant costs and unnecessary executive bureaucracy prevent people from getting the care they need. (This (http://marissasbunny.com/Marissas_Bunny/Marissas_Bunny_-_Infantile_Spasms_and_Epilepsy_Awareness/Marissas_Bunny_-_Infantile_Spasms_and_Epilepsy_Awareness.html) rather heartrending blog details some of the ridiculous hoops that one set of parents has to jump through to care for their epileptic daughter.) I don't know what the best solution to the current situation is, whether it's the current plan before Congress or some alternative way of cutting down the current pricing scheme (I'm kind of against the single-payer idea on principle), but something does need to be done, and now. At the same time, I don't want whatever is done to result in major tax hikes or shoving the country further into ridiculous debt.
-
"in favour of healthcare reform" != automatic approval of anything the president/congress approves on the matter.
For example, healthcare reform could be defined as completely abolishing the insurance system, except for one small company in upstate Michigan (pulled it out of a hat, nothing meant there).
-
71% of Americans in favour of healthcare reform doesn't make your prediction likely...
I think it's about time we started spending money in places where we are actually helping people, though.
Looks like a lot more un-certainty in wanting healthcare reform from my opinion.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/Benefits-Healthcare-Reform-Tough-Sell-Americans.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/Benefits-Healthcare-Reform-Tough-Sell-Americans.aspx)
-
That aside, I do agree that there is a serious problem with healthcare in this country. There's something blatantly wrong when tens of millions of Americans can't even afford basic coverage, and there's something wrong when overly-exorbitant costs and unnecessary executive bureaucracy prevent people from getting the care they need. (This (http://marissasbunny.com/Marissas_Bunny/Marissas_Bunny_-_Infantile_Spasms_and_Epilepsy_Awareness/Marissas_Bunny_-_Infantile_Spasms_and_Epilepsy_Awareness.html) rather heartrending blog details some of the ridiculous hoops that one set of parents has to jump through to care for their epileptic daughter.) I don't know what the best solution to the current situation is, whether it's the current plan before Congress or some alternative way of cutting down the current pricing scheme (I'm kind of against the single-payer idea on principle), but something does need to be done, and now. At the same time, I don't want whatever is done to result in major tax hikes or shoving the country further into ridiculous debt.
As a conservative, I can agree with that. Had I not had health insurance a few weeks ago, I had a sinus infection and took a trip to the doctor. He looked at me for three minutes, after they took blood work and a chest x-ray, gave me a shot and billed me $450 for it. Good thing my insurance paid for most of it.
Medical bills are crazy high, insurance bills are crazy high and to be honest, IMHO I don't really know what can be done about it. I don't think however, the answer is as simple as running a bill through congress as fast as you can.
-
That aside, I do agree that there is a serious problem with healthcare in this country. There's something blatantly wrong when tens of millions of Americans can't even afford basic coverage, and there's something wrong when overly-exorbitant costs and unnecessary executive bureaucracy prevent people from getting the care they need. (This (http://marissasbunny.com/Marissas_Bunny/Marissas_Bunny_-_Infantile_Spasms_and_Epilepsy_Awareness/Marissas_Bunny_-_Infantile_Spasms_and_Epilepsy_Awareness.html) rather heartrending blog details some of the ridiculous hoops that one set of parents has to jump through to care for their epileptic daughter.) I don't know what the best solution to the current situation is, whether it's the current plan before Congress or some alternative way of cutting down the current pricing scheme (I'm kind of against the single-payer idea on principle), but something does need to be done, and now. At the same time, I don't want whatever is done to result in major tax hikes or shoving the country further into ridiculous debt.
Major tax hikes are coming anyway, or at least they should be. We can't keep borrowing money like we have been for the last 8 years. If we're gonna spend billions on wars, we better have the tax rates to back it up.
I'd prefer if those high taxes would go towards free or low cost health care for all Americans, though. Maybe it's a liberal thing, but I see things like food, shelter, and health care as basic human rights, not luxuries, and certainly not things to be rationed when there is plenty to go around.
-
The USA should stop their petty wars and evil invasion games that those generals love so much and spend the money on improving the out-of-date infrastructure here too besides the health care. If some military men love shooting or bombing, they can play FS or hunt an animal.
-
...wut?
-
Don't feed the High Max!
-
He almost had it right. I think he's getting better.
-
The USA should stop their petty wars and evil invasion games that those generals love so much and spend the money on improving the out-of-date infrastructure here too besides the health care. If some military men love shooting or bombing, they can play FS or hunt an animal.
:wtf: did that come from? And which infrastructure are you speaking of?
-
Our public education system? Especially at the post-high school level?
-
And this is where it falls apart.
The Liberals(bleeding hearts, eco-nuts, whatever) see this as fundamentally about human rights, which should be guaranteed at all costs. The Conservatives see this as fundamentally about freedom, or more accurately the absconding thereof by an evermore larger and invasive Federal Government. And the actual issue gets lost in the middle, as it does so often.
Both sides agree that the primary causal agent for the perceived inequalities in health care stem from ridiculous cost overages like the $200 box of Kleenex noted above. Do you honestly think this aspect would get better under a program run by a government who pays $2000 for a toilet seat or $500 for a claw hammer and doesn't bat an eye?
One of the main reasons for these massive is a lack of competition. Many patients seldom seek a second opinion from they're family doctor, much less price shop that $2000 test that they might get for $1500 somewhere else. Perhaps they feel like they would be judged to be skimping on grandma's health or they're childs health. Regardless, these are the kind of changes that need to be made. Not some sweeping Government program that would hand over the keys to my bank account should I not pay for some reason. If you think collection calls are bad, just wait till the Big G can perform an electronic funds transfer directly out of your account for non-payment. It's in there, something like page 310 or something like that as I recall(probably incorrectly)
Nevermind that one of the primary proponents of this program just requested three 65 million dollar private jets for her personal use in the midst of the largest recession in 40 years.
-
You seem to speak sense, sir. That's gotta count for something.
Nevermind that one of the primary proponents of this program just requested three 65 million dollar private jets for her personal use in the midst of the largest recession in 40 years.
But, may I ask for a source for this anecdote?
-
One of the main reasons for these massive is a lack of competition.
This is straight up bull****. It's a deregulated basic service. You can't afford not to have it, like water or electricity. As in any deregulated basic service, the name of the game becomes how much you can charge the customers without provoking the government to regulate you again. Competition or lack thereof has nothing to do with the high costs of the system; the fact that they can charge whatever they want until they provoke public rebellion does.
This is why Federal Employee healthcare, which I've spent my whole life under, is so excellent and costs nearly nothing; it will be noticed quickly by the government if they start screwing with it, leading to regulation.
-
It's difficult for a man to pull himself out of the gutter when one hospital trip can put you back in it, I suppose.
I'm all for the Right for a poor man to rise to President, but does that Right actually exist in the USA, or is a lie people tell themselves in the hope it will someday be true? It is good to have an ideal, but sometimes I fear that people ignore the realities in the belief that doing so will make the system work.
I suppose for my part, if someone wants to make a complete mess of their lives, then that is their choice, but many injuries and illnesses are not a matter of choice, your living quality affects your vulnerability, and your vulnerability affects your ability to improve your living quality.
It's like growing celery in the desert, if the soil isn't right, ain't nothing gonna grow, it's the same with people, those living in slums don't just need to 'pull their socks up and straighten up', they need to know that someone outside their local group actually gives a damn.
-
Our public education system? Especially at the post-high school level?
I'm talking about electrical, transportation, roads, bridges, etc. We still use a system that the electrical companies can't even monitor in real time and they can't know if the power goes out unless someone calls it in. These days they should have it connected to an internet-like sensor and communication system that gets real time data and current status of the power infrastructure and how it is being received by the places it is being sent to and be able to sense damage or power problems. They still have to have the electrical company manually read your meter by sending people out in every case instead of using communication tech to do so from their company. Very out of date.
Roads are falling apart with pot holes, and bridges are old and have been collapsing and the vehicle fleet should be updated with its fuel economy increased and a sleek design like they are doing in parts of Europe, instead of continuing to have the inefficient cube-shaped nose.
Old copper telephone wire and tech is all over the place here in the year 2009 while other parts of the world get fresh fiber optic installed since they didn't have an old infrastructure to replace to the degree that is needed here. Actually, satellite internet and phone communication would be better than wiring up the world and the quality of the phone audio needs improvement along with objects that have automated voices with poor sound quality, like in busses or speakers in elevators.
Buildings are also out of date and old in most cases. Also, same with the sewage system. The program I watched about the USA's crumbling infrastructer gave the infrastructure here a D grade in its current condition.
Also, less health care would be needed if people took better care of themselves when it comes to lifestyle choices.
-
Also, less health care would be needed if people took better care of themselves when it comes to lifestyle choices.
Making sure your health care is in order is an awesome lifestyle choice.
-
And you think the corrupt politicians who have let it get the way it is are just suddenly going to be enlightened and create something that actually helps people?
That goes into another big problem and that is our tolerance of corruption, mostly in the form of campaign contributions. Based on annecdotal evidence from a friend of mine Germany has an excellent healthcare system, and it is free (except the delicious meals, but even those are at reasonable prices). If they could do it why can't we?
I'm going to come right out and say I have to disagree with compulsory health care of any kind. The poor can't afford health insurance, otherwise they would already have it, so that means everyone else ends up paying for the health care of the poor. The poor end up getting free health care simply because they are poor, and everyone who isn't poor gets stuck with the bill.
They already do to a degree, everytime they end up in the emergency room it costs the taxpayers more than it would have to simply let them get preventative treatment in the first place.
And a compulsory health care system reduces competition in the marketplace since the providers have a captive market. There is a reduced incentive to keep prices down because you are forced to buy health care from one of the companies.
Perhaps you would care to show me where these mystical low prices are? It is also in the Land of Makebelieve? The only low prices I saw in the US were in Canada. But you're also failing to take something into account, even people with insurance sometimes end up going totally broke because their insurance only covers a certain percentage of the cost. 50% of $80,000 is still $40,000, and not a lot of people have that much lying around.
but legal business practices and totally uncontrolled payouts in malpractice suits.
What about the obscene cost of precription drugs?
I guess what it boils down to is that certain people in America want to use this issue to exert they're will over the populace en toto. I mean if the Government is in charge of making Life and Death decisions concerning your health, that basically gives them the right to force you to do pretty much anything they want to "ensure your continued health" including exerting said control on what and when you eat, what kind of car/truck/motorcycle you are allowed to drive, ect.
Fallacy.
That aside, I do agree that there is a serious problem with healthcare in this country. There's something blatantly wrong when tens of millions of Americans can't even afford basic coverage, and there's something wrong when overly-exorbitant costs and unnecessary executive bureaucracy prevent people from getting the care they need. (This rather heartrending blog details some of the ridiculous hoops that one set of parents has to jump through to care for their epileptic daughter.) I don't know what the best solution to the current situation is, whether it's the current plan before Congress or some alternative way of cutting down the current pricing scheme (I'm kind of against the single-payer idea on principle), but something does need to be done, and now. At the same time, I don't want whatever is done to result in major tax hikes or shoving the country further into ridiculous debt.
Taxes are going to get bumped anyway, probably the $1.3 trillion annual deficits have something to do with it. My question to you is what do you suggest we do about it? About the out of control costs and the massive blatant corruption?
One of the main reasons for these massive is a lack of competition. Many patients seldom seek a second opinion from they're family doctor, much less price shop that $2000 test that they might get for $1500 somewhere else. Perhaps they feel like they would be judged to be skimping on grandma's health or they're childs health.
Often you aren't allowed to get a second opinion, insurance companies typically force you to go to a certain doctor and getting them to change it is quite a pain. Say you're on vacation and something goes wrong, so you go to see a doctor in another state. Good luck getting the company to cover that since the doctor is outsite "The Plan".
It's difficult for a man to pull himself out of the gutter when one hospital trip can put you back in it, I suppose.
It's social darwinism at its finest. Read the book "Deerhunting with Jesus" for more sordid details about this kind of thing.
-
I am uninsured as of last week. It's kinda scary, because now there's no way I can pay for emergency care. :nervous:
-
The emergency room is free by law if you don't have insurance and can't afford it, but nothing else is.
-
Free because taxpayers pay for it. And boy-o is it expensive. (see iamzack's $14000 emergency surgery)
-
i think the real problem is the legal system, malpractice insurance, and available technology. doctors have to buy malpractice insurance incase they screw up, because if they do then they can be sued for thousands or even millions of dollars. so they have to pay malpractice insurance which increases the overall cost of medical services.
the insurance then requires them to use more diagnostic technologies. more x-rays, more mri scans, more ulrasound scans, pet scans, cat scans, ekg, eeg, ect. firing up some of that equipment can cost thousands of dollars in materials, power, maintanence expendable components (xray film for example). malpractice insurance sometimes requires the doctors to perform more diagnostics than are neccisary. the doctor can no longer use gut instinct or skill. and must be certain what the problem is before they can perform any treatment.
you go to the emergency room with a broken arm, when back before doctors became money magnets, he would use his skills to locate the fracture is and set it in a cast, xray made things slightly better, but for somone with a low income it was considered optional. you do the same thing today, your arm will be in 4 different scanners before you even see a doctor, and your bill will be through the roof. then they tell you its just a sprang give you a sling and an overpriced bottle of asprin. it used to be you could go to a dentist to get a tooth pulled, now only an oral surgeon can do the task, and not without a bunch of xrays. were talking about a procedure you could get done at a barber shop for 5 bucks and a bottle of whisky a hundred years ago.
the insurance wont let them work without those scans as part of a legal agreement. i think that this level of certainty should be considered a luxury and not a requirement. the result of all of this is that medical bills are a lot higher than they need to be. average joes are being forced into paying a rich mans bill. some people just do without any health care at all because all they can get is top of the line care, which they cannot afford. the idea is that some care is better than none at all. dont even start with government funded health care till you can streamline the existing medical industry. only then would you be able to pull it off.
-
the doctor can no longer use gut instinct or skill. and must be certain what the problem is before they can perform any treatment.
If I'm sick. I sure as hell want the doctor to be sure of what do I have instead of him going by his "guts". :wtf: And if you want cheap tooth removal, pick a fight. :D
-
If you present with ambiguous symptoms then usually it's either the "gut" feeling or a $40,000 test. Which would you pick first?
-
If I'm sick. I sure as hell want the doctor to be sure of what do I have instead of him going by his "guts". :wtf: And if you want cheap tooth removal, pick a fight. :D
Well, in some cases, I agree. I would, however, prefer it if doctors actually asked me ("I'm 80% sure, but the test to confirm absolutely is $5000...") before ordering funk-nasty-expensive tests. Also, obviously, some things (like cancer) are more deserving of extensive testing than others (like a broken arm).
-
The thing that I'm wondering, is why these tests and stuff cost $40000, that might be the fee but the cost is probably considerably less than that sum.
In part pharmaceutical and medical corporations such as Glaxo-Smith-Kline are responsible for that problem. in much the same way that a pill magically varies in cost by, quite literally, thousands of percent, depending on the country it is being sold in.
In order for medicine to work, it must NOT centre around profit, it's like paying for the Fire Service, it's just begging for unscrupulous individuals to go standing round a house of a prospective customer mentioning how flammable it looks, and how just one 'carelessly' placed match could send it up in flames. Funding should obviously be a consideration, but there has to be a limit on capitalism when it comes to the requirements of basic human survival.
-
Who says medicine works? I think if often times doesn't and the goverment wants to keep natural cures or remedies a secret so they can give you a pill that if it works, it only does so temporarily like a magic spell. Seems a lot of these medicines help you by hurting you and causing other problems (severe side effects and some medicine basically being rat poison (coumadin), maybe so they can get you to buy medicine for those new problems created by that other medicine. Maybe those bad effects were purposely put into the medicine to make you buy more medicine to make more money even at the expense of your health.
They won't encourage you just to change your diet, huh? that would prevent having to buy certain medicines to begin with by helping to prevent certain problems. Only the doctor encourages that, I suppose, but maybe even they do not as much as they should and they may not care either. You know you can buy natural foods and some other things that are much cheaper that don't have the nasty side effects? You can use banana peels to help your skin, for example. I would trust that more than these comapines that just want your money. That is why Japanese live so long and have less health problems while America seems to have diseases more commonly. Because they eat smarter than people here and have enough self respect and discipline to take care of their health, on average.
Now it makes sense, the word syndrome is going around more so these days to trick people in thinking something is wrong with them so they will buy more medicine and they make more money. It is very selfish to the point that it is heartless. No wonder many people start to think USA is evil since that is one of multiple reasons I would think so. But it isn't just the government you have to watch for but the way the average citizen here thinks and behaves and what they support. You got many blinded by patriotism and more. This was something I saw yesterday that was disturbing:
http://themoralcollapseofamerica.blogspot.com/
The most disturbing thing in this article is the pic you see of that innocent baby as you scroll down from the top of the page. Nevermind the parts that seem religious though.
-
Don't read that blog. You're already a conspiracy nut. You don't need their help.
-
Who says medicine works?
medicine works.
-
Who says medicine works?
medicine works.
Medicine is a science, and like all other sciences a cornerstone of medical technique is that results can be replicated with reliability. True, there are some treatments that lack in effectiveness, but just because a given medical technique doesn't work on some individuals does not mean it shouldn't be used on others.
Alternative medicine, however, cannot replicate results with reliability and at the very least does nothing to actually treat the problem. In this day and age of ludicrous co-pays, this creates an environment of medical charlatans who prey on the financially and medically desperate.
-
Who says medicine works?
medicine works.
Medicine is a science, and like all other sciences a cornerstone of medical technique is that results can be replicated with reliability. True, there are some treatments that lack in effectiveness, but just because a given medical technique doesn't work on some individuals does not mean it shouldn't be used on others.
Alternative medicine, however, cannot replicate results with reliability and at the very least does nothing to actually treat the problem. In this day and age of ludicrous co-pays, this creates and environment of medical charlatans who prey on the financially and medically desperate.
Do maggots count as 'alternative medicine'? Because they never fail at their intended purpose, and they're cheap as Hell.
-
Do maggots count as 'alternative medicine'? Because they never fail at their intended purpose, and they're cheap as Hell.
They're used frequently by doctors to remove necrotic flesh from burn victims, so no.
-
"Alternative" in the sense that most other treatments don't squick you the hell out, but not in any other sense. :p
-
Squick?
-
Squick (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squick). A rather varied term.
-
Squick. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick)
-
NO.
-
I've gotta say, i know the NHS is under a lot of pressure at the moment with the swine flu and everything, but you've gotta admire the staff who work 14 hour shifts dealing with vagrant young idiots getting drunk and fighting.
