|
Author
|
Topic: the black guy
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-09-2008 03:12 AM
10,000K: Mister K do you like the black guy for president? I am tempted to like him because he alludes that I will be happier if he is elected.
Well, that is worth something. Reagan had horrible policies and fucked up this nation for generations to come...but he seemed like a friendly old granpa and made people feel better. That has value.
Also we need a president who has the capacity to make people around the world stop hating us for a little while. So, that's also something.
When I saw his convention speech in 2004, I thought "Holy shit, who is that guy? I'd vote for him!". Al Sharpton also gives great speech, but sadly he is a racist lunatic.
Obama's racist lunatic pastor doesn't bother me, because all religious people are insane and will embarrass any politician they hang around with if you leave them in front of microphone for long enough. I'd rather Obama be an atheist, but if he has to join a church, then joining one that actually helps the community is better than a bunch of hand-wringing Protestants who use church as a chance to gossip and see who has the biggest SUV.
If he manages to shut Hillary up for four years, I might actually vote for him just for saving the Democratic Party from a miserable fate.
The black guy tells the truth more often than the other two, and while he is not a master debater, he acts like an adult and holy shit is that refreshing. Here he puts the smack down on Hillary without raising his voice:
quote:
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle [regarding his reaction to Farrakhan's stated support for the black guy, which has fucking nothing to do with anything]?
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
[applause]
The fact that he is smart and not afraid to let others know this is also refreshing. He's also fairly liberal (for a Democrat), which I of course like. So far, I agree with most of what he says, and I don't even agree with Nader all the time, so that's pretty good.
He's the first Democrat I've seriously considered voting for since Dukakis, back when I didn't know any better.
The world would surely be a better place if he were president. So, for now, I'm thinking about voting for him.
If Clinton somehow swindles him out of the nomination or Obama says something completely stupid that I don't agree with before November, I can always vote for Nader, so I'm happy with things as they are.
If anyone cares, I will rant about how the media is completely worthless and stupid, but I don't think anyone will even read everything I just wrote.
So, whatever.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-10-2008 06:30 PM
I thought this thread was about Jump.
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ieR2
Farting Nudist
Member # 3934
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-12-2008 01:50 AM
Also thought you were talking about Jumpman. He's a black dude that all black dudes can look up too.
From: CA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-12-2008 06:05 PM
I don't agree with LOLbama's altruistic approach to federal hand holding; but maybe that's just because I'm not much of a democrat. massive inner city renewal in *10* US cities - funded by the federal government? Why shouldn't the states those cities handle that? Why exactly do we have states again? seat belt laws? No reason someone in Gnome, Alaska should be signing a check because poor kids in Chicago don't get enough ice cream. Additional tax breaks for lower class families with multiple children (you know- to encourage them to not have more); socialized health care (because if I'm healthy I should still be paying for other people who arn't) etc etc. On top of that he's more than happy to unilaterally supposed Israeli terrorism while supporters proclaim he's "a president who has the capacity to make people around the world stop hating us for a little while." His wishy-washy Iran stance is creepy. On top of that the statements he's made concerning the power the US Judicial branch should (read:should not) have... I mean come on...
along with valid reasons for not being high on what lolbama is smoking - I dislike the gross, collegey marketing that goes with him. The political jesus who will make you happy and fix everything. How? Meh details details. What will it cost? "the price of freedom" blah blah. It's the image and his "Change Change Change" that has the unhappy, poor and "president's control the outcome of my personal happiness" drooling at the bit. After all doesn't everyone want things to be better? Obama stands for making things better! Obama for me!
It's like there is a collective ignorance that buys what he's talking ("Yes We Can!"), without actually thinking critically about the repurcussions of his plans. But then again my neighbors that pay a smaller share of their children's education costs than I do (owing to property taxes) probably love his shit.
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-12-2008 10:19 PM
Well, if you're a Republican who actually buys what the party sells, I can't imagine a Democrat appealing to you. However, most people have no freakin' idea why they are in the party they are in, so a charismatic leader can sway them.
I would say that socialism makes a whole lot more sense when you come close to retirement and you realize the repercussions of all the talk of "rugged individualism" and all that other poop.
We used to live in a world where people had pensions and didn't need to funnel 20% of their income into the stock market to support corporations, just so they could retire in dignity. There was also this thing called the GI Bill that changed society and made America into the powerhouse it is slowly backing away from.
