adidasss

Teenagers discussing politics=comedy gold.

...

OT: Brought up a conservative, went gay. =(

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

N*S*G

DontRunMeOver

I've been loving Inuzuka Skysword's posts, where he'll say something contentious but pretty valid and then back it up with the worst possible examples. e.g.

Simplistic, but still a valid opinion.

And followed by
Which, unless you are talking about yourself specifically and you are already your town basketball hero this is not true at all. Love the logic though.

Or this chestnut of a counter argument
Tangential thinking is all well and good (and hilarious in this case) but it isn't meant to be applied so much to political debate. Unless you're a crazy.

__________________

DontRunMeOver

That just means you went full time gay. Most conservatives here are part-time gay, meaning that they're only gay on saturday nights on poorly-lit grassland with young phillipino lads.

__________________

TheBig3

Actually, you'd be surprised how that argument stands up over here. Recently, when the democrats said they needed to raise taxes because government spending was too high, the republicans said something like "well you should do more to curb government spending." This was roughly a year after the republicans had controlled all three branches for six years.

And the tyrant attitude is almost omnipresent on the right. They said because Clinton was trying to socialize medicine she was trying to tell you what doctors to go to, and what you can do with your health. He said "shes trying to rule your life." Its sad to watch at the power junkies claw for their fix.

If the republicans don't openly support Paul, their screwed.

can you blame them? what better time is there to be *** than on saturday night with a young Filipino?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

riseagainstrocks

Ok, I'm not sure where you're coming from at all with this. How would you be more inclined to believe me if you hadn't said the same thing early. I was merely skimming this thread until I saw the Universal Health Care comment and then started to read intently. I probably shouldn't gone back through the thread but I didn't.

And who is saying governments are a power grab? I understand there are valid reasons for them, I just don't believe that the regulation of services (not goods) should be one of them.

Of course there won't be a renegade company. Apple OWNS iPod, so no one but them can sell it as their own product. Naturally, Apple sets the prices. However with competing products (such as the major video game consoles) prices and service have both improved immensely due to competition. Sony believe the PS3 was worth $600 and the market did not agree, hence the PS3's abysmal first year. Microsoft decided to capture more of the market they would need to deal with hardware problems and so to make the product more desirable, they added the retroactive warrantly on all 360's.

These are examples of companies adjusting to the needs and wants of the market. The market decideds how much something is worth, NOT the company. Going back to UHC, different hospitals all want to make money by selling a similar service (medicine, operations, check-ups, etc.). The moment one hospital realizes it can draw patients by lowering their prices for these things, the consumer begins to win. The market doesn't provide for people paying 10,000 for an operation. And buisnesses will adjust.

I'd also like to respond to your point on monopolies springing up. This is a place for the government to step in. I never said that they shouldn't. Similar to the dissolution of giants like Bell (the telephone company) and Standard Oil were great steps in insuring the continuation of the free market system. I'm all for anti-trust acts. I'm not for government regulation of an industry. Huge difference.

I really don't follow this paragraph.

How will they not need licenses? As far as I'm concerned, I'm not saying change much about the current system. If anything I'm simply saying we should have more control over what doctor's we see and that we become much more financially responsible over our own treatement.


You're right. I grew up in an upper middle class family. I attend a prestigious public university. I've never had a need in my life (although plenty of wants). But that does not mean I can't express my opinion on this topic.

If we go to a UHC system where does the money to pay for the poor going to the doctor come from? ME! As heartless as it sounds, I want my money to be spent on ME or on things that I want to spend it on. I went to school, I studied, I worked, I made money. I'll be damned if my compensation goes to anyone else (minus the obligitory taxes I pay for roads, schools, etc.)

I'd like to zero in on this part of your post, because a lot of it is talking about location specific issues.
1. You're assuming that doctors have a devious plan to price gouge at the first oppurtunity. Lawyer's have a job with near the same prestige, and roughly in the same demand. Largely unregulated system, but it still works because entry level practicioners charge reasonable fee's so they can a) get cases as an unknown and b) make a name for themselves. Doctors would be much the same way. A sought after commodity.
2. No one lives in a vaccum. Travel is too easy these days to let that be an excuse.


again, this system actually taps into greed. Doctors who want money, will be willing to do a little bit more work. If not, they won't make money.