-
maybe they should leegalize marijuana so that the drunk idiots will be too stoned to fight.
-
Who says medicine works? I think if often times doesn't and the goverment wants to keep natural cures or remedies a secret so they can give you a pill that if it works, it only does so temporarily like a magic spell. Seems a lot of these medicines help you by hurting you and causing other problems (severe side effects and some medicine basically being rat poison (coumadin), maybe so they can get you to buy medicine for those new problems created by that other medicine. Maybe those bad effects were purposely put into the medicine to make you buy more medicine to make more money even at the expense of your health.
They won't encourage you just to change your diet, huh? that would prevent having to buy certain medicines to begin with by helping to prevent certain problems. Only the doctor encourages that, I suppose, but maybe even they do not as much as they should and they may not care either. You know you can buy natural foods and some other things that are much cheaper that don't have the nasty side effects? You can use banana peels to help your skin, for example. I would trust that more than these comapines that just want your money. That is why Japanese live so long and have less health problems while America seems to have diseases more commonly. Because they eat smarter than people here and have enough self respect and discipline to take care of their health, on average.
Now it makes sense, the word syndrome is going around more so these days to trick people in thinking something is wrong with them so they will buy more medicine and they make more money. It is very selfish to the point that it is heartless. No wonder many people start to think USA is evil since that is one of multiple reasons I would think so. But it isn't just the government you have to watch for but the way the average citizen here thinks and behaves and what they support. You got many blinded by patriotism and more. This was something I saw yesterday that was disturbing:
http://themoralcollapseofamerica.blogspot.com/
The most disturbing thing in this article is the pic you see of that innocent baby as you scroll down from the top of the page. Nevermind the parts that seem religious though.
Never let a good conspiracy theory get in the way of reality.
Facts are that:
- drugs developed work for maybe 50% of people because each individual is different
- drugs do work, are tested, and can be of significant help to people suffering from all sorts of ailments
- medicine in general works well...people are living longer and staying healthier than ever before
- people are overmedicated in many cases because they opt to take the medication rather than using preventative methods (regular checkups, exercise, proper diet, etc.)
One thing that resonates with me is that yes syndromes are on the rise. But only because we're effectively able to understand and study the various things that make people the way they are whereas in the past we had no understanding or capability of monitoring. For instance we now know the chemical processes and where they take place in the brain for someone who has attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) thanks to years of research. Most people who deal with ADD...myself included...do not need medication. Infact many people who you would diagnose as being ADD are otherwise at a normal baseline. Some people do because the symptoms are so extreme...its a disorder versus the baseline but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who was fully "normal". Its just an average.
But its not a conspiracy of massive proportions....thats insane.
-
I can attest to the effectiveness of modern medicine. I have a psychological disorder (I'm not saying which), and when I don't take my medication I can't do anything. I get to where I have no attention span, I can't interact properly with other people, and am generally trapped inside the prison of my own mind where I create this beautiful little dream world. I forget to eat, I barely sleep, and I am just out of touch with reality. In other worlds, pure hell.
-
Who says medicine works?
How many diseases have "alternatives" wiped out? Zero. Have any of these "alternatives" cured cancer? Nope. Case closed.
-
It's not about curing; it's about preventing and making smart choices before you get diseases. Prevention is the best cure to a problem. Cancer can be prevented in most cases, I feel. Eating healthy and getting your nutrition naturally can help chemical inbalances, I am pretty sure. That should be focused on first before considering medication. After all, vitamins are protiens that make your body produce the chemicals it needs and regulates normal function and it is much better to get it out of real food instead of tablets that they sell that aren't as good as eating real fruits and veggies. I feel that oral medication should be a last resort. Things don't just happen from nothing. Also, normal is relative, unless you mean normal bodily functions and health.
Medicine when having a cold can surpress symptoms, making your body not able to rid itself of the infection as easily. It isn't good to alter your body to not cough and sneeze when you are sick. So in half of the cases, medicine is not needed and isn't good. Only sometimes.
Funny that I never take medication or vitamins and I am so healthy just with lifestyle choices and knowledge, even more so than many kids half my age. A 26 year old healthier than many 13 years olds and it is strange that it seems my health is getting even better as I get older. I am very flexible with my body and I'm told that many people cannot do what I can do with my body. It is sad many people rely on meds and not making lifestyle choices. It would save a lot of pain and money. A lot of people also die younger because of bad chemicals and bad choices. Maybe they think as long as they have medicine, they don't have to take care of themselves? Any addiction is a sign of weakness. I have a tendency to make myself tough certain things out and deal with certain pain. Keep myself strong as long as I know not to push too hard.
I stay away from second hand smoke, aspertame, Splenda, phospheric acid in pop most of the time (almost never drink pop these days), and try to get a lot of fresh air by keeping a window or door cracked if I feel it needed. Even hair dye, make-up, and certain products containing triclosin are no-no's and air fresheners can be bad for you to breath. I use regular Crest toothpaste and not the tartar control that can damage the roots or the artificial whiteners that damage enamel. I do eat junk sometimes, but certain junk I stay away from and only 30% of my diet would be junk while the average person here would have 80% of their diet being junk and too much fried food and not enough white meats and veggies and fruits.
I'm not going to say that they purposely make medicine hurt others, but I will go as far as to be realistic and say that most of them probably don't care and they want your money. Being too trusting is not realistic.
-
Funny that I never take medication or vitamins and I am so healthy just with lifestyle choices and knowledge, even more so than many kids half my age. A 26 year old healthier than many 13 years olds and it is strange that it seems my health is getting even better as I get older.
I don't want to reply to the rest of your rant, but I found this bit curious.
Tell me, why shouldn't a 26 year old adult be healthier than a 13 year old kid? I would be very worried if the opposite were true since the immune system of an adult should be extremely more powerful than that of a child. Hell, a few deceases are dangerous precisely because of this. Perhaps you are confusing activity with health.
-
Because I can put my foot behind my head and scratch my own back and hop high like a frog and about 3 feet off the ground in a frog pose when pretending to be a frog for my 2 year old niece without any pain but many people young or old can't. Men my age aren't supposed to be able to do that or be extremely flexible. Part of getting your physical aging speed tested is a flexibility test.
-
Congratulations, you exercise regularly and seem to be more flexible than average. How does this make you healthier than the average healthy adult is beyond me.
-
I can also ride my bike miles non-stop at a fast speed without coasting, good at balance, I almost never cough, I am very alert and have quick reflexes, I almost never get sick, etc. Not including my mental strengths in this. Over all health and balance is what I aim for. But enough about me. I don't want to come across as someone who thinks he is invincible when I know I'm still only human no matter what I can do or how hard I try and I know time will win in the end. Yes, I am aware of my limitations. But I like to fight the test of time.
This is about health care though and I drove it too far off topic. I do feel that if people live healthier, health care resources can go to more people who couldn't avoid problems instead of being wasted on people who made bad lifestyle choices. There would be more resources for it that way since less people would be in the hospital.
-
But medicine isn't just about pills and operations. Where do you think knowledge of those "healthy lifestyles" came from?
Regarding the most of what you said, any healthy adult should be able to accomplish those tasks. Except the foot behind the head thing. That's just freaky. :P
-
But medicine isn't just about pills and operations. Where do you think knowledge of those "healthy lifestyles" came from?
Regarding the most of what you said, any healthy adult should be able to accomplish those tasks. Except the foot behind the head thing. That's just freaky. :P
I can do more funny positions than just that. I think it was funny that one time in the gym when I was sitting oddly stretching and 2 heavier men walked in and I heard them say from a distance "he's flexible" :D :D and I got the impression they were surprised. Also, normally, people would have to have no fat or muscle to be that flexible.
Look at the bright side though. If I continue to maintain flexibility and balance when standing with one limb with different positions, as well as use of coodination and it will help when I get old.
Achieving total balance in abilities and strengths physically and mentally is the way to achieve the ultimate people who would need the least amount of help from others, even as the person ages. It saves a lot of resourses, boosts confidence, longevity, being able to do almost all on your own without aid from others, etc, when combining the abilities all together. One ability and area of strength doesn't do much good if one cannot combine it with other abilities. Kind of like having brute strength doesn't do much good if one doesn't have brains or speed, stamina, and inner strength to combine it with.
If one can become like that, one need not have health care, or maybe just have some just incase of an accident since it is good to be safe than sorry and be careful and always prepare for the worst, which is why pessimists seem smarter and wiser than optimists.
Speaking of, It's hard to do the Matrix pose of bending the back but I can do it pretty well. But I talked about myself again, but only because you said "Except the foot behind the head thing. That's just freaky. :P"
Time for bed now. I have work to do tomorrow and I should break that habit of staying up too late pretty much every night and sleeping too late.
-
Flexibility isn't as hard to achieve as most people think. A middle-aged man (pick up your stereotypes here) could do the splits with sufficient training over the course of a few months. I mean, hell, I'm not that flexible, but after 8 weeks of karate, I could fully extend my legs and touch my forehead to my knees.
Anyway, lucky you on being wealthy and educated enough to cut things out of your diet that are harmful. Many, many people don't know squat about their food or where it comes from, and/or can't afford the more expensive organic crap.
-
If one can become like that, one need not have health care, or maybe just have some just incase of an accident since it is good to be safe than sorry and be careful and always prepare for the worst, which is why pessimists seem smarter and wiser than optimists.
Some of that is just common sense, and some of it is luck. There are many ailments that frankly we have no control over, and more than a few are because of genetic predisposition.
-
And this is where it falls apart.
The Liberals(bleeding hearts, eco-nuts, whatever) see this as fundamentally about human rights, which should be guaranteed at all costs. The Conservatives see this as fundamentally about freedom, or more accurately the absconding thereof by an evermore larger and invasive Federal Government.
You just managed to position human rights against freedom, then continue on with Federal Government. You should really make a course: "How to inject weasel words into ordinary debate and explain to people how them dying in the street is real freedom."
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, by the way?
-
Anyway, lucky you on being wealthy and educated enough to cut things out of your diet that are harmful. Many, many people don't know squat about their food or where it comes from, and/or can't afford the more expensive organic crap.
I'm not wealthy and I don't want to be. It's not so much about how much money you have, it's how you use it. I don't buy organic stuff. I just be resourceful and do some research online. If one buys normal stuff, it's best to wash off the pesticides really well. I still live on my family's property, but I buy my own food and usually eat only my own food and have my own small one room apartment next to the garage. My diet isn't my family's diet.
@Kosh: I was reading that scientists were finding that a healthy lifestyle can actually shut off bad genes. Do you feel that is true? It probably isn't in a lot of cases though.
-
@Kosh: I was reading that scientists were finding that a healthy lifestyle can actually shut off bad genes. Is that true?
Where?
-
Can't remember. Maybe here somewhere: http://www.scientificamerican.com/.
I don't think that is the site, but maybe a search here might turn up something, or I could google it.
Edit: I found something on it here just now: http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacramento-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m4d14-How-to-override-your-bad-genes-with-food. There are no doubt more sites on it if I look harder.
-
The Liberals(bleeding hearts, eco-nuts, whatever) see this as fundamentally about human rights, which should be guaranteed at all costs. The Conservatives see this as fundamentally about freedom, or more accurately the absconding thereof by an evermore larger and invasive Federal Government.
You just managed to position human rights against freedom...
Every time we let a government force the "right thing" to happen, we sacrifice some of our personal freedom. That's the whole point of having a government: we trade some of our freedom for things like security (both physical in in terms of human rights) and a sense of justice. See John Locke and the Social Contract. A lot of political conflicts in the U.S. today, IMHO, can be reduced to people disagreeing over whether Government Policy X is worth sacrificing the freedom it costs (including the healthcare debate).
-
I really don't understand people who think the government should decide which legally capable adults should be allowed to enter into a contract together, but think the government shouldn't pay for healthcare. :P
Of course, my favorite quote from the whole thing has come from a town hall meeting "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
-
Of course, my favorite quote from the whole thing has come from a town hall meeting "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
....
Where's Jean-Luc when you need him?
-
I think that deserves a double facepalm...
[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]
-
vitamins are protiens
wat
-
I think that deserves a double facepalm...
What episode is that one from, I can name the episode in seconds but that's not ringing any bells.
-
The photoshopping episode.
-
if i had photoshopped it, i would have normalized their skin tones.
-
Yup, it's a photoshop, though, not one of mine, just grabbed it from Google ;)
-
Of course, my favorite quote from the whole thing has come from a town hall meeting "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
God bless America. :cool:
-
vitamins are protiens
wat
I'll look it up again and see if it said that or it is my own wording to be sure. I thought when I looked it up before about a few months ago, it said proteins...........
vitamin
A noun
1 vitamin
any of a group of organic substances essential in small quantities to normal metabolism
Ok, this is what they are: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question129.htm
They appear to be just different molecules that your cells need, but I must have thought they were just different types of proteins since they have to do with emzymes. They actually appear to be different numbers of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms bound together. Like water and carbon but much more complex than just carbon and water since the molecular numbers are higher in the chart on this website in the example box.
-
There is, of course, the possibility that Americans are just that f*cking stupid.
-
There is, of course, the possibility that humans are just that f*cking stupid.
Fixed your scope there.
-
Of course his profile says he is an American, so is he also calling himself that, calling me that since I didin't know what a vitamin was made out of, or does he feel the way I do about the average American not being smart in many ways? Hopefully it wasn't meant for me. I make a lot of smart choices. Academics is only a small part of what is called intelligence. You don't have to know the molecular make up of something or be a nerd to be smart. It would be like me saying someone is stupid only because that person doesn't know the physics of a blackhole and that is stupid to assume someone is stupid for a little reason like that. I'm just using a black hole as an example. It has nothing to do with blackhole and I was typing it without even thinking about blackhole's nick and only realized it when I was typing the word.
People these days, old and young, always think they know more than everyone else. To be truly smart is to realize that no one knows it all and to know that there is more to intelligence than mere academics and science. It covers a wide spectrum. You can be smart without even having a degree actually.
-
First, I'm pretty sure that he was referencing the post(s) before your's.
Second, :wtf: did that have to do with anything?
-
He didn't say anything, so not really, no.
-
I wasn't sure, but just said so just incase. It's why I asked. I was not angry even if people get that perception of me. Most of the time, I'm not angry when I post. I was just asking to make sure followed by saying what I thought about somethings. No problem. It would have helped if he quoted though. I admit I skim posts a lot and not read all of them thoroughly. Maybe that was why I didn't know who it was directed at. In that case, my mistake.
As for a more on topic comment and a response to sushi's comment, I would give up some freedom if it meant more safety and health and a kinder and less superficial country and world where one can feel loved and appreciated. Sometimes my mind feels like going crazy having to worry about being used or lied to and not being cared about. I think to be so obsessed with freedom and putting it first can be seen as selfish. A balance of freedoms; not too few, not too many, is perfect. Another thing is that freedom comes at a price and therefore isn't truly free. It also costs a lot of money as well as responsibility. Note the high prices in USA. The more choice, the more cost, seemingly, and the more cost of life with less safety. Always a price in life since almost everything has cons to it.
Also, I think many of these so-called rights should be called privileges, not rights, because you have to earn them and that makes them privileges. A right to bare arms is not a right, it is a privilege since you are not born with the right to have a gun, but you must earn it and have a license. Its should be called "a privilege to bare arms". Just like when they say driving is not a right but a privilege.
-
Also, I think many of these so-called rights should be called privileges, not rights, because you have to earn them and that makes them privileges. A right to bare arms is not a right, it is a privilege since you are not born with the right to have a gun, but you must earn it and have a license. Its should be called "a privilege to bare arms". Just like when they say driving is not a right but a privilege.
The thing is, we determine what rights are rights. We've determined that citizens of the US have the right to form organized militia and bear arms in that regard. We've determined that citizens have the right to the pursuit of happiness, insofar as their pursuit does not infringe on another's right to the pursuit of their own happiness. On a broader scale, internationally, we've come up with some rights that all people as humans have. Humans aren't born with the right to food, either, but any sane person will agree that all humans *do* have the right to live free from starvation.
-
I do feel people who are old enough should earn their food and contribute something to others in exchange for food and resources. It doesn't have to be a job; just kindness or doing a chore to help out for a provider of food if they can't provide for themselves. Of course I'm talking about people who are not too sick or too young to do so. I also feel people who have abundance should share it to the ones who really need it and are thankful.
-
Most people don't like to be leeches. I'm sure some people don't mind, but most would rather do something to help themselves than just take charity. Pretty much agreed on all points, though.
-
Can't remember. Maybe here somewhere: http://www.scientificamerican.com/.
I don't think that is the site, but maybe a search here might turn up something, or I could google it.
Edit: I found something on it here just now: http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacramento-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m4d14-How-to-override-your-bad-genes-with-food. There are no doubt more sites on it if I look harder.
I'm skeptical of claims like these unless I see them in a major peer reviewed medical journal
-
I also feel people who have abundance should share it to the ones who really need it and are thankful.
I agree they should...but they shouldn't be FORCED to. The current state of affairs has some guys with police powers forcing the people with the food to share it with the ones that really need it because it makes them more popular with the people who need it and those people let them get away with anything. Meanwhile, the people with the food are insulted, belittled, demonized and made fun of because they don't want to share as much as the people with police powers are making them share. It's not that they don't want to share, just that they want to retain control over how much they are willing to share.
Boy, that whole food thing is a good analogy.
-
I agree they should...but they shouldn't be FORCED to.
What about the ones who gained their fortunes through ethically questionable means? When Bear Stearns failed, the CEO who ran it into the ground walked away with a $25 million golden parachute while thousands of people lost their jobs. Did he deserve to get this fortune? I don't think so.
-
[quote author=High Max link=topic=64910.msg1281103#msg1281103
I agree they should...but they shouldn't be FORCED to. The current state of affairs has some guys with police powers forcing the people with the food to share it with the ones that really need it because it makes them more popular with the people who need it and those people let them get away with anything. Meanwhile, the people with the food are insulted, belittled, demonized and made fun of because they don't want to share as much as the people with police powers are making them share. It's not that they don't want to share, just that they want to retain control over how much they are willing to share.
Boy, that whole food thing is a good analogy.
**** your selfish Ayn Rand bull****.
you will never be in the top 1% EVER so quit your goddamn *****ing.
-
We're not talking about the top 1% anymore, we're talking about forcing the majority to give a much larger amount of they're income to the minority, simply because they can't get a job good enough to pay for the health care they need. The problem is the health care costs, not the employment structure of the minority, added to the increasing problem of these elected officials who are acting like kings, queens and other forms of royalty circa France around the time if Louis and Anne. We've got elected officials in this country accusing the people that elected them of being unAmerican and telling them to shut up because they don't wanna talk about it.