I'd be happy to pay a much larger tax bill if I didn't have to pay for medical insurance (which is crazy expensive) or throw so much cash into my 401(k). We'd have more disposable income now, and no stress about the future. But that doesn't benefit the corporations, and people can't see past that initial tax bill, so it will take some kind of crisis for us to get there. Maybe when the Boomers start running into serious trouble, they will actually get something going here.
In terms of simple efficiency, many other countries with socialized medicine spend a far smaller percentage of their GDP on medical care, and have better service and longer lifespans.
The older I get, the more I realize that this slavish devotion to capitalism we teach in school only continues because corporations are running the country. If they can trick you into thinking the oil companies are heroes, while waving the flag at the same time, people are going to eat that shit up.
But, if you're young and independently wealthy, socialism seems creaky and only for the elderly and welfare queens. The proof is in the pudding, but pudding is gross and no one likes to look at it.
I'll take Obama's positive marketing strategy, by the way, of the Republican's "vote for us or there will be World War III and fags humping on your lawn".
The "collective ignorance" you're talking about that applies across the board in politics.
The one thing I do agree with you on is Obama's coddling of Israel, but I think in this country you have to certain things or the Jews Who Run Everything will shut you down. I suspect he would have marginally better policy in this area, but I don't know how much he could get away with.
At the very least, he could get our previous friends to stop hating us, because as much as Dubya doesn't want to admit it, we need "Old Europe" and other friends now. We're not the America we used to be, and never will be again.
[ 05-13-2008, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-13-2008 12:01 PM
I had a big reply all set - hit submit and then it got erased due to a "no html tag" error.
I will say that there are a lot of fallacies associated with the benefits of social welfare systems as goverments; Obama is very good at playing to them for the sake of his campaign.
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-13-2008 07:24 PM
10K: I will say that there are a lot of fallacies associated with the benefits of social welfare systems as goverments; Obama is very good at playing to them for the sake of his campaign.
I would guess he's probably "playing to them" because he believes them.
Anyway, it's clear that what we're doing now is not working and what other countries are doing is working. Of course, a lot of stuff that works other places doesn't work here, but we've tried market-based solutions, might as well try something that could potentially work.
If it doesn't we can just try something else. The fact that Obama is willing to say that has earned some respect in my book.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dragonite21
Farting Nudist
Member # 475
|
posted 05-14-2008 05:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
I would say that socialism makes a whole lot more sense when you come close to retirement and you realize the repercussions of all the talk of "rugged individualism" and all that other poop.
Whilst I don't disagree with this, is it practical? The West's population is aging, and I wouldn't bet on a dwindling number of young people being willing to give up increasing slices of their salaries to help old people they've never met. (Also, I've met very few old people in recent years who don't suck.)
The problem doesn't seem, to me, what Obama is saying, but his capacity to deliver on it...wait, is this even a policy? I'm only tangenitally interested in US politics inasmuch as it's important to know which country you guys plan to bomb next.
quote:
Maybe when the Boomers start running into serious trouble, they will actually get something going here.
When the Boomers run into trouble, they won't be a powerful enough political group to change anything anyway, and no-one will care. Good riddance to them. Maybe we'll have a chance instead.
quote:
At the very least, he could get our previous friends to stop hating us, because as much as Dubya doesn't want to admit it, we need "Old Europe" and other friends now.
Hmm? Why do you need us, just out of interest? (I'm not being obtuse, I'm genuinely curious.)
[ 05-14-2008, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Dragonite21 ]
From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-14-2008 12:01 PM
D21: ...is it practical? The West's population is aging...
It's inevitable, unless we want to go back to old people eating dog food. The market has failed and we're going to need to do something. Despite what Libertarians and Republicans say, these government programs are far more efficient than private industry.
The free market makes sense for many aspects of the economy, but when the ultimate goal is providing necessary services for people, the market is just about the worst way to go.
The goal of a corporation is not to provide superior goods and/or services, the goal is to make as much money as possible by whatever means necessary. That goal is in direct opposition to programs designed to help people.
The problem doesn't seem, to me, what Obama is saying, but his capacity to deliver on it...
Well, that's the problem with all politicians. If they aren't even saying the right thing, though, they'll never even try it. Obama gives good speech and has the potential to persuade people, so there is the potential for change.
The Boomers, by the way, have lots of political power, income, and numbers. They are also extremely vain, and so, potentially, will have the power to affect policy that leads to a high quality of life for the elderly. And old people vote like crazy.
Why do you need us, just out of interest?