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

Urban Hat€monger ?

That wasn't a dig at your own background , just pointing out that if you were to go sick where everybody 'bettered themselves' who would clean your hospitals? who would cook your meals for you? Ambulance Staff , Hospital porters , forget it.
Nurses are some of the lowest paid public sector workers out there , hell some nurses who work in London can't afford to even live there . Would you like them to all up & leave to become accountants or lawyers too?
And their wages wouldn't get better under the private sector either , they'd just go & hire cheap labour from Asia / eastern Europe / Philippines because they have their shareholders to think of.
Of course it's perfectly OK for you to have your 'me me me' opinion. Let's hope you'll never be in the situation where you have to appreciate the long hours & low wages that these people have to deal with to make your life better.

__________________

riseagainstrocks

How is any of this mine, or societies fault? You're creating a sob story to garner sympathy for this man, when it seems to me, living in America the vast majority of this could be avoided. We offer FREE education until you're 19 (21 in some states). Do good in school, you can get into college (many colleges compare you to the rest of your school, meaning urban and inner city kids DO have a shot). Sure, you won't get into Dartmouth, but a good state school will accept you. Oh, and if you can't support a kid, don't ****ing have one.

lol, since when have I said that I should go in front of him. Dude, I want to own my own record studio. I'm not gonna have tons of money either. I am however going to make sure to set aside cash so if the **** does hit the fan, I'll be ok. And why go to a doctor who will do uneeded test. If you have cancer, then do some research on it. Make the doctor explain himself.

Besides, you have to cynical of a view of the health profession. I doubt anyone is out to get you (or Benjamin)

So now, it's my fault he has depression and got divorced. You're not even making a simple arguement anymore. You're reading into this so much it's hilarious. My response from the first point stands.

Sounds a lot like his problem and not mine.

Why is it naive? It works in most all other industries. You're buying into this vast conspiracy theory. Even if that was the case, doctors are engaged in private practice all the time. Setting your own prices + close contact with the community = high quality care by someone you know at an affordable rate. Granted, for major surgery, you'd have to go to a hospital, but agian, CEO's don't have some clandestine organization waiting to screw over the general populace.

Why should my money go to someone else? That's where we disagree fundamentaly and I don't think that will change.

What it comes down to is different morality. I'm selfish and look out for my own interest. I have enough of my own problems without worrying about others. I don't want to government telling me how to deal with my own ****, nor do I want to contribute to a slush fund where others can use it for their own mishaps.

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

riseagainstrocks

There will always be the poor. I know that. I also know that there is enough wealth in the world for everyone to be well off. Yes, it's true. According to economist Bjorn Lumborg, in 20 years the lower class in Asia will be as well off (on the whole, not all of them) as America's middle class. As a globe we are getting wealthier, thanks in large part to implentation of competition throughout the globe.

Merit systems > tradition. ANYONE can move up the ladder if they show drive and aptitude. Again, I think this is merely a fundamental point we disagree on. I see and respect your position, but to me the idea of UHC is repugnant as well as immoral.

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

cardboard adolescent

a) Thanksgiving is bull****.
b) The very fact that the constitution has 27 amendments implies to me that it's outdated... I mean if you look at the French they've had a ****load of Constitutions, their current one is only fifty years old and they've already amended it 18 times. Either the French have ADD or we're just really stubborn. Both are probably true.
c) The fact that we're all ****ty people is the reason why any sort of socio political economic system will never work perfectly. We'd probably still need one if we were all perfect (whatever the hell that means). That argument had nothing to do with my vague points, however.
d) I dislike Ron Paul because he is the "CHAMPION OF THE CONSTITUTION," which seems ridiculous because it implies you'll disagree with someone else's views or policies simply on the basis of what it says in the constitution. As you yourself pointed out, the whole point is that we can change it so that it fits with social currents, not stick to it regardless of what happens.
e) I am a bright bulb.

Thank you.