BTW, what does Objectivism have to do with this? It's an interesting idea from certain perspectives, but you talk about it like it's philosophical porn and you just found your kid looking at it.
-
they're income to the minority
Look, several times, people have told you that their != they're.
"They're" is a conjunction, from the two words "they are". You are using it in the place of "their", which is possessive. The proper use of "they're" is as follows: "They're too many of the to fight off!"
The correct use for "their" is as follows: "Bob is upstairs packing their stuff."
And it seems as if you are ignoring posts like these, if so, **** you.
-
Well what do you propose we do to lower health care costs? Force pharmaceutical companies to stop making retarded profits off of others' lives? Force insurance companies to cover everyone that needs insurance, not just the low risk groups? Force insurance companies to cover everyone who pays them premiums instead of allowing them to wriggle out of claims on the shiftiest grounds possible? If only a bill to do those things was-- OH RIGHT. Can't have that! That's socialism! **** poor people. If poor kids wanted cancer treatment, well, they should have just not been born poor.
PS: We already offed my kid. It thought the government paying for health care meant the government would kill people, and I didn't want to be associated with anything that ****ing retarded.
-
About pharmaceutical companies: I have heard it takes around a billion dollars on average to get a completely new drug to market. And all of that R&D money can be for nothing if the FDA doesn't approve the drug for sale. There's a lot of risk in pharmaceuticals.
-
there's a lot of risk in telling people to self-diagnose and over-medicate and yet big pharma spends twice as much money on that than they do on research.
-
Maybe because marketing sells, and selling is essential to a business making money? And most drug ads are for prescription drugs. And to get a prescription drug, you need a prescription from a doctor, who may or may not agree with your self-diagnosis. And that still doesn't change the fact that developing drugs is an expensive and lengthy process. If drug companies can't recoup their losses, they simply won't make drugs. Ever consider that?
-
We've got elected officials in this country accusing the people that elected them of being unAmerican and telling them to shut up because they don't wanna talk about it.
What's wrong with being unAmerican. I find it actually better than being blinded by patriotism. Too many people here are brainwashed into thinking that USA is always right and the good guys without looking at the bad and many problems of the culture and other things.
Some things should be forced, like Turambar seems to be saying. The only type of goverment I would say is bad is a dictatorship, but USA seems to think that anything besides capitalism is evil and closes its mind to the world's differing cultures (one could say capitalism is evil because it encourages selfishness) without realizing that every type of goverment (not including dictatorship) has pros and cons. I'd think communism would be less evil since it is collective and less selfish and those cultures tend to put money second instead of first, like one should do. Communism appears like the word community. For the greater good. Mixing capitalism and a little socialism with communism may be the answer, if possible. That way you may have a culture like communism that isn't so superficial and selfish and also without the down side of people being poor so easily.
Maybe then greedy companies will be minimized and no more Pharma. Maybe Pharma should be replaced.
-
I wonder if pharma drugs would cost so much if the companies weren't buying doctors and politicians. Hmm..
-
I wonder if pharma drugs would cost so much if the companies weren't buying doctors and politicians. Hmm..
They have to buy off doctors and politicians in order to make their products more expensive, which they must do in order to buy off the doctors and politicians...
(repeat forever).
-
Too bad there's no way to boycott the pharma companies. Not much of a free market when there's no real competition.
-
High Max really tries hard to earn his nickname, because my comment was directed towards the original topic of this thread, and had absolutely nothing to do with him. He is totally free to continue ranting though, because its absolutely hilarious.
-
Intuiging much, but don't blam someone for being opinionated. Likewise don't be overly opinonated...........
By the way, i like Pharma. Pharma makes contraception, and consumer medicenes, which are commercially available for convenience. Plastersm (sorry band aids :rolleyes:) ever think of that? Tiny little things that you'd take for granted, like disinfectant?
-
Yes, but they're needlessly expensive. If they were legitimately expensive, I would fully support government subsidies to bring costs down for people (like they do for gas).
-
They're not needlessly expensive. The word needlessly is thrown about a bit too much. You need distribution, product developement, brand awareness, packaging and staff costs to consider....
This applies even if part of a range too.
-
Yes, all that money is necessary for paying for trials that provide favorable outcomes for their products, paying off senators to keep the federal government from negotiating reduced prices, paying for conferences which basically advertise their products to the visiting doctors who are responsible for prescribing their product.....
Yeah, really useful Dekker.
-
Hey, it's not my system... Beats crystals and spiritual healing /Placebo effects though.. :p
-
I still can't wrap my head around people who actually think that large companies with a monopoly won't price gouge, that the people who fun Pfizer and such are just these innocent little lambs. I just don't get it.
-
On the most recent rant from Max: Here here!
I don't see why people keep calling Obama a communist like it's a bad thing... Besides, we elected him goddamit (Friggin New York)
-
We call him a Communist like it's a bad thing...because it IS a bad thing. Switching to a communist style of government/economy would remove most if not all the rights and freedoms that the men and women of this country and been fighting and dying for for 233 years.
That's why we yell about this.
-
High Max really tries hard to earn his nickname, because my comment was directed towards the original topic of this thread, and had absolutely nothing to do with him. He is totally free to continue ranting though, because its absolutely hilarious.
And I care what you think for what reason? I already made it clear I was not angry. Read my comments after that. I mean, you do think it is hilarious, so don't do it for me, do it for yourself ;) I knew sooner or later you would quote me.
You also deserve the title "angry" since you admitted months ago on that "are humans special?" thread that you are always angry. Probably your belief system that makes you feel depressed and angry and I understand how you feel since when I sometimes think the same way as you and wonder if I have a soul and if I'm more than just what I appear to be, I feel depressed and angry too as a result of that and sometimes feeling that we have no purpose.
If you don't want to be misunderstood or want others to misunderstand what you are replying to, learn to use quote tags. kkkkk??? :p Or at least be descriptive of what or who you are replying to. I made it obvious that I was replying mostly to your comment, though not replying to you directly. If you don't use a quote tag or you are not descriptive of who you are replying to or at least who's comment you are replying to, then the assumption is you are replying to the person who posted right before you, and I posted right before you. Plus, it's not like I have a reputation to uphold here since I can't lose anything here regardless of what people here think of me and this isn't a high school popularity contest. So tell me, should I really care? The worst thing that could happen is losing my right to post, I guess. Of course I'm not doing anything wrong now.
Now feel free to waste time talking about me and making fun. It's ok. I have no problem. :yes: :D :yes:
We call him a Communist like it's a bad thing...because it IS a bad thing. Switching to a communist style of government/economy would remove most if not all the rights and freedoms that the men and women of this country and been fighting and dying for for 233 years.
Not really, it isn't all or nothing. Vietnam is communist and has much more freedom than North Korea and is not a dictatorship like NK. It isn't so black and white. Giving up a little freedom isn't bad if you get safety and health in return. A balance is key. You can't have the best of everything. It's better to have it pretty good in every area than having the most of one thing at the expense of everything else.
USA's obsession and so called endless war for freedom and it thinking it only needs itself and is the center of it all is why the economy is so bad, at least that is how the economy started its downward spiral. There is no end to a war on terror just like there is no end to a war on crime. Terrorism is nothing new. It's surprising to see USA all obsessed with their fear on terrorism even after all this time since 2001 when terrorism has been around for millenia. Of course USA thought it was invincible. Looks like the terrorists have won since they succeeded in leaving a lasting fearful impression. That is the whole point of terrorism. It doesn't matter if they are all wiped out since they already won, plus new ones will always take their place.
-
Not really, it isn't all or nothing. Vietnam is communist and has much more freedom than North Korea and is not a dictatorship like NK. It isn't so black and white. Giving up a little freedom isn't bad if you get safety and health in return. A balance is key.
Don't make me haul out that Franklin quote. :p
-
do i need to remind you guys that creating a government controlled option in order to get the health insurance companies to act like health insurance companies instead of like thieves through competition is not communism?
it's either this (creating competition to move the solution along in a capitalist-y way) or direct intervention, which would step on a lot more toes and create a lot more whining from republicans.
-
So, in all seriousness, what freedoms are you giving up by the government paying for the health care of a few million more individuals than it already is? Because... remember? Taxpayers already pay for most of my health care costs.
You aren't being forced to give up your current health insurance.
If you get a new health insurance plan in the future, it will be through a government-regulated exchange, and you will definitely be able to get insurance, even if you have a pre-existing condition. You'll have a definite minimum level of benefits, and the cost will be held down by the government.
Millions of seniors are already on government health insurance, so there's zero reason/logic behind the "the government will kill old people if it pays for their health care! onoes!!" hysteria.
I feel like I'm missing a point, but I can't think of it at the moment.
-
The point is this: Liberator is still living in the 1950s, and has a golden shrine to Joseph McCarthy in his house.
Since we're so obsessed with discussing rights, and the apparent deprivation of them by the Obama administration, then let's talk more!
Locke defined as the natural rights for every man, life, liberty, and property. It is the responsibility of government to secure these rights for its people.
Both fortunately and unfortunately, we live in a culture which is at odds with these natural rights on several accounts. We have a government depriving its citizens of life through capital punishment, a barbaric and outdated act still justified by the religious right. We live in a society where the fear of terrorism allows our leaders to suck away our liberties to a fair trial and to not be spied on by our government.
Finally, property--capitalism and the natural rights go perfectly together here. They both encourage selfishness with our possessions and our earnings. When the government proposes healthcare reform or other programs to benefit the unfortunate in our country, we twitch and recoil at the idea of the government taking away our earnings and giving it to the poor.
Look what we've become--a ****ing pick and choose society. We love the parts of the Bible that allow us to barbarically execute criminals, but we refuse to embrace the idea of being good to our neighbor. We love our right to life, but we're willing to give up our right to liberty in exchange.
Nobody's trying to punish you for being rich or successful--the mere fact we have the patent system should alone attest to that--but when someone is out buying their fifth sports car or third mansion and some people can barely afford to live in the richest nation on Earth, then there's something really ****ing wrong.
I'm absolutely astounded at the people on here who argue passionately that we are a "Christian nation", and then turn around and tear Communism apart as an evil system of government. I'm not a Soviet or Chinese communist by any measure, but anyone who fails to see the basic tenents of a socialist society in the teachings of Christ is frankly a moron. People like that aren't Christians--they belong to the Church of America, where God demands a completely unregulated market, the demolition of the IRS, the support of the military-industrial complex, and the total suppression of the liberties of those with differing beliefs.
It's frankly time to evolve, America--we cannot stand by and allow people to die of starvation on American streets, or be unable to afford a badly-needed transplant while others pocket money--sometimes at the cost of those who struggle to survive. We have got to do better.
I cannot even begin to understand why people like Liberator stll demand the status quo, other than the unpleasant and nightmarish thought that they are completely and totally self-absorbed and so desperate to cling onto every single penny that they're willing to let my best friend go without a kidney transplant just so they can buy a goddamned XBox.
To all who think this way, and still want this system where corporations and the top 1% make a living off of the suffering of the poor and hoarding it all: please realize what you're doing to this country. And if you refuse to, then ****. YOU.
-
I just visited Liberator's profile and it looked like it was changed to say 31 years old. I wonder why. I thought I remembered it saying "16" months ago or even a month ago. I'm not saying he acts young and it has nothing to do with anything he says. I was just saying what I noted. It seemed to change.
-
...creating a government controlled option...
Which will end up replacing private insurance, which a lot of large companies(like the newly reformed Government Motors) are looking for a way to dump, and get blown completely out of proportion. Because that is the way of Government programs.
-
There's no reason to believe that government health insurance will end up replacing private health insurance. It very well may, if insurance companies decide not to be competitive, though. In which case, well, that's how capitalism works.
-
How do you compete with free exactly?
-
Based on what I know about the other government health insurance plans, it won't actually be free, just very low copay. It may even have premiums, but the whole thing would be subsidized by the government.
It's not like there's no market for private insurance. Private health insurance companies exist even in countries with free health care for everyone. In the US, there's the added market of everybody that's running around like headless chickens squawking about the government killing old people and forcing abortions and other such nonsense.
-
Based on what I know about the other government health insurance plans, it won't actually be free, just very low copay. It may even have premiums, but the whole thing would be subsidized by the government.
It's not like there's no market for private insurance. Private health insurance companies exist even in countries with free health care for everyone. In the US, there's the added market of everybody that's running around like headless chickens squawking about the government killing old people and forcing abortions and other such nonsense.
The trouble iamzack is that we don't know if it's nonsense or not. This killing of the elderly and forcing of abortions isn't coming out of no where, Obama's people that he has put into positions of power have been going on about these things and more for they're entire adult life. It's really very frightening to people when the highest government official starts talking about and suggesting that one of the ways to cut costs is to prescribe painkillers instead of life saving surgery when the patient is above a certain age.
-
we should use cancer patients in televised gladitorial combat, the survivor then gets free chemo.
-
we should use cancer patients in televised gladitorial combat, the survivor then gets free chemo.
We should do that for EVERYTHING.
-
Based on what I know about the other government health insurance plans, it won't actually be free, just very low copay. It may even have premiums, but the whole thing would be subsidized by the government.
It's not like there's no market for private insurance. Private health insurance companies exist even in countries with free health care for everyone. In the US, there's the added market of everybody that's running around like headless chickens squawking about the government killing old people and forcing abortions and other such nonsense.
The trouble iamzack is that we don't know if it's nonsense or not. This killing of the elderly and forcing of abortions isn't coming out of no where, Obama's people that he has put into positions of power have been going on about these things and more for they're entire adult life. It's really very frightening to people when the highest government official starts talking about and suggesting that one of the ways to cut costs is to prescribe painkillers instead of life saving surgery when the patient is above a certain age.
They are absolutely nonsense. Lots and lots of elderly people are worried about how health care reform might affect the excellent care they get from medicare. You aren't getting that the government will have no more say in a patient's care than private health insurance companies do/will.
The doctor says a patient needs something, then the private or government insurance pays for it. End of story.
The current system, however, has corporations more interested in profits than helping people trying to wriggle out of claims on the stupidest bases possible.
The fear is that the government will come between you and your doctor. Ironically, the government is trying to get everyone OUT from in between you and your doctor.
-
It's like we can't even have a rational discussion about this without clearing out all the lies first. The right wing has been pumping out so many outrageous lies about this thing since day 1, it's simply disgusting.
-
Let's not cloud the issue. I do believe that certain aspects of the health care industry need revision. I just don't subscribe to the idea that Government is solution to all the ills in my life or anyone else's.
You know there's something wrong with the idea when you have foreign officials in countries that have a "public" option going on national television and telling us it's a bad idea.
The problem is costs. The only way to cut costs under anything that's been suggested so far is rationing. Do you want your dad or mom or aunt or whatever to be diagnosed with cancer, given 3 months to live and then be put on a waiting list for treatment that 10 months or a year out? I wouldn't think so, and that is exactly the kind of horror story we're trying to prevent.
We've got members of Congress telling they're constituents that they need to shut up and that they don't want to talk about it. But they're gonna go back to Washington and pass some monumental spending bill anyway, without hearing what they're constituents, the people whom they were elected to represent in federal matters. This smells of elitist oligarchy thinking to me.
-
The problem is costs. The only way to cut costs under anything that's been suggested so far is rationing. Do you want your dad or mom or aunt or whatever to be diagnosed with cancer, given 3 months to live and then be put on a waiting list for treatment that 10 months or a year out? I wouldn't think so, and that is exactly the kind of horror story we're trying to prevent.
Okay, first of all, rationing health care is what we have *now.* People with insurance get it, people without insurance don't.. at least not until the very last possible second.
Free preventative health care is ultimately cheaper than what we've got. Would you rather pay for the mammograms for poor women that will detect cancer early enough that it can generally be fought off more quickly and cheaply, or just let them wait until they have advanced stages of cancer and THEN you pay for the treatments. Having health insurance makes the difference between having and not having preventative care.
Second, that horror story doesn't happen. Just stop with the hysteria already.
-
I just don't subscribe to the idea that Government is solution to all the ills in my life or anyone else's.
Government is the only entity that can enact change in such an entrenched system. As you can see right now, they're going all out, using lies, deception, reinforced misconceptions, and their handy paid-for congressmen to put up as much resistance to this bill as possible. I'm not implicating you in any conspiracy, but the people that you listen to definitely don't have your interests in mind.
Do you want your dad or mom or aunt or whatever to be diagnosed with cancer, given 3 months to live and then be put on a waiting list for treatment that 10 months or a year out? I wouldn't think so, and that is exactly the kind of horror story we're trying to prevent.
The problem is not costs. When people aren't spending all their money pumping it into this hideous system, they're spending it on things that create real wealth.
Also, rationing as a concern is a misconception. It only happens with low-risk or low-urgency patients and it most certainly WILL NOT happen with people who are given a timetable to live.
We've got members of Congress telling they're constituents that they need to shut up and that they don't want to talk about it. But they're gonna go back to Washington and pass some monumental spending bill anyway, without hearing what they're constituents, the people whom they were elected to represent in federal matters. This smells of elitist oligarchy thinking to me.
Are you referring to the response to the right wing's attempts to disrupt the townhall meetings where healthcare reform was being discussed? Where they had to bus in their "majority" and shout lies and make noise to prevent any actual discussion from happening?
-
This thread is starting to remind me of Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(2006_novel)).
-
Are you referring to the response to the right wing's attempts to disrupt the townhall meetings where healthcare reform was being discussed? Where they had to bus in their "majority" and shout lies and make noise to prevent any actual discussion from happening?
From what I've seen, the vast majority of disruptions have come from congresspeople becoming frustrated that they can't sweep this topic off the table.
And the bussing of people from out of town is related more to lackluster planning of said town halls in an effort to deny the people they're first amendment right to free speech and legitimate communication with they're representative.
I'm talking about the behavior of congresspeople in response to the realization that after all the bull**** and lies from both sides, they have finally started walking on a nerve and the apathy is evaporating faster than ice in the LHC(which remains broken after only 9 hours of operation out of six months since completion).
-
I have a dream that one day I'll live in a land where the government can get something done.
-
That seems unlikely, Liberator, as the point of the town hall meetings is to discuss policy, especially health care reform.
Also, it's not legitimate communication. It's getting up and yelling and ranting about things which five minutes of actual research (that is, looking somewhere other than Fox News) would prove untrue. These people are spreading the lies and disinformation handed down by the corporations who bought the party. They're forcing legitimate communication to take a backseat to coddling the wingnuts and trying to convince them that, no, there are no monsters under the bed who will eat you if there's no light on.
-
Maybe because marketing sells, and selling is essential to a business making money? And most drug ads are for prescription drugs. And to get a prescription drug, you need a prescription from a doctor, who may or may not agree with your self-diagnosis. And that still doesn't change the fact that developing drugs is an expensive and lengthy process. If drug companies can't recoup their losses, they simply won't make drugs. Ever consider that?