Because the stellar American rise to power is over. We're old news. The Euro is kicking our ass, China and India are screaming up on us, and we've exploited all our easy options.
We were shot out of a cannon after World War II, but expansions don't continue on forever. We've had a good run, and I doubt we'll collapse overnight, but as we're losing steam, other nations and groups are getting their shit together.
Nations like that need friends. China has already helped us bail out the dollar, but that's just a band aid on a much larger wound.
Democrats have done a much better job of fiscal policy in any of our lifetimes, so the current problems could be helped by a smart Democrat, but the overarching problem is still the natural plateauing of the nation after the WWII expansion.
I don't know if FDR's policies would work to the same extent now, but some kind of massive government offensive to repair and revitalize our infrastructure would be awesome.
We've got to stop this hopeless groupthink that has people believing that the best thing they can do for themselves is to help out the big corporations.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-14-2008 06:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
the ultimate goal [of a government] is providing necessary services for people
?
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-15-2008 05:02 AM
I guess if you're a libertarian, the only purpose of a government is to run the police and the military (roads and utilities be damned!), but civilized societies try to keep the old people off the streets.
It's kind of interesting seeing the coverage of the Chinese earthquake. I realize it's a larger catastrophe than New Orleans, but they sent in 100,000 troops and they're paratrooping in help to remote villages.
Probably because no black people lived there.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-15-2008 02:59 PM
A friend of a friend is out in China on business right now dealing with that shit. He was inside a building right in the thick of it, but they quickly evacuated and made it out okay. Their hotel (~1 hr away) wouldn't let them back in because something-something aftershock tremors, and it's evidently fucking impossible to get a flight out of China at the moment. Hope they pull through okay.
I am not very good at politics because I think taxes are gay, but I also think European countries are pretty cool because they have nice things that I want here that came from government programs. The common trend appears to be that they have to pay a shitload in taxes, but if the end result is a country that isn't a colossal piece of shit, I think I could learn to be okay with that.
I hear a lot of back-and-forth whining re: government-subbed health care from local pals, and I'm having a hard time formulating an opinion one way or the other. The missus is concerned that it will somehow eventually lead to the prominence of shitty quality medical care, since government-subsidized anything always kinda sucks in the interest of being massively available and as cheap as possible. I have some small business stuff on the side where I use a shitload of USPS: it's cheap to send small packages through them, but they offer crappy tracking, they lose or misplace parcels with annoying frequency, and they just generally kinda suck to deal with in comparison to UPS/FedEx (who are prohibitively expensive for my purposes). It's jarring to think about this kind of philosophy/approach being applied to medical care, where the highest quality equipment and best/brightest physicians are of huge importance.
On the other hand, I recently had multi-thousand-dollar wrist surgery courtesy of a random snowboarding accident, so that kinda sucked. If you'd asked me about health care even an hour prior to that, I probably would have said "hey fuck off, I'm healthy and paying for other stupid sick people to get better is for commies." ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
All told, I am a big Barack lover, and I think it would be a travesty if we missed out on giving him a chance in favor of either of the two fucknosed bobblehead alternatives. The only political issues I can be bothered to really care about are the state of our telecom infrastructure and the preservation of net neutrality: the black guy is the only one that's even got them on the radar.
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ieR2
Farting Nudist
Member # 3934
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-16-2008 12:30 AM
lul, serious topic. ![[PBJ Time!]](graemlins/pbjtime.gif)
Here SC, let me buy you a new pair of briefs to match your interests:
- - - - -
Itidiots.com
From: CA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr k mouth
Farting Nudist
Member # 802
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-16-2008 04:13 AM
Those are boxers.
- - - - -
LP Elian: or, like.. when i was younger, i was hard .. like.. 25/7
LP Elian: i couldn't help it
LP Elian: like.. all elementary school, i had a hard-on
From: I OWN PORNBOT AT CS | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-16-2008 05:10 AM
I think universal health care would end up very similar to the USPS situation. In the general case, everyone would be covered and would receive decent, but not exemplary, service.
I can't remember the last time I sent something through the USPS that didn't make it, although the tracking does indeed suck. I used to use Priority Mail pretty heavily and never ran into a case where the package didn't arrive or arrived late.
The government is great at working out how to do the easy stuff efficiently and cheaply.
However, if you have an oddly-shaped package or something extremely fragile, there are probably going to be problems. I imagine a similar thing in health care. 99% of things would be handled satisfactorily and we might actually be able to get more preventative care going to save money on clusterfucks down the road.