Actually the majority of those costs are not R&D, they are for advertisements and lobbyists.
-
The trouble iamzack is that we don't know if it's nonsense or not. This killing of the elderly and forcing of abortions isn't coming out of no where, Obama's people that he has put into positions of power have been going on about these things and more for they're entire adult life. It's really very frightening to people when the highest government official starts talking about and suggesting that one of the ways to cut costs is to prescribe painkillers instead of life saving surgery when the patient is above a certain age.
Step 1: Create public health care that pays for specifically chosen treatments.
Step 2: Force private insurance companies to pay at least for the same treatments as the public health care.
Step 3: Everyone has either to be a member of private or public health care.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
The public health care is there to allow preventive health care, and to pay for health care in emergency rooms. The latter you apparently do already anyway, the former is just the cheaper variant of the latter. So how is that increasing cost?
-
You also deserve the title "angry" since you admitted months ago on that "are humans special?" thread that you are always angry. Probably your belief system that makes you feel depressed and angry and I understand how you feel since when I sometimes think the same way as you and wonder if I have a soul and if I'm more than just what I appear to be, I feel depressed and angry too as a result of that and sometimes feeling that we have no purpose.
Oh definitely. I'm an angry rant machine myself. It's just that I consider that a negative personality trait and thus routinely do it at the expense of my own dignity simply because its amusing to other people, and i like making people laugh.
Sadly i do not have a belief system at all, as I am an atheist. This does not make me depressed. It does not make me angry. I never worry about nor care about the fact that life has no purpose, because it doesn't bother me. I have plenty of other things to be emo about.
I don't know why i didn't use a quote in my post. I guess I just thought the general topic would prevail. Or maybe I secretely wanted to push your rant button just because i was bored :P But hey man, if you don't care what people think of you, then that's perfectly fine. I'll just go on thinking your a crazy ranting nut who will succeed in doing nothing his entire life because the only thing he ever did was wander around forums arguing about completely pointless things that no one is going to care about in 3 months. Right? :D
-
I would like to point out that this forum has a group of moderators with particularly itchy trigger fingers when it comes to the "lock thread" button. This is a topic about health care, not petty arrogance and anger issues.
-
Seconded.
-
I would like to point out that this forum has a group of moderators with particularly itchy trigger fingers when it comes to the "lock thread" button. This is a topic about health care, not petty arrogance and anger issues.
I'd like to point out that said moderators need to get a grip, since the best discussions HLP has ever had have been ones that were wildly off-topic.
-
Would you count a discussion about how blackhole and High Max are angry little beasties as a good discussion? Sounds boring and flamey to me..
-
I would like to point out that this forum has a group of moderators with particularly itchy trigger fingers when it comes to the "lock thread" button. This is a topic about health care, not petty arrogance and anger issues.
I'd like to point out that said moderators need to get a grip, since the best discussions HLP has ever had have been ones that were wildly off-topic.
Agreed. Most topics seem to turn into more interesting topics or even humorous ones with a little off-topic-ness in the mix and this forum is never super serious anyways, seemingly.
@blackhole: Yes, I am sometimes crazy when it comes to anger (non-violent but sometimes hit objects or want revenge depending on what that person did to me or how angry I feel) or mistrust and I do care to a certain extent what others think about me, but much more so if I know the people or encounter them in person :)
As for the revenge thing with people who hurt me badly emotionally by using me or lying to me about certain things or hurting my heart and scarring my mind emotionally: using a fake email program on them that they cannot block or telling others the truth about that person who lied to me or played with my heart or used me and letting them know by gathering evidence on that person and sending the evidence to others is a good way to get it. Go for their reputation if they have a lot to lose by letting people know the bad things that person has done by showing them evidence, even letting their family know the truth. Of course never make up lies about a person or it would be very bad. Using the brain is a good way to get even. You can find websites on many people by looking up their Yahoo or other nicks in google and other search engines or checking out sites like facebook, hi5, friendster, and doing a search by their name, id, or email address, and then compare convo evidence with data from other sites and gather data from talking to their friends online about the person to help you find out what they are really up to, if you wanted to go so far depending on who it is and how close you were to that person. I would be a good detective. Many people aren't smart enough to limit the amount of personal info they put online. :rolleyes:
-
Would you count a discussion about how blackhole and High Max are angry little beasties as a good discussion? Sounds boring and flamey to me..
:C
-
Would you count a discussion about how blackhole and High Max are angry little beasties as a good discussion? Sounds boring and flamey to me..
I'm all for the pyschological dissection of High Max. It's endless fun and games.
-
Only for children who have nothing better to do. Man, that is the genuine talk of a person who acts like a high schooler. Only caring about fun and games at the expense of others. That sounds also like the thinking pattern of a loser and a bully. Surely you have something else to do? People these days :sigh:
-
WOW. WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT ENCOURAGING THIS COURSE OF DISCUSSION WOULD END IN WHINGING AND FLAMES.
-
I hate living up to stereotypes.
WOW. WHO COULD HAVE PREDICTED THAT ENCOURAGING THIS COURSE OF DISCUSSION WOULD END IN WHINGING AND FLAMES.
But she said it...stop all the emo **** or i'll happily annoy you with lockage.
-
This thread is starting to remind me of Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(2006_novel)).
Welcome to the internet. ;)
Deep breath, everyone? Can we accept that, maybe, we're all intelligent people with different views and opinions and try to have a useful discussion instead of a screaming catfight? Thanks.
I know, I know, it's the internet. I'm probably hoping for too much. But I've always been an optimist. ;)
-
That's the thing that pi**es in my cornflakes, people just back and forth blah blah blah. Simple courtesy and acceptance goes a long way.
Still. . . Swine flu eh? What an overreaction.
-
That's the thing that pi**es in my cornflakes, people just back and forth blah blah blah. Simple courtesy and acceptance goes a long way.
Still. . . Swine flu eh? What an overreaction.
Yeah just wait until spaghetti flu, that will be the real killer. :D
Although this winter will be interesting.....
-
Found this an interesting read:
http://sobeale.blogspot.com/2009/08/dont-talk-to-me-about-death-panels.html
Of nothing else, it shows the depth of feeling on both sides of the debate.
Oh, and that Sarah Palin is a clueless cow, but I don't think that's really a revelation...
-
Unfortunately, some people are SO. STUPID. that that story won't even phase them. I don't understand how people can be THIS. DUMB.
What spin!
How anyone can imagine that the government will NOT use the provisions of this bill to ration care with a panel determining "return on investment" is beyond me.
More than half of the costs of medical care arise from medical problems of the elderly. Clearly that is the only area where any significant "savings" can be found.
The plan is simple: Old people, no longer working and usually paying little or no taxes, are a drain on government and a direct threat Obama's grand marxist utopia. Withdraw care for those who will not likely live long to "amortize" the cost and divert it to those with more voting years left as dependents of the state.
We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you" is the real message of the socialists.
Sarah Palin is not an idiot and is not seeking "cheap political points."
Although the health care bill does not specifically call it a "death panel," it does give the government the option of cutting off care to those it deems unworthy of the investment, namely, old people with catastrophic illnesses.
So I don't really see the difference between Obamacare and what happened to your mother. Do you?
First of all, you need to realize that the evil, death-panel insurance companies favor this bill. They favor it because they feel, in the decade before they are pushed out of the market, they will make tons of money by selling policies to people the government will subsidise. Most CFOs and CEOs have a five year horizon - just long enough to take the money and run - so Obamacare is a big win for them
Palin is looking longer term, just like Obama is. Obama said he wants this as a transition to a single-payer system. You are correct that there are death panels now, but Palin is correct on the more significant point that there will be (and note the singular) a death panel then, because the bill explicitly calls for an "independent" board that will define treatment minimums for public and private plans alike. Sorry, but Palin is just smarter than you, because she realizes that the Obamacare panel will be staffed with bean-counting, self-interested, corruptible humans - in other words people who are just like the denizens of today's death panels. For some odd reason, you seem to think the Obama death panel will be staffed with angels that are somehow conjured into existence.
The only thing Palin got wrong is that she imagined a hearing before the Obama Death Panel. They'll have a hearing about as often as the Supreme Court does. Their decision to stop funding extended care from the elderly and those with poor "quality of life" prospects, in order to free up money for goodies to favored constituencies, will be final. One less day of an elderly person in an ICU can fund a community votor registration drive for undocumented workers, who are well and truely motivated by the prospect of, "reproductive health benefits", mental health benefits, dental, vision care, therapeutic massages and spa treatments. And they know their skills gaming the immigration system will be sufficient to run rings around any individual mandate system. Since it's hard to construct a benefits package that will appeal to Downs Syndrome voters, neonatal ICU babies may never vote, and elderly ICU patients may never vote again, the big win is to let people like that wither away, and focus on a more attractive, more compelling package for swing constituencies.
*sigh*
AARP debunking: http://blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/2009/08/debunked_health_reform_means_r.html
-
AARP debunking
Like AARP and the other "letter" groups that "debunk" these claims don't have a dog in the fight on Obama's side...
At the end of the day this isn't about health care in any form or fashion. It's about control. More acurately, it's about whether the citizenry, the source of true power, or the elitist, Washington scumbags gain/retain control over 1/6 of the US economy and by extension control over the aforementioned citizenry.
This is a battle for the very soul of America... :nervous: :shaking:
-
Like AARP and the other "letter" groups that "debunk" these claims don't have a dog in the fight on Obama's side...
Earth to Lib: They don't, except that it'd be, y'know, good for old people. Is there something wrong with good for old people?
More to the point, is there some reason to believe that the old people, who need health care most, are going to do something that will result in a lesser quality of care? Isn't that kind of shooting themselves in the foot? Wouldn't that be, you know, stupid? AARP is many things, including probably going to destroy our generation's lives with taxes because of Social Security regardless of what party we support or is in office, but it's not stupid.
At the end of the day this isn't about health care in any form or fashion. It's about control. More acurately, it's about whether the citizenry, the source of true power, or the elitist, Washington scumbags gain/retain control over 1/6 of the US economy and by extension control over the aforementioned citizenry.
What? You don't think 1/6th of economy doesn't already control Washington? If it was really as powerful/lucrative as you say, then this bill wouldn't have a hope in hell.
Unless there was massive public outrage. It's sorta hard to argue with massive public outrage. And that sorta doesn't happen unless something really bad is going down.
This is a battle for the very soul of America... :nervous: :shaking:
This phraseology, and your immunity to logic as presented by myself and others in this thread, sort of proves something. To borrow a metaphor from the Archive of Tears, you refuse to turn on the lights because you know, somewhere deep down, that it would once and for all define whether you are merely in the dark or have your head up the butt of an elephant...and you fear the answer to that question.
As you should.
-
Because I just took an entire class on this topic, I'm going to toss out a little hard data about the US system as it stands.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Chartbooks/2007/May/Multinational-Comparisons-of-Health-Systems-Data--2006.aspx
This report studied healthcare systems in the US, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, the UK, Japan, and New Zealand.
Of these countries, as far as I can tell from my reading, only the US lacks some form of universal healthcare coverage. (Detailed information about each of these healthcare systems can be found here (http://www.euro.who.int/observatory/Hits/20020525_1).)
Out of the nine countries discussed in this report, which examined the situation as it stood in 2006 (before any recent reforms):
Healthcare spending in the US was the greatest, at almost twice the per capita, cost-of-living-adjusted cost of its closest competitor.
The US had the most spending on administration and insurance.
The US had the highest spending on pharmaceuticals.
The US had the worst outcomes for respiratory disease, diabetes, circulatory disease, medical and surgical errors. It placed in the bottom half in all but one of the other measures of mortality.
The US had by far the least investment on health information technology, which has been demonstrated to improve efficiency and reduce errors.
Another survey (in PDF form here (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Surveys/2007/2007%20International%20Health%20Policy%20Survey%20in%20Seven%20Countries/Schoen_intlhltpolicysurvey2007_chartpack%20pdf.pdf))found that more people in the US thought their healthcare system needed fundamental changes or a total overhaul than in any of six other countries from the list above.
So what does all this mean? First, the US healthcare system as it stood (and perhaps still stands, I'm not really addressing recent developments here) is fundamentally broken. Costs are out of control, patient outcomes are mediocre to downright poor, and public satisfaction is dismal. Second, universal healthcare as practiced pretty much everywhere else (note that each of these countries has a different system and a different way of balancing public and private funding) produces comparable or better results at lower cost and in a way that better satisfies their respective populations.
I would say that the US is long overdue to shake up the old system a bit. There are plenty of better examples that we can emulate.
-
This is a battle for the very soul of America... :nervous: :shaking:
It is clear you are blinded by patriotism and so no matter what, you will say "I love America". Why don't you be your own person and not think USA is the best country in the world just because the culture makes you think it is and it's been drilled in your head since you were born? You will always think USA is always right, no matter how the corrupt culture here thinks and what USA does, huh? :rolleyes: For a country that's always right, I sure see many problems, including problems with morality, safety, the priorities of many, health, love for war, economy, kindness, etc. Oh, 2/3's of the people here being obese could hardly be called always right. The arrogance. It's wrong in most ways, I would say.
Just accept that no civiliztion or way a society runs lasts forever. But it seems China is the longest lasting (maybe 10,000 years) and is still there and in one piece and thriving more than ever. Maybe China did something right and its discipline and "for the common good" train of thought kept it alive for so long? I know back then a few 1000 years ago that it was full of war and brutal though. At least during the first dynasty and first emperor. I watched something about that on the history channel. Also about the brutal execution style of having 2 horses pull a man apart when his limbs were tied to ropes and the ropes tied to some horses running in opposite directions.
-
It's not partiotism, it's just blindness.
-
There's a great deal of good-will behind the concept of self-reliance, I can understand why it exists, and why it was installed into America, but there are places where it doesn't mingle well with the fact that America, as a society has grown exponentially in population and linearly in output.
You have two options; heavy birth control, and a minimum wage that allows everyone to be able to get a job that allows them to be self-reliant, or, provide some form of state-funded supply of the basic requirements, such as Fire Protection, Health Care and Policing. Note that two of those are state funded now.
-
Note that two of those are state funded now.
Thank the gods for that. What if the Fire Fighters Corperation just decided that your house is not the effort?
-
Note that two of those are state funded now.
Thank the gods for that. What if the Fire Fighters Corperation just decided that your house is not the effort?
From what I understand, that's precisely what happened on occasion when Benjamin Franklin established the first property insurance company (http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/philadelphia/insurance.htm) in the United States in Philadelphia. The buildings the company insured displayed its symbol on the exterior, and if a fire department unassociated with the company came across one of its insured buildings on fire, they'd just let it burn. Thankfully, things are a bit more altruistic these days. :p
-
I think just about everyone agrees that the current system is broken and needs reform. People disagree over the nature of the reform that should take place, not it's necessity.
Here's something nobody has adequately explained to me:
Why do we need a federal healthcare system? Why isn't all of this done at the State level? We don't have one giant national Firefighting system, or one giant national police system. Why do we need one giant national healthcare system? Assuming we did go to universal healthcare (which isn't the target of current reform proposals anyway), why do it at the federal level instead of the state level?
It seems to me that doing it at the state level would be much better for many reasons. States are pretty diverse, and there wouldn't have to be an ill-fitting "one size fits all" that's uncomfortable for everyone. Instead, each state could design a program that works best for it. Furthermore, by letting each state do its own thing, you allow for competitive comparison. Survival of the fittest healthcare system, basically. Also, if people don't like the way their state handles things, there is always the "vote with your feet" option. That becomes much more difficult if it's the same in every state (much easier to move state-to-state than to leave the country). Finally, the constitutional mandate for federal healthcare is weak at best IMO. Letting states take care of it themselves seems much more inline with the constitution.
And yet, nobody even TALKS about letting the states do their own healthcare reform. Does everyone else know something I don't?
Or am I the only person left who still believes in some degree of state autonomy?
-
You are not alone.
Healthcare Reform is this year's high school policy debate topic. I'll let you guys know if I see anything worth mentioning.
Then again, supposedly smart people have come up with some pretty stupid stuff before :ick:.
-
We don't have ... one giant national police system.
:lol:
-
You guys wail and moan about the corruption of the current system, which BTW I freely admit and have been doing so the vast majority of this discussion needs some improvement in CERTAIN areas. But I hardly see Government as a suitable replacement or supplement as I see it because Government itself is rife with corruption and poor leadership, so how can we expect anything they create to be any less vulnerable to corruption or mishandling?
-
The main difference, to me, is that rife corruption in the Government can, at least, be voted on, whereas rife corruption in Industry can be a lot less concerned about public opinion. When this comes to things like primary services, I've always felt it's better to be overseen by an organisation that at least has a stake in the outcome.
Health is one of those situations where consumer choice doesn't work quite the same, there's a difference between choosing whether to buy the latest Video Game and choosing whether to pay for an operation for your child that will leave you bankrupt, but greatly improve their chances for a good and long life. That's not a choice, and it makes me slightly uncomfortable that there's no real comeback whatsoever on pharmaceutical and medical giants for presenting that kind of choice to people.
-
lol, bet you're gonna see a lot of counterplans.
-
@Mars: Yeah, I can't wait for that :doubt:.
I just want to see how nuclear war will pop up this year :D
-
Well, my own take of the immediate effects of this are:
You are going to see a number of unemployed Medical professionals, as private companies are left by their lower-band customers, and there will be a lot of complaining because jobs in a State-Funded system will not be as well paid as private practices, so you will see a separation of skill levels, the highly skilled professionals will go into the private practices, and the less qualified ones will go into the public sector (for the main part, something not dissimilar to the legal system in the UK, where the high-grades tend to go into defence work, not sure if it works the same in the US, I believe it does).
For the US, this leaves an interesting question because of the proliferation of Medical Malpractice cases that seem to appear in your courts. There's a risk here of, with lower-skilled professionals, that the number of malpractice cases against the state will be higher than against private practitioners. That will be an interesting political hurdle.
So, yes, the changeover will be rough, there's no doubt about that, however, the longer term effects of it are interesting, the requirement of extra medical facilities to deal with the new influx of patients will actually eventually cause an increase in the number of medical jobs, and encourage research into cheaper ways to produce effective treatments, since Governments inevitably buy from the cheapest bidder, and whoever gets the contract get a nice juicy income.
The main risk is bureaucratic bloat, but that's why it's important to have people who don't trust the system, or possibly, even wish to see an end to it, because they will watch it like a hawk.
-
Why do we need a federal healthcare system? Why isn't all of this done at the State level? We don't have one giant national Firefighting system, or one giant national police system. Why do we need one giant national healthcare system? Assuming we did go to universal healthcare (which isn't the target of current reform proposals anyway), why do it at the federal level instead of the state level?
It seems to me that doing it at the state level would be much better for many reasons. States are pretty diverse, and there wouldn't have to be an ill-fitting "one size fits all" that's uncomfortable for everyone. Instead, each state could design a program that works best for it. Furthermore, by letting each state do its own thing, you allow for competitive comparison. Survival of the fittest healthcare system, basically. Also, if people don't like the way their state handles things, there is always the "vote with your feet" option. That becomes much more difficult if it's the same in every state (much easier to move state-to-state than to leave the country). Finally, the constitutional mandate for federal healthcare is weak at best IMO. Letting states take care of it themselves seems much more inline with the constitution.
Maybe I can add something to that.
First of all, please bear in mind that I'm from Germany (as already mentioned, we have an overall health care system and yes, I love it ;)) and I don't have a vast insight into the American healthcare system.
I believe what will happen in such a system is something that we are kind of trying to compensate for in our own healthcare system at the moment.
If you have different healtcare systems in different states, the problem won't be for patients to move to the system which suits them best, the real problem will be that doctors will probably do the same on a much larger scale. If you are a doctor in a region where population and overall income are hight, then you will probably have more money in that system, which will ultimately result in higher incomes for medical personal, better medical equipment, resulting in an overall simpler life. I guess everyone can imagine what will happen to remoter places like Alaska. What good is health insurance if you have to drive an hundred miles to find a doctor?
A challenge for an overall healthcare system is to compensate for such things and I'd guess it would be pretty hard to do that on a state level.
-
I don't really see the point of little state systems for something like health care. People have pretty much the same health care needs everywhere. For stuff like police forces, highway systems, etc, that can change somewhat based on geography, I see reasons for it...
But stuff like education, health, etc, it seems like if it works in one state, it'll work in another state. Just because you live in Kansas is no reason not to learn about the ocean. :P
-
I suggest, zack, that you look into cancer occurance rates across the country, including the different kinds. You will find that a whole hell of a lot more lung cancer cases will be in the more industrialized areas, (read: NE U.S., for the most part) and other kinds of cancer will shift according to the likely cause. If that doesn't count as being changed by geography, even as only a secondary effect, I don't know what is.
-
Well, yeah, but the cancer treatment is the same, isn't it? The cost is probably about the same. So I don't get how that would affect a national health insurance plan. I recognize that for there to be so much hype around states' rights, there may be something to it, but if it's there, then, well, I'm not seeing it.
-
Why can't people just make smart choices to minimize these ailments, like I said earlier in this thread, then it would be less of an issue? If people want to avoid lung cancer or other problems, then they should choose a job that isn't in an industry, don't smoke, and don't be around areas that have bad fumes or second hand smoke, and clean up their diets. So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced if people had self respect to avoid situations or made wise choices. It would save a lot of lives at the same time as not wasting needless amounts of money and taking care of health problems that most can prevent with a little knowledge, self respect, and will-power. It really isn't rocket science, right?
-
I suggest, zack, that you look into cancer occurance rates across the country, including the different kinds. You will find that a whole hell of a lot more lung cancer cases will be in the more industrialized areas, (read: NE U.S., for the most part) and other kinds of cancer will shift according to the likely cause. If that doesn't count as being changed by geography, even as only a secondary effect, I don't know what is.
Then change the equipment and staff of the hospital to reflect those rates. It's not really an argument against universal health care. You don't have to make every single hospital exactly the same. If that were true (which isn't), the same could be said for the hypothetical state health cares, with each city having different disease rates.
*rant*
Oh sure, by your logic, you'd want for hospitals to be abolished since every disease, illness or injury is the patient's fault, right? :wtf:
-
Why can't people just make smart choices to minimize these ailments, like I said earlier in this thread, then it would be less of an issue? If people want to avoid lung cancer or other problems, then they should choose a job that isn't in an industry, don't smoke, and don't be around areas that have bad fumes or second hand smoke, and clean up their diets. So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced if people had self respect to avoid situations or made wise choices. It would save a lot of lives at the same time as not wasting needless amounts of money and taking care of health problems that most can prevent with a little knowledge, self respect, and will-power. It really isn't rocket science, right?
In a perfect world, people could always choose to have better diets, avoid secondhand smoke, get a job that doesn't increase health risks, et cetera. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, and people don't always have those options.
-
Why can't people just make smart choices to minimize these ailments, like I said earlier in this thread, then it would be less of an issue? If people want to avoid lung cancer or other problems, then they should choose a job that isn't in an industry, don't smoke, and don't be around areas that have bad fumes or second hand smoke, and clean up their diets. So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced if people had self respect to avoid situations or made wise choices. It would save a lot of lives at the same time as not wasting needless amounts of money and taking care of health problems that most can prevent with a little knowledge, self respect, and will-power. It really isn't rocket science, right?
Okay, apologies in advance.
Max, think about this. Actually think. If everyone moved away from industrial areas, what would happen? One of two things: 1) Economy goes 'clunk.' Moreso than it has already. 2) Industry would follow the people, which creates the EXACT SAME THING. You are also forgetting that not everyone has the means, nor the desire to remove themselves from said area. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with smart choices on the part of the person living there.
Now for some of the other points. 1)How the hell does self-respect factor into where you live in the country. Non-sequitor. 2)How the hell do you forestall lung cancer by cleaning up your diet? 3)That will power you love to prattle on about has not a single iota of bearing on where someone lives.
Dang it people, had to click the reply button three times to post this.
EDIT: Saw this.
I suggest, zack, that you look into cancer occurance rates across the country, including the different kinds. You will find that a whole hell of a lot more lung cancer cases will be in the more industrialized areas, (read: NE U.S., for the most part) and other kinds of cancer will shift according to the likely cause. If that doesn't count as being changed by geography, even as only a secondary effect, I don't know what is.
Then change the equipment and staff of the hospital to reflect those rates. It's not really an argument against universal health care. You don't have to make every single hospital exactly the same. If that were true (which isn't), the same could be said for the hypothetical state health cares, with each city having different disease rates.
This was a response to zack's supposition that health care needs are on par with education in that there is little to no variance between geographic areas.
EDIT THE SECOND: Also, I am more readily in favor of state size healthcare than the massive federal plan. Personal preference.
-
But isn't the argument the same for education? Different schools having different needs according to their location and type of students?
In that sense it can be said to be exactly like health care.
Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding the discussion.
-
The main risk is bureaucratic bloat, but that's why it's important to have people who don't trust the system, or possibly, even wish to see an end to it, because they will watch it like a hawk.
If it's one thing that the US does NOT do well...it's ending or controlling bureaucratic bloat.
-
I think Scotty is misunderstanding somewhat. Universal health care doesn't change that hospitals in different areas specialize in different services. Hospital specialization addresses any geographical affectation of health problems. If an area has high cancer rates due to industry, then the hospitals in that area will probably attract doctors who specialize in cancer, and those hospitals will become cancer centers. That's all completely unaffected by who pays the bill.
Education is a terrible comparison, now that I've thought about it, so ignore that I mentioned it at all.
-
Oh sure, by your logic, you'd want for hospitals to be abolished since every disease, illness or injury is the patient's fault, right? :wtf:
Don't be silly and read my post more carefully since I assumed certain people wouldn't look at the wording I chose carefully and think I meant it was always their fault and could always be prevented.
So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced
I said much could be prevented and reduced; I didn't say all. Read more carefully. Seriously; if you read it more and didn't skim like it seems you have, you would know that it isn't a mindless rant.
@Scotty: Health is more important than economy if those were your only choices, though better economies might equal better health in some ways, but would also equal worse health when it comes to pollution and industrialization and chemicals in certain foods. A job isn't worth dying over. Your life is priceless and you yourself can never be replaced if you know what I mean; a job can always be replaced. Or maybe you can have the best of both worlds and work in an industry and have a great economy with great health on certain jobs if people in those industries had better masks and better protective clothing and maybe better procedures and handling of certain things and it was a rule to wear it as well as advising all employees thoroughly of the dangers of removing those safe guards from their bodies while in the factory.
-
No job means you're pretty much out of luck. Without an address, how are you supposed to get a new job? And how are you supposed to keep that new job when you don't get to go home to shower at night? Takes a while to save up enough for downpayment+rent on an apartment when you're working at whatever joint hires a homeless person.
People end up trapped in jobs they hate, that are even sometimes damaging to their health not just because they themselves like having a safe place to sleep, but because they are providing for a family.
Poverty is a vicious cycle.
Like I said before, in a perfect world the things you say would happen/exist. It's not a perfect world, and we have to work with what we've got.
-
Oh sure, by your logic, you'd want for hospitals to be abolished since every disease, illness or injury is the patient's fault, right? :wtf:
Don't be silly and read my post more carefully since I assumed certain people wouldn't look at the wording I chose carefully and think I meant it was always their fault and could always be prevented.
So much can be prevent or have its likely hood reduced
I said much could be prevented and reduced; I didn't say all. Read more carefully. Seriously; if you read it more and didn't skim like it seems you have, you would know that it isn't a mindless rant.
It WAS a mindless rant. The discussion is about the form by which health care should be conducted, changed, etc. and you suddenly go on about lifestyles and food consumption that while on the overall theme (health) has absolutely nothing to do with health care.
-
The above is very true...
This is very pointless :p
[attachment deleted by Tolwyn]
-
Even in a perfect world, a lot of what High Max is saying would be utter hogwash. So, High Max, since you seem to be an expert oncologist, would you like to explain to the class how so many cancer cases, probably the majority, have nothing at all to do with one's own personal behavior? How they're largely influenced by genetics, or environmental factors that we can't even track down yet? Please elucidate us on the middle-aged woman who eats right, exercises, doesn't live anywhere near a factory, yet still manages to contract breast cancer, and do the same for the man in the same situation who is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Or, moving beyond cancer, explain to me how the 40-year-old father of my elementary school classmate, despite exercising regularly and being in seemingly great shape, suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack that no one saw coming. If you know how making "smart choices" can alleviate these ailments, then by all means, clue us in.
As strange as it may seem in your little fantasy world, though there are a number of conditions that can largely be prevented by keeping oneself healthy, there are a hell of a lot more that strike seemingly at random and can't be worked around. Cancer is probably the biggest offender in that regard. The only means at our disposal to mitigate, and hopefully one day eliminate, conditions like cancer is to continue to further medical research into them. You know, research that actually follows the scientific method and is verifiable.
(And yeah, I know this isn't on the subject at hand, and that someone else called him out on it while I was writing this, but screw it, I wasn't going to waste a good rant. :p)
-
Even in a perfect world, a lot of what High Max is saying would be utter hogwash. So, High Max, since you seem to be an expert oncologist, would you like to explain to the class how so many cancer cases, probably the majority, have nothing at all to do with one's own personal behavior? How they're largely influenced by genetics, or environmental factors that we can't even track down yet? Please elucidate us on the middle-aged woman who eats right, exercises, doesn't live anywhere near a factory, yet still manages to contract breast cancer, and do the same for the man in the same situation who is diagnosed with prostate cancer. Or, moving beyond cancer, explain to me how the 40-year-old father of my elementary school classmate, despite exercising regularly and being in seemingly great shape, suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack that no one saw coming. If you know how making "smart choices" can alleviate these ailments, then by all means, clue us in.
I said reduce and prevent in many cases, not always prevent, since I knew you and others would not look at the wording carefully. I shouldn't have to get into super detail for your brain to comprehend what I meant. Do some research and look up "healthy diet" and good food to eat and limiting exposure to certain things. Actually go and look up things like that and read it, if you care about yourself. That would definitely reduce the risk if you changed lifestyle and exposure to too much sun light or elements in the air.
I see many Americans making poor lifestyle choices and eating too much junk and many smoke and drink too much. So it's obvious that the big reason why Americans have health problems is because of their lifestyle choices. Don't buy air fresheners, since they make the air less healthy, and certain things that have certain chemicals that you know can hurt you. Also don't buy products that are too strong or expensive. I already talked about a lot of that earlier so I don't need to mention them again.
You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.
Maybe some of it is in the genes, but in the genes doesn't mean you will get it, just that it is easier for you to get the disease, but Americans like to use "it's all in the genes" as an excuse too much and therefore think it is hopeless to even try. Just like some people saying they are too old to work out. You don't even need to buy equipment to work out and you can make time.
Maybe getting out of USA would be the answer if it is really that unavoidable like you think, or be in a culture that is more sharing and less obsessed with money. Though I know how hard it is to move to another country. If it's that hopeless like you think, then just give up and don't even try to fight it, like many people tend to do. They give up too easily.
@Scotty: Lack of self respect refers to those who smoke and eat too much junk and drink alcohol too much. You can also save a lot of money if you don't buy stuff like that. Don't tell me you don't have a choice what food you buy at the store and how you handle it. There is a lot of healthier food that is fairly cheap. Just look around more. One example of me saving money when I shop is buying the cheapest toilet paper and paper towls there is. No reason to buy high quality toilet paper if you use it only once before tossing it.
I think that the main reason Americans struggle too much in an economic crisis could be that they are too picky and don't spend their money responsibly and are not willing to give up certain things. Buying things like pop and having pets costs a lot, as well as buying a house. When I move out on my own, I would just choose an apartment and have no pets, buy no soda, no alcohol either probably since it is expensive and I don't drink often anyways. I don't smoke so I save a lot there, and have a car that gets at least 25 miles a galleon and has a low insurance rate since I will choose a 4 door, non-sporty vehicle that is older, but not too much older since it may be worn out from too much mileage on it. So far I have about $4200 saved up for a vehicle. I will have internet and a cell phone when I am someday on my own, but no land line. That may save money.
I'd like to point out that said moderators need to get a grip, since the best discussions HLP has ever had have been ones that were wildly off-topic.
You know, he has a point. Always talking about every topic to the letter without any deviation is boring.
-
Yeah, but you're pulling the conversation away from an interesting debate to rant about how everybody should be just like you.
You deserve 1001 flames.
-
Threads are but rivers, meandering their way along the path of least resistance until, finally, they either reach the Ocean of Pointless Drivel, or a Mod builds a dam...
;)
-
AARP debunking
Like AARP and the other "letter" groups that "debunk" these claims don't have a dog in the fight on Obama's side...
At the end of the day this isn't about health care in any form or fashion. It's about control. More acurately, it's about whether the citizenry, the source of true power, or the elitist, Washington scumbags gain/retain control over 1/6 of the US economy and by extension control over the aforementioned citizenry.
This is a battle for the very soul of America... :nervous: :shaking:
So where was your war cry the last eight years? During the security crackdowns, the surveillance, the curtailing of basic freedoms?
Apparently it's a battle for the very soul of America...as long as it's not your dog in office.
All that said, this thread is actually pretty awesome so far, full of reasonable debate and intelligent points. I see no reason for lockage. Even High Max is almost contributing something substantial and making moderate, responsive points. :p
-
Yup, nothing here requiring locking, and we haven't reached the metaphorical Ocean yet ;)
I think a 'battle for the very soul' is just slightly on the side of over-dramatization anyway ;)
Funny thing is, I was wondering a little while ago, you probably could have given the system a good kick-start with those Billions that disappeared in Iraq. Maybe rather than worry about possible financial abuses that might lose the taxpayer money in the new system, there ought to be a lot more effort on stopping the already existent systems that seem to lose money like a leaky boiler loses water? If that could be addressed, you could probably introduce a public-funded health system with very little impact on the taxpayer.
-
Yeah, but you're pulling the conversation away from an interesting debate to rant about how everybody should be just like you.
You deserve 1001 flames.
No, I was just offering some common sense advice that if people made smarter life choices, they could save money and health, and health care wouldn't be as much of an issue. There would also be less people in the hospital and therefore more money to go around for others, probably. I wonder why some people complain about a problem, then when one person, like me, suggests that many others should make smarter choices to help the problem reduce itself, some of those people complain like they have no choice but to suffer from a problem like health care or don't want to improve their lifestyle. It is like some people saying "I am upset with how the health care system works, but don't tell me to improve my lifestyle because I should have the freedom to take bad care of myself". I could say "don't complain about the health care system if you don't try to take care of yourself since it is quite possible that you would reduce the chances of ending up in a situation where health care is as big of an issue and reduce the number of visits to the hospital if you take care of yourself". I guess 1001 flames to me because you don't like the truth and the truth hurts.
-
High Max: please look at this (http://xkcd.com/169/)
So where was your war cry the last eight years? During the security crackdowns, the surveillance, the curtailing of basic freedoms?
My war cry for the last eight years did not exist because I was, to be frank, a stupid little kid with no real political views. Now, I stand behind the basic Bush premise, but have issues with the means.
-
Well, that was mostly aimed at Liberator.
-
High Max: please look at this (http://xkcd.com/169/)
I'm worried about clicking that. It looks like a link to a virus when I put my cursor over it and look at the status bar. I'll type that url in google search or copy it from a quote tag and type "virus" and do a search to see if the meta-tag of certain websites that may talk about that site say the word "virus" or that it has a virus.
Edit: A website meta-tag says: Permanent link to this comic: http://xkcd.com/350/. It may be a comic too, but I would feel better if you posted the picture on HLP instead of clicking it.
-
That link is an xkcd webcomic. I didn't want to post just the picture because that robs it of the roll-over text.
-
I see. Here are many more that end with "gry" :D http://www.fun-with-words.com/word_gry_angry_hungry.html
Oh, and this helps people's health a lot if you drink 3 or 4 cups a day like I do and only use the bags or leaves and natural caffeinated stuff. But I don't buy anything advertized on this site. I just found this site: http://www.nutralegacy.com/blog/general-healthcare/the-benefits-of-drinking-green-tea/
What a coincidence. I just noticed it saying the words "health care" in the link, but probably meaning care about health and not the economic term.
-
Tea is gross in all its forms.
Aaaanyway, that's the thing I hate so much about conservatives in the US, Battuta. Lying bunch of bigoted hypocrites. (The thing I hate about liberal politicians is that they never have the courage to do anything about it.)
-
I can sympathize with people who genuinely believe something other than what I hold to be true.
But I have to question the whole "death lists" thing - I mean, who comes up with this stuff?
-
I just want to defend tea. . .
Death list, harsh stuff.
-
I don't have a problem with conservative beliefs. It's conservative actions that piss me off.
-
In what context of conservative are you using the word?
-
Tea is proven to have a lot of anti-oxidents and is very good for you, if you don't buy the bottled or instant tea garbage, Mars. There is no belief about it. Plus, after I started drinking it regularly last July, I noticed a month later that I lost fat and got more veins popping out and my body fat percentage dropped a few percent. I have increased stamina usually. I still have maintained at or below 10% body fat more or less. So not only is it very good for you because they have proven it to be and Japanese drink it a lot and they have the longest life expectancy in the world, but because I drink it and have experienced its greatness. It is healthier than black tea or coffee and much less caffeine too. It may be part of the reason Asians can stay leaner easier than people here. I was also reading that green tea when eating seafood at the same time and block the absorption of about 92% of the mercury in the seafood you eat, just like I thought it could have. It would explain why Japanese can eat a lot of seafood without mercury poisoning.
Edit: Or were you talking about conservatives, Mars? My mistake.
@iamzack: Right now you are being a bigot towards conservatives saying they are all that way. How are you any different? Plus, being a bigot isn't always bad. If people are going to do something out of the ordinary or wrong or try to draw a lot of attention to themselves with said actions or intentional physical alteration of themselves, then they shouldn't whine if they are judged about it. If they don't want to be judged by their actions, then they should keep it private. If people are going to dress a certain way that is strange or sleezy and have strange hair does and piercings all over (no doubt they do it for attention) or do crazy immoral things and show everyone or let them know about it, then they should expect to be judged. It is simple. Keep it private and you won't be judged.
Both liberals and conservatives can be seen as bad in my view. Just like the fact that just because someone goes to church or calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they are good or act like one and they may go against their believes and use people for sex and money like crazy extremely selfish people do.
I mix and match what I want to follow and believe. You fail to realize that it isn't black and white and people usually have mixed liberal/conservative values, though people may be closer to one or the other. Plus you could even mix some conservative thinking from other cultures, even if you live here, like I do to a certain extent.
-
Tea is proven to have a lot of anti-oxidents and is very good for you, if you don't buy the bottled or instant tea garbage, Mars. There is no belief about it. Plus, after I started drinking it regularly last July, I noticed I lost fat and got more veins popping out and my body fat percentage dropped a few percent. I have increased stamina usually. I still have maintained at or below 10% body fat more or less. So not only is it very good for you because they have proven it to be and Japanese drink it a lot and they have the longest life expectancy in the world, but because I drink it and have experienced its greatness. It is healthier than black tea or coffee and much less caffeine too. It may be part of the reason Asians can stay leaner easier than people here. I was also reading that green tea when eating seafood at the same time and block the absorption of about 92% of the mercury in the seafood you eat, just like I thought it could have. It would explain why Japanese can eat a lot of seafood without mercury poisoning.
I'm probably going to regret this, but someone pointed this post out and I have to jump in and point out the anti-oxidants are not universally good for you. In fact, after the 'beneficial effect' theories became prominent in the 70s, they ran a large number of studies; anti-oxidant supplements versus sugar placebos. These studies showed, at best, no improvement. At worse, they were abandoned due to increased death rates in the anti-oxidant group (http://www.badscience.net/2007/12/epistemological-indulgences/). The anti-oxidant benefit is one of those things that makes a degree of sense on paper but is disproven by actual clinical trials.
I'd imagine one of the reasons Asians are thinner in general is a) somewhat reduced availability of high fat meats b) traditional diet higher in vegetables (you should see the market in Penang), usually bought fresh and c) increased activity levels in urban areas. Attributing it to green tea is, frankly, daft - there is a tremendous cultural and dietary difference, everything from cooking techniques, base ingredients, activity levels during the day, etc. It's still important distinguishing levels of health care - I'd wager Japans national health system is better than that of Indonesia, for example (and from a cursory reading the Japanese system is a bit like the one proposed for the US). Also worth avoiding the stereotype that all Asians are thin - there are problems with obseity (http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/ - also, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/06/health.healthandwellbeing) which (shocking!) would seem to be linked with industrialization, increased living standards and increased income (ease of 'luxury' food accessibility). Bear in mind that Ethiopa has a low obesity rate, and it doesn't mean we want to copy their diet.
FYI, the green tea 'blocking mercury' thing comes from it containing catchin, which is also found in brown tea and some kinds of cocoa (i.e. chocolate) and - I think - wine. Worth remembering that containing one specific chemical doesn't make a kind of magic 'food' (or drink).
Also FYI (for the benefit of disclosure) I like tea (all kinds) and my dad actually works for a major tea company. Sadly it doesn't have any body fat benefit for me (more's the pity) - I'd suggest you're attributing changes in your lifestyle to it due to the current media rubbish about stuff like anti-oxidants, omega oils, etc (I'm pretty sure that, consciously or unconsciously, you would not start drinking green tea without making other changes to either diet, activity or even psychology). My other half is also familiar with green tea and science, particularly the anti-oxidant stuff.
Phew, I'm done. see you guys in another 2 years.
-
Well I also eat fish more often, even though canned, and I eat 1 banana a day usually. Omega 3's are good for you and fish andf sea food is the leanest healthiest meat you can eat.
I know green tea isn't a magical drink. That is why one should also eat fruits and veggies and other things. It is good stuff.
No, I didn't start drinking green tea because of anything the media said. I don't witness them saying much about it. I drink it because I know cultures have done it for 1000's of years and I read the benefits of it. But you must drink at least 3 or 4 cups for it to have an effect. I read a lot about it. I even conserve and use my tea bags 2 times each. I wouldn't drink more than 4 cups a day though since it can affect iron absorption (tannan) or give you too much caffeine or fluoride (it is the only natural source of fluoride for humans), but I have read that moderate amounts of caffeine are good for you.
I wouldn't say anti-oxidants are bad for you. Even people who don't know about green tea encourage getting anti-oxidants from fruits and vegetables, both doctors and other people. Since after 2000, many people have been studying green tea much more. Black tea may stain your teeth more. White tea is also said to be among the healthiest if not the healthiest kind, but it comes from the same plant as green tea and is the flower part, I think.
Time for some sleep. That is vital for health and bodily repair too and it is 1:36am here. :p
-
Tea is tea. That's all I need to know. It's not a wonderful super drink. Look at everything else the mentioned asian countries do. Also for any conclusive evidence i'd need to demograph the current generation of young people who don't drink tea. Tea won't vein up your arms (as amazing as that sounds) or imbue henchness. Green or otherwise, unless your supplier is filling it with horse steroids.
It's tea, it tastes ok, and four cups a day is pretty normal in England. At least in my (every job i've had including army) office / house.
Battery death imminent, i'll attempt a phone charge at work.
-
Well I also eat fish more often, even though canned, and I eat 1 banana a day usually. Omega 3's are good for you and fish andf sea food is the leanest healthiest meat you can eat.
I know green tea isn't a magical drink. That is why oone should also eat fruits and veggies and other things. It is good stuff.
No, I didn't start drinking green tea because of anything the media said. I don't witness them saying much about it. I drink it because I know cultures have done it for 1000's of years and I read the benefits of it. But you must drink at least 3 or 4 cups for it to have an effect. I read a lot about it. If even conserve and use my tea bags 2 times each. I wouldn't drink more than 4 cups a day though since it can affect iron absorption (tannan) or give you too much caffeine or fluoride (it is the only natural source of fluoride for humans), but I have read that moderate amounts of caffeine are good for you.
I wouldn't say anti-oxidants are bad for you. Even people who don't know about green tea encourage getting anti-oxidants from fruits and vegetables, both doctors and other people. Since after 2000, many people have been studying green tea much more. Black tea may stain your teeth more. White tea is also said to be among the healthiest if not the healthiest kind, but it comes from the same plant as green tea and is the flower part, I think.
Time for some sleep. That is vital for health and bodily repair too and it is 1:36am here. :p
It doesn't matter whether you say anti-oxidants are bad for you, evidence shows additional anti-oxidants have no measurable benefit. One thing also worth noting is that the body has pathways to deal with stressors like free radicals, and a little bit of 'excercise' is good for these pathways continued functioning (sorry for the paraphrase, this actually comes from a lecture/talk on the subject which Mrs. aldo attended). It's also worth noting that the properties of free radicals makes them useful tools for the immune system - see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7QcsDseZonEC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=free+radicals+t+cells&source=bl&ots=ly0osR6Stb&sig=8oYOyV6DoJ73YJyTeFPry7Lcwg0&hl=en&ei=6uODSpzKFoTY-Qal68D5AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=free%20radicals%20t%20cells&f=false (hope that link works).
The benefit from eating anti-oxidant containing fruit, etc, will be from the dietary change - the obvious nutrition, plus the probable fact that it simply reduces appetite for fattier/less health foods.
Incidentally, here is a meta-analysis (abstract) of anti-oxidant supplement trials; http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842. Please note this bit of the conclusions; "Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study."
I would say switching your diet, as a whole, is what's probably improved your health. Which is to be commended, of course - just don't attribute it to anti-oxidants, because it's a) dangerous and b) scientifically incorrect. a), of course, because it's always dangerous to attribute positive or negative health changes to the wrong thing. Kind of like how people use tannins as an excuse to over-drink red wine.
As an aside, all teas IIRC come from leaves of the same plant - Camellia sinensis - and the difference is due to the level of oxidation. White tea may contain buds (which would be aforementioned flower part) and young leaves (apparently - wikipedia, not researching much). I'd recommend Crystanthemum tea if you can get hold of it, too.
Ok, really am gone now. Ta ta.
-
I have been following this topic by some time, decided to postpone participating until now.
About tea first:
Speaking of green tea, I would be extra-ordinarily careful about what brand and how often I drink it. I suspect that it would mainly be a wealthy source of pesticides, if bought from a company that doesn't have decent quality control. I could comment about some other things about health, but I don't want to derail the discussion.
Then health care:
Back in 1980s and in the beginning of 1990s we used to have a quite good health care, as villages with population count around 2000 inhabitants got a doctor and several nurses. Today, there doesn't seem to be enough money to support that kind of health infrastructure. Personally, I see this as a way of the Health Care ministry to make their budget numbers more appealing while sweeping the problem to other fields, like Social Security.
Yeah, it seems that the cost saving methods have only caused more costs in the long run. (This could be an interesting M.Sc. or Ph.D. study for those who study history of economics). Remove the doctors from small villages, you end up paying the taxi trips to city hospitals, totalling about 200 km each.
The other problem is that the doctors don't want to move to so small villages any more. Third, the government controlled health care system is being broken down to private clinics by reasons I'm not sure of. Doctors seem to get more money that way, so I suspect one motivation is indeed greed but it cannot wholly explain the whole episode. There was one fundamental change from government controlled to community controlled health care, and I'm not sure how that factors in.
If comparing the health care towards US, I have never had any problems to accept taxes for Health Care and Education, if both systems work and do their jobs. Unfortunately, health care is not in acceptable state in my opinion at the moment here. I.e. "This is not why I have paid those frickin' taxes!" Neither do I have anything bad to say about the Social Security, there are indeed some people that abuse it, but the number is not that large and the benefit is in the stability it creates in the society. I, of course, don't like it when some martial artists can practise unlimited amount of time since they are unemployed and I end up paying for them in the form of taxes. Slackers.
This is just the other side of the fence. Maybe you find something interesting in it related to the crumbling US Health Care, maybe you don't. But something is wrong if 20 % of the population is outside the Health Care due to associated costs or if the treatment of an accident can wreck the person's financial stability.
-
Isn't fish full of mercury or something? :P
-
Not to mention the dioxins..
Personally, I think the best plan for a healthy diet is to make it as diverse as possible. Too bad I'm way too lazy to implement such a diet :/
-
I have never had any problems to accept taxes for Health Care and Education
Even though this is a seperate issue, it is worth mentioning that for the most part the education system in america below university is also quite broken, even though some states spend as much as half their yearly tax revenues on it.
-
Mostly because they spend more time trying to right social injustices and keep the mentally deficient on the same page as the normal or above average, instead of teaching writing and art and math. Not to mention they keep increasing the size of the schools instead of shrinking them in the name of cost savings. To my mind they are not saving costs, they're warehousing the children just to keep them off the streets and out of trouble.
-
Bigger class sizes means fewer teachers, which in turn means less people on the payroll and lower costs. In reality the biggest problem with funding is often the top heavy administration, they are the ones sucking up so much in the way of school resources. Other problems do include amazingly low standards, students who don't give a damn, parents who dont give a damn, etc.
EDIT: Back on topic I found this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs-united-states-republican-health)
The National Health Service has become the butt of increasingly outlandish political attacks in the US as Republicans and conservative campaigners rail against Britain's "socialist" system as part of a tussle to defeat Barack Obama's proposals for broader government involvement in healthcare.
Top-ranking Republicans have joined bloggers and well-funded free market organisations in scorning the NHS for its waiting lists and for "rationing" the availability of expensive treatments.
As myths and half-truths circulate, British diplomats in the US are treading a delicate line in correcting falsehoods while trying to stay out of a vicious domestic dogfight over the future of American health policy.
Slickly produced television advertisements trumpet the alleged failures of the NHS's 61-year tradition of tax-funded healthcare. To the dismay of British healthcare professionals, US critics have accused the service of putting an "Orwellian" financial cap on the value on human life, of allowing elderly people to die untreated and, in one case, for driving a despairing dental patient to mend his teeth with superglue.
The degree of misinformation is causing dismay in NHS circles. Andrew Dillon, chief executive of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), pointed out that it was utterly false that Kennedy would be left untreated in Britain: "It is neither true nor is it anything you could extrapolate from anything we've ever recommended to the NHS."
-
Reminds me of the time this guy retired at the local Board retired after 10 years of service, they gave him a $5000 Rolex, meanwhile they had discharged something like 4 teachers because they didn't have the funds to cover they're payroll.
-
The only real problem with American public schools is the fact that they're dependent on property taxes, so poor school districts get poor schools. There's nothing inherently wrong with the American public education model; schools in more affluent neighborhoods are doing just fine (other than the belt-tightening that's been effecting everyone over the past few years.) The "education crisis" that everyone loves to blow steam about doesn't really exist; our education problems are really just an extension of the poverty crisis, but poverty isn't as exciting.
-
So out of control administrators, low standards, and bad attitudes about school has nothing to do with it?
-
So out of control administrators, low standards, and bad attitudes about school has nothing to do with it?
Like Ford said, it's all a function of location. For instance, I live in a suburban area which has some reasonably well-off residents scattered about, and our local public school district has a very good reputation, as do several others in the area, largely due to the significant amount of money they have to work with. (Didn't stop me from attending twelve years of Catholic grade/high school, though.) Teaching positions are competitive, facilities are great, and standardized test scores are top-notch. Compare that to schools in inner-city Philadelphia, who were so far in the red at one point that a private company took over management of most of them and have all sorts of issues with providing a reasonable teaching environment. It's probably the same story in most urban areas in the country.
-
A) I have yet to see any evidence of an "out of control administrators" epidemic sweeping the nation and clawing at the fabric of our education system. Every field has good administrators and bad administrators.
B) Again, low standards are primarily an issue where poverty is an issue. If your school is in an area where kids have to worry about getting shot or daddy's meth lab getting busted, then yeah, the bar is probably going to be set somewhere around trying to get the kids to show up, with or without a good night's sleep or breakfast in their stomachs. The only way schools with adequate tax revenue are failing is in their efforts to keep up with the ridiculous onslaught of standardized tests that were only introduced as a response to an education crisis that doesn't exist in the first place. My mom teaches third grade, and her number one complaint, by far, is the fact that people are expecting children to do more and more before they're developmentally ready, all because we're trying to fix something that wasn't broken. Let's also not forget that it's obviously in the testing companies' interest for this craze to be perpetuated.
Oh, and C) Bad attitudes about school? Remind me of the time when kids would wake up in the morning and exclaim, "Bring on the long devision!" School sucks.
EDIT: Yes, what Mongoose said.
-
A) I have yet to see any evidence of an "out of control administrators" epidemic sweeping the nation and clawing at the fabric of our education system. Every field has good administrators and bad administrators.
The only way schools with adequate tax revenue are failing is in their efforts to keep up with the ridiculous onslaught of standardized tests that were only introduced as a response to an education crisis that doesn't exist in the first place.
Welcome to California. Educational quality is a grade behind most East Coast states, literally (I end up doing most of the same math stuff over again in 7th after I moved here). The teacher's union has a stranglehold on educational regulation and there is no accountablity. All schools are union shops. The adminstrators are, mostly, idiots because that's the most reliable method for keeping them from being union puppets and making things worse.
And I went to the schools in an very affluent area for chrissakes.
Although, frankly, I think you're behind the times. The proliferation of standardized testing has peaked and fallen away. The fad is long since over.
-
A) I have yet to see any evidence of an "out of control administrators" epidemic sweeping the nation and clawing at the fabric of our education system.
There is this one (http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.aspx?id=4366)
The headline
Michigan administrative expenses top $1.4 billion
School administration costs rise over two-times faster than instructional expenses
And there are other examples. This sums up other problems (http://mb-soft.com/public/school.html)
Again, low standards are primarily an issue where poverty is an issue.
I went to one of those well off suburban schools. Generally while the facilities are nice and it had a nice selection of electives, but when it came to the core cirruculum, math and science education was pretty much a joke. At my high school, the minimum requirement for math was Algebra 2, which might seem "tough" but in reality because the cirriculum is so dumbed down and it just has you doing some really simple problems and thats it. For comparison I took the equivlent class at the local community college at the same time and it was orders of magnitude harder. Except the annoying busy work projects, for the most part I did little to no homework at home, never studied for any exams and always got top marks. We have low standards like this because the cirriculum is designed not really to teach new things, but to pass people who are either lazy, stupid, or a combination of the two. Even then, many people still don't make it. 400 something of us went in, 300 something of us came out with a diploma.
Oh, and C) Bad attitudes about school? Remind me of the time when kids would wake up in the morning and exclaim, "Bring on the long devision!" School sucks.
They could see it as a way to learn new skills, eventually leading to a good university and a good job, or at worst as a way to better themselves. But they don't, kids and schools see it for what it really is: government sponsored daycare, a place to waste 7 hours of gaming time on "books", and "learning". School sucks, but it is important, just too many in our society don't see it that way, which adds to the problem.
-
Not to mention the dioxins..
Depends on several things when it comes to that and mercury in fish, etc, but I will get to the dioxons in a little while.
When it comes to minimizing mercury and stuff, the type of sea food you buy and where it is from will help, but sea creatures and many that live in the rivers naturally contain mecury in their bodies from water running down the rivers and erosion washing the mercury out of the rocks in the water; not only from pollution. Tuna has a lot of mercury but shrimp and maybe sardines don't so much. If they are creatures and predators from the bottom, they will have much more. Also drinking green tea helps negate the toxins in the seafood preventing the absorption of most of it. The Japanese eat seafood all the time and are very smart on average and don't appear brain damaged, and they are fine since they know what they are doing, obviously. That seafood has omega 3's which help your brain and heart. That diet coupled with their love for learning as a culture is probably why the average Japanese is so smart.
The reason mercury is bad is because if you get enough of it in your blood, it can collect inside your tissues and can't be removed normally, and common sense tells me that it is bad because it may block blood flow and electrical signals as a result of sitting in your flesh. Kind of like how any poison blocks the flow of fluid and other things.
Also, I do agree that you must be careful where you buy your green tea from. I use Stash premium green tea that I buy from Fred Meyer's. It claims to come from Brazil and is grown in an area that uses no pesticides. I also went to their website around the time I started drinking it and I feel better physically and mentally when drinking this vs another brand I tried.
Sad thing about the dioxins is that you can't completely eliminate your exposure to them in industrialized countries, but you can minimize them by staying away from certain products or chemicals and doing research and not using hair dye, hair gell, colon, or perfume, and not using very strong detergent, and being careful what kind of soap you buy among other practices.
I know, off topic, but I was just replying to this.
So out of control administrators, low standards, and bad attitudes about school has nothing to do with it?
I also think that is a problem, Kosh. Too many people in this culture don't value education and the average teachers here don't seem to be as good as ones from some other countries. Also, these schools aren't strict or disciplined enough and they even let kids buy junk food and energy drinks at school, almost like they encourage it, which could cause problems and may explain some of what causes a high obesity rate with many kids and a lower energy level more so these days here, since kids are much less likely to moderate what they eat or know the risks. It sounds messed up. But that is the price you pay when there is too much freedom and no balance.
-
AAAAAAAAAANYWAY
How about we have a healthcare discussion where one side isn't based entirely on right-wing lies and propaganda.
I think that the current plan isn't enough, and that it should be the first stage in a major overhaul of the health system. Mostly, the plan only really addresses the problems with health insurance, while not addressing the problems with malpractice and malpractice insurance and other factors that inflate the cost of healthcare.
I believe that if we get healthcare for everyone, take the inefficiency and inflated costs out of the healthcare system and invest in preventative medicine, people will have more money to use on other things which will in the end pay this whole thing off. It will create real wealth, not corruption wealth that goes to overseas swiss bank accounts and is never seen in the USA again
-
Woah, I actually agree with Turambar for once.
-
...wealth that goes to overseas swiss bank accounts and is never seen in the USA again
Which stems from a progressive tax scheme that punishes people for being TOO successful. What reason do I have to start a business and work at making it successful or accept that high paying executive position that leaves me with no life away from my office if I am not going to be rewarded for it?
-
Or maybe a way to force those who have abundance to share and put out more to society. If that is the case, it's good, as long as it goes to a needy and good cause and not more rich people who don't need that money. Sadly, it most likely doesn't go to a good cause and there is probably no way to know where it goes.
So many advantages to having a financial balance and not being rich. Being in the middle sounds like the best way to have the most pros with the least cons.
-
If you're making $100 million a year, and the government takes 90%, you are left with $10 million. Cry me a river.
-
Zack, you make $100 million a year, let the government take 90%, then tell me how it feels.
-
It would feel frakkin great to have $10,000,000.
-
Zack, you make $100 million a year, let the government take 90%, then tell me how it feels.
With those numbers, it doesn't make a difference unless you are greedy. Not really a difference between 100 million and 10 million unless you are greedy. There is pretty much no need to have anymore than 1 or 2 million in an entire life time, even in an expensive country like USA, since it is enough to pay for yourself and many people for the rest of your life if you use it wisely.
Of course the true gifts are intelligence, health, and managing to have a person who truly loves you, not money. Those achievements are what gives someone true happiness more so than money. Thinking about money as number one is selfish.
-
I'd assume the ridiculously high pay was a buffer against exactly that level of Tax and budget myself on 10 million a year (Heh, you don't budget 10 million, you just splurge for 365 days, but you get my point), much the same way as, when you spend money, and sales tax is added invisibly, the price you see takes that into account for you.
-
First off High Max, having money is good. Having money means you can buy things. Having more money means you can buy better things. You may not want to live in a nice house with a beautiful ocean view, but some people do, and you need money to do that as there is only so much coastline.
And Flipside, I wouldn't assume that. A business paying $100 million isn't intending for their employee to only make $10 million with 90% tax rates. They are offering $100 million because they think their employee is worth $100 million. Business don't set wage scales based on take-home pay for their employees, they set wages based on how much they are willing to pay for a certain amount of work. If a business is offering $100 million with 90% taxes, there's a good chance they will offer that same $100 million with 10% taxes, since the business paying the wage is still losing the same amount of money despite the differences in tax rates. Only, with higher tax rates the employee loses since a larger portion of their income is confiscated by the government.
EDIT: If we assume business pay based on take-home pay, then higher tax rates do make a difference in pay, since a business will pay less per employee for the same amount of take-home pay if taxes are lower. The employee still makes the same amount of money, and the business has more flexibility in money since less is taken by the government. The employer can either keep wages the same, possibly offering more than businesses that lowered wages to save costs, or they could lower wages and put that money towards more hires or new equipment, both of those increasing productivity and stimulating economic activity.
-
Btw, did anyone else watch John Stewarts interview with that Kristol guy from the weekly standard last month? I just recently got caught up on The Daily Show, and when I heard say something to the effect of "The military has the best healthcare because they deserve the best, but ordinary Americans don't deserve the best", yes he actually did say something like that and the crowd just went totally silent. I think that sums up the REAL thinking behind the GOP's position with regards to this issue.
-
Wasn't there this big hullabaloo a while ago about shoddy care for American veterans? If that's the best in government care, I don't want it.
-
The "hullabuloo" was about shoddy treatment at Walter Reed and the subsequent firing of people responsible. The rest of it surrounds the lack of understand and thus inability to treat post traumatic stress disorder and the resulting mass suicides in soldiers returning from the war. All of these situations have improved tremendously, and I would prefer TriCare over any civilian insurance plan any day of the week.
Sleep medications? Paid for.
Glasses? Free.
Annual dental checkup and any necessary oral surgery or cleaning? Free.
Any day of the week, Tricare > all.
-
If you're making $100 million a year, and the government takes 90%, you are left with $10 million. Cry me a river.
So the government takes the 90 million, which can't be invested into new business. That's really bad economics, and your punishing a person who probably worked really hard to make that money. I would be pissed :mad:
-
The "hullabuloo" was about shoddy treatment at Walter Reed and the subsequent firing of people responsible. The rest of it surrounds the lack of understand and thus inability to treat post traumatic stress disorder and the resulting mass suicides in soldiers returning from the war. All of these situations have improved tremendously, and I would prefer TriCare over any civilian insurance plan any day of the week.
Sleep medications? Paid for.
Glasses? Free.
Annual dental checkup and any necessary oral surgery or cleaning? Free.
Any day of the week, Tricare > all.
Nuclear, there's a big difference between a soldier who's willing to lay his life down for his country and an ordinary citizen. Or, if that isn't a good reason, the government is the soldier's employer, and as such can provide whatever medical care it wants. The federal government and I have no such employer/employee agreement.
-
Oh, do shutup. I'm not a servant of the federal government or the President, I'm a servant of the people of the United States of America and the Constitution. I'm a citizen of the United States of America first, and an Airman second. I enjoy my benefits: free undergraduate education, free healthcare, and the government controlling the APR on my credit cards. It's only fair that the rest of the US be granted the same liberties.
Next time you try to talk down an American servicemember and dare say the people he volunteered to serve with his life don't deserve the same standard of living as him simply because they're not "employees of the federal government", think twice. Think long and hard. Has your argument against healthcare reform really sunk that low?
-
Owned.
-
Oh, also, by the way, I haven't done **** for America and I'm an ordinary citizen and I still get Tri-care. Thanks for paying for my health care, fellow citizens!
Anyway, by the logic of some people being worth more than others, why don't all children have free health care like Tri-Care? They haven't done anything yet, but they might, you know? Oh, and maybe really pretty people should get free health care too, since they make America look nicer.
-
SpardaSon, answer me this:
What could anyone do to DESERVE $10,000,000 a year?
Working at Dairy Queen, light work one can make $7 an hour and $5,000 a year
Working in landscaping, back-breaking work one can make $12 and $30,000 a year
My father is a programmer for a military contractor, he makes $60,000
What can anyone do for society that deserves that (1010) much money?
-
Be a superhero? :lol:
I really don't think anyone needs that much. Only those who are selfish and not strong enough to handle life without luxary or the slightest bit of discomfort and too whiny and picky. I'd hate to become like that. That's my 2 cents.
-
It would be interesting to see how many people here actually have health insurance, and of those, how many have it provided by their employer, how many get it from the government, how many pay for it themselves, and how many get it from mommy and daddy.
-
The Trumps and the Gates are examples of high earning businessmen.
Fact.
Soldiers deserve the best healthcare, but corporate saved my life. So end of the day it's circumstantial.
-
SpardaSon, answer me this:
What could anyone do to DESERVE $10,000,000 a year?
Working at Dairy Queen, light work one can make $7 an hour and $5,000 a year
Working in landscaping, back-breaking work one can make $12 and $30,000 a year
My father is a programmer for a military contractor, he makes $60,000
What can anyone do for society that deserves that (1010) much money?
What you get paid is pretty much based on your skillset. Duh!
-
Nine times out of ten in media and commercial sectors it's an old boys club in mid-level management to executive level, a case of not what, but who you know being critical to role placement and progression.
-
What you get paid is pretty much based on your skillset. Duh!
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
If not, in that case, shouldn't pay be DIRECTLY proportional to education?
And what exactly do CEOs do that's so rare and irreplaceable that 10 million a year is in order?
-
Oh, do shutup. I'm not a servant of the federal government or the President, I'm a servant of the people of the United States of America and the Constitution. I'm a citizen of the United States of America first, and an Airman second. I enjoy my benefits: free undergraduate education, free healthcare, and the government controlling the APR on my credit cards. It's only fair that the rest of the US be granted the same liberties.
Next time you try to talk down an American servicemember and dare say the people he volunteered to serve with his life don't deserve the same standard of living as him simply because they're not "employees of the federal government", think twice. Think long and hard. Has your argument against healthcare reform really sunk that low?
(http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=4904,filename=pwned-funny2.jpg)
Pwn3d!
In all seriousness, people like Kristol and Spardason forget that without your average joe, there really would be nothing for the servicemen/women to defend.
-
And what exactly do CEOs do that's so rare and irreplaceable that 10 million a year is in order?
Manage a Multi-Billion Dollar corporation and make deals with other companies that are worth billions? Give up the freedoms that you take for granted like going to the pub or taking a girl to a movie?
-
They get their positions as much through networking, politics, and old-boy favoritism as through qualifications.
They 'give up' those freedoms in exchange for freedoms like private jets, near-immunity from prosecution, massive political influence, and basically the ability to do whatever the hell they want.
Plus, way to invoke the male gender prototype for CEOs there (accurate as it may unfortunately be). I'm sure Kraft Foods would be pleased.
-
I think the President has a bit of a harder job that CEOs. Why do they make many times what he does, then?
-
And what exactly do CEOs do that's so rare and irreplaceable that 10 million a year is in order?
Manage a Multi-Billion Dollar corporation and make deals with other companies that are worth billions? Give up the freedoms that you take for granted like going to the pub or taking a girl to a movie?
Yup, multi-milionaires are well known for not having party lifestyles.
And the truth is, they don't actually do any of the work in mergers and deals, they'll talk the deal, but then it's on to 'the little people' to sort out the details, the lawyers and finance people.
Better still, it's usually not their money they are risking, and even if they screw up, they can look forward to a multi-million dollar handshake, so, personally, I think that sort of job is probably one of the most over-rated skill-sets out there.
-
And what exactly do CEOs do that's so rare and irreplaceable that 10 million a year is in order?
Give up the freedoms that you take for granted like going to the pub or taking a girl to a movie?
Pretty much every country has those basic freedoms. Funny thing about many people in USA is they have this false view thinking every country except USA is poor and starving and bad off. Maybe countries in Africa and in the middle east are often like that, but most other places in the world, especially these days, have the tech people have here (internet, cars, etc) and in many ways are better than here, especially when it comes to kindness, on average. Certain countries having their culture based on being friendly to others, unlike here. Look at Vietnam. They have Wifi and nice cars. See? Also, many technologies that USA has are copied from other countries, like fireworks, guns, etc. It's not like these other countries are all copying the USA. It works both ways. Funny so many people here think that everyone is copying USA. Heck, a primitive stony form of a grenade was invented 2000 years ago by Rome, I believe.
In all seriousness, people like Kristol and Spardason forget that without your average joe, there really would be nothing for the servicemen/women to defend.
Not to mention without the average joe, you wouldn't have food, wood, or resources since people like farmers and resource gatherers and the ones who process those materials are actually the backbone of society and if one thinks about it, the most important.
@iamzack: These CEO's probably make so much because they are greedy and cheat to get what they want. Like that story I recently heard about of this billionair leader of a corporation getting sentenced to about 150 years in prison for causing many people to have no money. Forgot the detailed story though.
Edit: I think this is it. I just did a search and I read a little about this about a month ago: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aMJBEKJP6kz8
-
These CEO's probably make so much because they are greedy and cheat to get what they want.
Don't you just love generalizations? I know I do.
As for the rest of your post: /Anti-threadjack.
I think the President has a bit of a harder job that CEOs. Why do they make many times what he does, then?
If he has a harder job, it's only because he has to oversee a larger body, with a few extra sets of issues. A CEO sets the strategy, etc., etc., just like the President. You never hear people *****ing about the President not having much to do. As for the second part, because the United States government seems to not be a for-profit organization (at least, not for the last decade or so).
-
So, in other words, they get paid for reasons completely unrelated to their responsibilities?
I mean, if the president doesn't deserve a lot of money for that kind of decisions, why do CEOs?
-
The President shouldn't be President because of the paycheck, he should be President because he wants to serve his country. A CEO on the other hand, well a CEO's goal is to make money for a company, and the company rewards him by giving him a few spare piles of cash every month.
-
Why do CEOs still get paid piles of cash when they utterly **** up then?
-
The President shouldn't be President because of the paycheck, he should be President because he wants to serve his country. A CEO on the other hand, well a CEO's goal is to make money for a company, and the company rewards him by giving him a few spare piles of cash every month.
If you take even the slightest gander at the amount of money CEOs receive in various circumstances (including absolute failure), you will see that this is not remotely true.
The real world is not Atlas Shrugged.
-
A CEO on the other hand, well a CEO's goal is to make money for a company
Or mostly just himself but lets the company get some in order to keep it alive so he can get even more. It is sad how they seem to treat employees as expendable and easily replaced. Lack of compassion, it seems.
and the company rewards him by giving him a few spare piles of cash every month.
You talk as if he only receives pocket change. It isn't just a few spare piles of cash if they are getting millions. :rolleyes: Maybe your dad is a CEO or maybe you talk like this because you are a rich boy?
-
A CEO on the other hand, well a CEO's goal is to make money for a company
Or mostly just himself.
and the company rewards him by giving him a few spare piles of cash every month.
You talk as if he only receives pocket change. It isn't just a few spare piles of cash if they are getting millions. :rolleyes: Maybe your dad is a CEO or maybe you talk like this because you are a rich boy?
First: The two are not mutually exlusive. The more money the company makes, the more money he makes. It's a powerful incentive. And before you get all holier-than-thou about greed, remember that wanting more possessions is perfectly natural. It is not, in and of itself, evil.
Second: Comment uncalled for.
-
A CEO on the other hand, well a CEO's goal is to make money for a company
Or mostly just himself.
and the company rewards him by giving him a few spare piles of cash every month.
You talk as if he only receives pocket change. It isn't just a few spare piles of cash if they are getting millions. :rolleyes: Maybe your dad is a CEO or maybe you talk like this because you are a rich boy?
First: The two are not mutually exlusive. The more money the company makes, the more money he makes. It's a powerful incentive. And before you get all holier-than-thou about greed, remember that wanting more possessions is perfectly natural. It is not, in and of itself, evil.
Second: Comment uncalled for.
That's just your opinion. I'm sure you have left many comments on HLP that could be considered uncalled for.
Remember that wanting too much is selfish. Plus, one could say it is natural to steal or never share, but it is seen as bad. Stealing would just be a different kind of selfishness.
-
Remember that wanting too much is selfish.
Not true. From the online Webster's:
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
Ayn Rand has a quote (can't find at the moment) that deals with that. Before someone goes off on the Ayn Rand tangent, a broken clock is still right two times a day. I think this is one of them. I'll look for it.
However, none of this is the point. We were talking about healthcare.
-
I just disagree that only making $10 million instead of $100 million will cause people to decide to just not make ANY money, or something stupid like that. I also disagree that it's something anyone should ***** about. Once you are making tens of millions of dollars, wtf is the difference when you have to pay millions in taxes? No one's advocating a 90% tax rate for anybody, I'm just saying that even if the tax rate was that high, you're making so much money that you're ridiculously wealthy even after 90% of it goes to taxes. That is, cry me a river, and then build me a solid gold, diamond-encrusted bridge, and get over it.
-
And what exactly do CEOs do that's so rare and irreplaceable that 10 million a year is in order?
Manage a Multi-Billion Dollar corporation and make deals with other companies that are worth billions?
Again, what about the ones who destroy their companies and walk away with tens of millions of dollars in golden parachutes?
-
And what exactly do CEOs do that's so rare and irreplaceable that 10 million a year is in order?
Manage a Multi-Billion Dollar corporation and make deals with other companies that are worth billions?
Again, what about the ones who destroy their companies and walk away with tens of millions of dollars in golden parachutes?
He doesn't care because he wishes that'll be him someday.
-
You mean me being a rich CEO of a powerful multinational corporation? That would be pretty freaking awesome. However, under no circumstances would I attempt to run a company into the ground. It would be bad for me, since chances are most of my income would be from the stock that the company gave me in return for working for them.
And about the severance payments: they are written into the contracts that businesses have with their CEO's. No matter a CEO's performance, he is entitled to his severance through his employment contract with the corporation. If the companies do not pay, they could leave themselves open to a breach of contract lawsuit. And don't blame the CEO's for this, contracts require the consent of both parties.
-
True, but there's a massive force of 'normalisation' in play as well, basically, if one company is offering a fat severance package, and another company is offering a sensible one, then guess which job the CEO will go for, despite that fact that should tell the company all it needs to know about the person going for the job.
You are right in assuming that a lot of companies don't pay attention to details when hiring someone, but then, that's just another problem with corporations, I'm surprised shareholders don't say more, but then, very few shareholders are individuals, they are other corporations, and guess who defines their policies? Yup, the very people who benefit from high-level severance packages.
That's why I think there needs to be some kind of ceiling for that kind of thing, because, as recent events have revealed, leave the corporate sector to its own devices and greed becomes more important than service.
-
Remember that wanting too much is selfish.
Not true. From the online Webster's:
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
I know this is about health care, but I must say that is a black and white definition. I'm not talking about the pure absolute type of selfishness. You will find that often in life, things aren't so black and white. I'm talking about selfishness in general, not pure selfishness. Of course one could define selfishness as any instance of one thinking about themselves, but that would be black and white too and thinking that any instance of not being selfless is selfish. However, in that case, I would say "It is good to have a balance of selfishness or have a little selfishness, because if you didn't, you couldn't stay healthy or have self respect or stay alive for that matter".
Also, keep in mind that one can act selfish without actually being a selfish person and they might act selfish when it comes to certain things and not about other things. Also, they may act selfish to certain people and not as much to others.
-
Yep, your company would need to lay off thousands, yet you get the equivalent of all of their salaries in a single golden handshake, which they give you even though you ran the company into the ground.
Yet you would sleep soundly the next night, as your empathy and altruism have been destroyed by some sinister force
-
Sounds very bad and......evil. I don't think I could live with myself if I was in the CEO's shoes.
-
Yep, your company would need to lay off thousands, yet you get the equivalent of all of their salaries in a single golden handshake, which they give you even though you ran the company into the ground.
Those so called golden handshakes and golden parachutes are guaranteed by contract and it is usually cheaper to keep to the contract than renege and have the contract holder, IE the CEO, from taking them to court over it. Contract LAW isn't pretty, but it's better than the alternative.
-
Yep, your company would need to lay off thousands, yet you get the equivalent of all of their salaries in a single golden handshake, which they give you even though you ran the company into the ground.
Those so called golden handshakes and golden parachutes are guaranteed by contract and it is usually cheaper to keep to the contract than renege and have the contract holder, IE the CEO, from taking them to court over it. Contract LAW isn't pretty, but it's better than the alternative.
Its outrageous because it means that no matter how good or bad the company is doing, The Man (tm) always gets more and more. Its a recipe for incompetance.
-
Soo... why do we allow these to get into contracts? Why's there no stipulation, like reason for severence?
-
On topic:
How accurate is this?
(http://user.good.is.s3.amazonaws.com/community/andrewprice/hayes_flowchart.jpg)
-
Not very, it's incomplete >_<
-
It's missing Carl, the economist shivan.
-
I am going to have all of the left-wingers in this thread hate me for this since I'm mentioning the one document they most hate, but to be fair I'm honestly surprised no-one has brought this argument up yet.
Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to set up a national health care system? Show me a line that says it can. And don't mention the preamble where it talks about "promoting the general welfare". I hold that to be more of a declaration of intent than any actual clause of empowerment.
-
I really dont see what all the fuss is about with ye over there in USA?
Whats wrong with a national healthcare system,
Seems like a very basic thing, that a government should set up that all people are entitled too, Well thats how it is in Europe, may not be perfect, (Ireland has the HSE, serious flaws, but government funded and works once your in the system)
-
The government can't constitutionally do a lot of the things it does, as I understand it.
Besides, um, we just had eight years of 'living document, open to reinterpretation'....seriously, the two-facedness of this...
-
Spardason, have you tried section 8 clause 18?
I mean, where's it say that the government can create public libraries, run fire departments, run the federal reserve, etc?
-
Interstate commerce, regulation of.
Also, the ad hominem "hate the Constitution" bull**** is not welcome.
-
Yeah, I missed that. 'Left-wingers hate the constitution?' This is kind of in line with the 'liberals are not patriots' bull**** that has been running for a few years.
Left-wingers love the Constitution as much as right-wingers. If I were a dedicated liberal I'd probably be a bit more vociferous in my response to your unnecessary insinuations.
-
I am going to have all of the left-wingers in this thread hate me for this since I'm mentioning the one document they most hate...
...the Constitution...
If that's how you want to do this, than that's how we'll do it.
Sparda, that sort of ad hominem attack is absolute nonsense. All it does is simply prove you don't know a damned thing about healthcare reform, or how our system of government works. It also proves that you are simply blindly accepting everything that comes out of the mouths of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and all of the anti-American, theofascist, neocon, lying, subversive, nationalistic talking heads of the right-wing as pure fact, without bothering to do the independent research for yourself. What you're doing is damaging and deadly to our system of logical debate and the American political way of life.
Nationalized healthcare is going to be the death of capitalism. Slightly increased taxes are going to turn this nation into the Soviet Union where every basic necessity is rationed and all citizens live in extreme poverty. And the Obama administration is going to be the end of America.
However, you, sir, and all your friends who think like you, will be. You and all the Teabagging "patriots" who threaten elected officials with death for supporting health care, who destroy logical debate by screaming like Tourettes-afflicted morons at town hall meetings en masse, who carry loaded guns to the same meetings, and who actually give an ounce of credence to the crap spewing out of the mouths of the totalitarian, fascist, Nazi commentators that fill the right-wing talk airwaves. YOU will be the death of America.
America has progressed not because we look 200 years in the past and try to live the exact same way. We look into the past to keep our most basic principles alive: the belief that every human being has the right to life, liberty, and property; that all Americans enjoy the right to a trial by jury of their peers, and to face their accusers; that America should stand as a city upon a hill for all the world to see. What you and your ilk INSIST on doing, however, is keeping us permanently living in the past--for all I know, neocons very well could believe that slavery is still legal, that women don't need to leave the home, and that every American should be part of an armed militia independent of the government, no matter the consequences.
It is you and your friends that make America not a city upon the hill for the entire world to emulate and be inspired by, but as the class idiot sitting in the corner with a dunce cap for all the world to look at and laugh at, or, worse, refuse to emulate.
Your claim that the American left somehow despises the Constitution absolutely sickens me to the core. While your little friends in the Bush Administration were exploiting the fears and worries of a sincerely frightened nation, stripping away our civil liberties one at a time, ****ting on the Constitution, tearing apart the Bill of Rights to fit their just plain evil agenda of imperialism and unilateralism in unnecessary, illegal, overly-costly wars that wasted the lives of several thousand good, willing, and truly patriotic Americans, the American left was in the streets and blogs protesting the Patriot Act, demanding Gitmo shut down, and putting themselves in the crosshairs for your civil liberties and the rights of all Americans to not live in fear of each other and their own elected officials.
And you called them traitors. You called them un-American. You declared them "in league with the terrorists." You said "America, love it or leave it!"
But they didn't leave America, because they loved America. They still do. They love America to the point where they're willing to forgo income due to slightly higher taxes to pay for their neighbor's right to see a doctor and get the drugs necessary to treat him, sacrifice time spent with their families by attending town hall meetings to engage in reasonable debate and conversation, and risk being put on an NSA watchlist because they bad-mouthed the fascist policies of the Bush Administration.
Meanwhile, you ****ing tools sat around. You agreed with every word that came out of the Bush Administration, Fixed News, and the extreme-right. You did no research to support your opinion; I can point out several parts of yours and Liberator's arguments where a simple trip to Wikipedia could've proved you wrong. You simply sat back, smiled, and nodded. Whether you're still under Cheney's trance that America will never be safe with a Democrat in the White House, or Sarah Palin's belief that nationalized healthcare will just kill babies and seniors pointlessly, or you are truly just an evil person who would rather have another 57" TV rather than let my pregnant friend have her medicine that keeps her from experiencing unbearable nausea.
Now, since I apparently hate the Constitution and all it stands for since I support nationalized healthcare, I guess this doesn't mean ****!
I do solemnly swear
To support and defend the Constitution of the United States
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic
That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
Let me put it this way: next you think about trying one of these absoluely abhorent, low-down, un-American ad hominem arguments simply because someone has a different political belief than you do, think about the thousands of Americans YOU sent to their graves in Iraq, think of the thousands of people who will die this year and the tens of thousands more who will die in the coming years because YOU don't want your taxes raised, and think of the people who actually sacrificed something, be it their lives, time, personal safety, or freedom from fear to protect you...the people YOU continue to crucify with your right-wing, ultra-nationalist, imaginary, baseless neoconservative beliefs.
From someone who does the wear the uniform, and still believes that he is but one line of defense in preserving the goodness that is a progressive America who doesn't live all her years in the Middle Ages, to you: **** YOU!
-
Wow. Bookmarked.
-
(http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/Smileys/alive/appl.gif)
-
I'm creating a new bookmarks folder for this.
-
:jaw:
-
Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
-
blah
I stopped reading after I hit the fourth talking point from The Playbook.
-
Liberator is a walking irony machine.
-
blah
I stopped reading after I hit the fourth talking point from The Playbook.
Thank you for just proving Nuclear right.
Christ, you're a disgrace to the right-wingers who actually do research to back up their claims.
-
I stopped reading after I hit the fourth talking point from The Playbook.
Are you trying to get monkeyed?
-
blah
I stopped reading after I hit the fourth talking point from The Playbook.
And thereby proved him correct.
-
Nuclear, there are several people I know whose views I at least partially agree with that I'd freaking love to shove that post in the faces of in an attempt to shut them the **** up. Thanks for that. :)
-
However, you, sir, and all your friends who think like you, will be. You and all the Teabagging "patriots" who threaten elected officials with death for supporting health care, who destroy logical debate by screaming like Tourettes-afflicted morons at town hall meetings en masse, who carry loaded guns to the same meetings, and who actually give an ounce of credence to the crap spewing out of the mouths of the totalitarian, fascist, Nazi commentators that fill the right-wing talk airwaves. YOU will be the death of America.
So basically you compared me and all the people who believe, even slightly, as I do to the most heinous bunch of lowlife scumbags of the 20th century. When you know for a fact we aren't. This implies that you are trying to drum up emotional support for you are attempting to argue.
America has progressed not because we look 200 years in the past and try to live the exact same way. We look into the past to keep our most basic principles alive: the belief that every human being* has the right to life, liberty, and property; that all Americans enjoy the right to a trial by jury of their peers, and to face their accusers; that America should stand as a city upon a hill for all the world to see.** What you and your ilk INSIST on doing, however, is keeping us permanently living in the past--for all I know, neocons very well could believe that slavery is still legal, that women don't need to leave the home, and that every American should be part of an armed militia independent of the government, no matter the consequences.
*Unless you happen to be an unwanted child who hasn't been born yet.
**I agree fully. Morally, Ethically, and Technologically.
If you don't learn from the past you will repeat it. The big thing to learn from history as it applies to the topic at hand, tyranny comes with both snarl and smile.
It is you and your friends that make America not a city upon the hill for the entire world to emulate and be inspired by, but as the class idiot sitting in the corner with a dunce cap for all the world to look at and laugh at, or, worse, refuse to emulate.
From my position, when I look at the world I see a Europe who is sinking into decline with double digit unemployment, rampant illicit drug use and capitulation to any and all external aggressors. None of which are worthy of emulation.
Your claim that the American left somehow despises the Constitution absolutely sickens me to the core. While your little friends in the Bush Administration were exploiting the fears and worries of a sincerely frightened nation, stripping away our civil liberties one at a time, ****ting on the Constitution, tearing apart the Bill of Rights to fit their just plain evil agenda of imperialism and unilateralism in unnecessary, illegal, overly-costly wars that wasted the lives of several thousand good, willing, and truly patriotic Americans, the American left was in the streets and blogs protesting the Patriot Act, demanding Gitmo shut down, and putting themselves in the crosshairs for your civil liberties and the rights of all Americans to not live in fear of each other and their own elected officials.
And you called them traitors. You called them un-American. You declared them "in league with the terrorists." You said "America, love it or leave it!"
[/quote]
Oh yes, it's all Bush's fault. Obama is as pure as the wind driven Chicago snow. He and The Usual Suspects will lead us into a golden age.
But they didn't leave America, because they loved America. They still do. They love America to the point where they're willing to forgo income due to slightly higher taxes to pay for their neighbor's right to see a doctor and get the drugs necessary to treat him, sacrifice time spent with their families by attending town hall meetings to engage in reasonable debate and conversation, and risk being put on an NSA watchlist because they bad-mouthed the fascist policies of the Bush Administration.
Meanwhile, you ****ing tools sat around. You agreed with every word that came out of the Bush Administration, Fixed News, and the extreme-right. You did no research to support your opinion; I can point out several parts of yours and Liberator's arguments where a simple trip to Wikipedia could've proved you wrong. You simply sat back, smiled, and nodded. Whether you're still under Cheney's trance that America will never be safe with a Democrat in the White House, or Sarah Palin's belief that nationalized healthcare will just kill babies and seniors pointlessly, or you are truly just an evil person who would rather have another 57" TV rather than let my pregnant friend have her medicine that keeps her from experiencing unbearable nausea.
Now, since I apparently hate the Constitution and all it stands for since I support nationalized healthcare, I guess this doesn't mean ****!
I do solemnly swear
To support and defend the Constitution of the United States
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic
That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
Let me put it this way: next you think about trying one of these absoluely abhorent, low-down, un-American ad hominem arguments simply because someone has a different political belief than you do, think about the thousands of Americans YOU sent to their graves in Iraq, think of the thousands of people who will die this year and the tens of thousands more who will die in the coming years because YOU don't want your taxes raised, and think of the people who actually sacrificed something, be it their lives, time, personal safety, or freedom from fear to protect you...the people YOU continue to crucify with your right-wing, ultra-nationalist, imaginary, baseless neoconservative beliefs.
From someone who does the wear the uniform, and still believes that he is but one line of defense in preserving the goodness that is a progressive America who doesn't live all her years in the Middle Ages, to you: **** YOU!
And lastly, I suggest you get your lazy ass out of what ever east coast city you live in and actually see "fly over country".
-
You realize you're talking to an American serviceman? You sit in front of your computer and play WoW while he gives years of his life in service of the ideals you claim to be the exemplar of, and this is how you treat him?
I can only imagine the contradiction in your programming. You're faced with one of the creatures you're supposed to deify and support, but suddenly he doesn't meet your tinpot definition of unquestioning, uncritical patriotism. How are you going to handle this?
-
and i thought the overpopulation thread (which it started from) was heated :p
-
Liberator, the walking irony machine, strikes again!
-
Being a serviceman earns him my thanks for his service and my prayers for his continued well being. It does not, however, earn him a pass on political discussion.
-
It does, however, make your "lazy ass" comment completely out of line.
-
Maybe not, but it does exempt him from this:
And lastly, I suggest you get your lazy ass out of what ever east coast city you live in and actually see "fly over country".
Rian got there first. :<
-
And lastly, I suggest you get your lazy ass out of what ever east coast city you live in and actually see "fly over country".
This only proves that you don't actually read people's posts, since if you did, you'd be well aware by now that nuclear1 was a member of the Air Force. It was brought up earlier in this thread.
Ironically, the fact that you're just skimming (or plain ignoring) your opponents proves so much of his post correct.
Whoops, Rian and zack beat me.
-
3xpwnt
-
Apparently, it does also not earn him a consideration of rather remarkable speech. He supports Obama because he, as a servicement of the United States, is bound by duty to do so. "Commander in Chief" is not a meaningless title.
Second: This is the last post he made in this thread before his wonderful speech there.
I think they don't realize that they're "government" insurance isn't actually run by the government, merely paid for by same.
Thank you for insulting my intelligence.
*Unless you happen to be an unwanted child who hasn't been born yet.
He has not even argued on this point.
Third: He specifically addressed his speech to Spardason. Cool it, and take a look at what he actually said, not what you are trying desperately to paint it as.
Fourth:
And lastly, I suggest you get your lazy ass out of what ever east coast city you live in and actually see "fly over country".
What the **** are you on? He's a ****ing U.S. AIRMAN for God's sake!
Lastly:
Liberator is a walking irony machine.
This
Nuclear, there are several people I know whose views I at least partially agree with that I'd freaking love to shove that post in the faces of in an attempt to shut them the **** up. Thanks for that. :)
and This.
EDIT: dang, I haven't had to press the post button five times ever.
-
You are correct, my "lazy ass " comment was out of line. I apologize.
-
Good form, sir.
-
Did you consider that since he's a US AIRMAN he might be under orders to fly over the country!?!
...
hay guys can u be banned for really lame jokes??
-
Liberator already apologized, dude. Not cool.
-
I just find the conservative "lazy ass" argument to be insulting, since the poor are generally the hardest working (physically) out of any of us.
-
From my position, when I look at the world I see a Europe who is sinking into decline with double digit unemployment, rampant illicit drug use and capitulation to any and all external aggressors. None of which are worthy of emulation.
Please see Australia: health care for all, lower unemployment and a much less borked economy than the US.
-
Tangent. . .
Course run.
Plenty of healthcare topics now.
Considering binning this. Sell it to me in two posts.
-
I only posted here to say this:
And I thought I had it bad with being ganged up on. Now I'm thinking I was lucky. Seems Liberator has it bad, or the worst in HLP.
Sometimes, Liberator, the best thing one can do to stop conflicts and pointless stressful arguments that go nowhere is to not want the last word and to let it go and don't remark to a comment they make about you, I suppose. In other words, don't retaliate to all comments against you. Much of the time, it is only an attempt to have someone make you reply and get a reaction out of you (using you for entertainment and their own ammusement) and then they win by getting that reaction they want and it goes on forever. I know it sounds very immature and high school, but it is that way. So when you just don't reply to every little thing and eventually let it go when you see it won't go anywhere, the negative attention to you is diminished since someone else will draw the attention away from you since they are posting and you stopped.
Knowing the way many people here think, it is best not to start certain topics (meaning topic starter post) because they will flame you, gang up on you, think they are always right just because they disagree, and everything will be to the extreme and go overboard, like in the overpopulation thread. I very rarely make my own topic. They think they know you but they don't even know your name and they assume a lot of things just by someone's post. For example, they could never know who I really am or if more than one person uses my account, for example. I'm not saying more than one person uses it, but they never know.
It is quite surprising that the overpopulation thread grew to 16 long pages in 2 days and most posts were so large. I wonder if that is a record breaker for HLP when it comes to the speed in which a thread has grown and also the sheer number (percentage) of large posts compared to total topic posts. Even though Liberator's topic caused a war against him by the majority here, he did succeed in making a very popular thread and drawing much attention. If his purpose was just to get a reaction and make a popular thread, he definitely won in that case.
-
Well that's one try. . . Who's gonna convince me why I should keep this on top of the US-UK one?
-
Liberator already apologized, dude. Not cool.
Being cool has always been less important than being right. I'm happy to take the latter position over the former any day. :nod::yes:
-
Well that's one try. . . Who's gonna convince me why I should keep this on top of the US-UK one?
Not quite good enough to save it pal.
-
Well that's one try. . . Who's gonna convince me why I should keep this on top of the US-UK one?
Not quite good enough to save it pal.