But in cases where something big like a heart transplant is necessary, the new system would, in aggregate, probably be worse than it is now (for those who actually currently have care). Rich people would turn to a private solution like FedEx but all people would have the opportunity to get some service, which is better than things are now. People wouldn't have to fly to India to get common surgeries.
It'd still be America and the wealthy will always have extra opportunities.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-18-2008 10:26 AM
I finally got around to watching a Frontline on my TiVo from last month. They look at the successes and problems of five other countries with universal health care.
The one thing that's clear is that there are many systems, but ours is the pretty much the worst in the free world.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-19-2008 03:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
The one thing that's clear is that there are many systems, but ours is the pretty much the worst in the free world.
I am very happy with my health care. so for me, it seems the best in the free world as I don't have to pay for Michael Moore's impending triple bypass nor StarCaliber's nooby snow boarding frag. On top of that I get to *pick* my doctors and hospitals.
I'm not much into MTV, but this article by Kurt Loder is pretty spot on imo:
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml
(it's more than a Sicko commentary, as it focuses on many false truths inherant with Socialist health care)
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-19-2008 04:15 PM
10K: I am very happy with my health care.
The healthy are always happy with their health care. Anyway, at least we know that you're not a Republican by accident.
Also I wouldn't go to either Moore or the Empty Vee for serious information about anything. Loder accuses Moore of cherry-picking cases that back up his point, then praises some other movie that does exactly the same thing.
The Frontline show addresses all the concerns Loder brings up and makes two strong points: 1) no one goes bankrupt for medical reasons in the countries they examine (roughly 700K Americans do each year) and 2) despite being socialistic, their systems are far more efficient (yet another example of the inability of the free market to deal with certain industries).
Of course, if you're a Republican, you'll never be convinced because of your "values".
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-20-2008 11:04 AM
If you are going to compare health care systems don't you think a better way would be to judge the number of people treated/helped, availability and other things besides the cost? If I need life saving penis replacement surgery some day I'm more interested in the quality of the penis I will get -- not so much the cost. Also in terms of efficiency Kurt Loder seems to directly refute your claim about over seas health care efficiency with his France example. Tossing it away because it isn't a sweeping generalization is not valid.
as for the date line story on health care. Sorry if I don't find a news magazine show whose funding is dependent on ratings as an unbiased, valid, unquestionable source of information.
as a separate note. If the US adopts nationalized healthcare it needs to outlaw smoking. make it unconditionally illegal -- same with chewing tobacco. I don't want to pay for someone to slowly kill themselves. If we are going to coddle their health with government handholding then we have to coerce proper decision making as any good parent would do.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Of course, if you're a Republican, you'll never be convinced because of your "values".
my personal, evil-republican belief system:
-provide for others welfare via own accord, not a government's mandate.
-Personal responsibility
-self reliance and a belief system that recognizes "shit happens" and it can suck (& no one but my mommy's responsibility to make it feel ok).
-The less government, generally the better
And if you're a Demoscrat you'll never be convinced because
The system is fucked up.
how is it fucked?
just look at it.
I don't think the system is fucked
not yet maybe, just wait though. TV (realistic world view as it affects me and you personally) states there is a 1/400 chance you will be bankrupt this yeer (Not of course taking into any account personal responsibility of maintaining your personal health, safety or financial planning in lieu of accidents happening but still that's messed up).
I'll take my chances tyvm. did you get fucked over?
yes and it hurts ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Plz pay for my operation to get unfucked over. Then everything will be square and I will be happy and not ax you for help (unless something else bad ever happens again then I reserve right to make it sound like I am being shorted). Also give more of your money to support people that do not have it as well as the future children they will someday have. That will make them un poor and increase their well being. The circle of life means it will come back to everyone in turn. The world will gradually become better and better and bad things will go away (due to the heightened effort we put into preventing bad things). Can I have a dollar?
why?
because you have 5 you heartless monster >:|
: (
[ 05-20-2008, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-20-2008 04:14 PM
10K: If you are going to compare health care systems don't you think a better way would be to judge the number of people treated/helped, availability and other things besides the cost?
Yes, and they did that. People have higher life expectancies in the countries they examined, although there are certainly other factors involved. But given that we spend so much more on our system than other countries do, you'd at least expect us to rank a little higher.
People are also satisfied with their care, more so than in this country, which is a more important metric.
Also in terms of efficiency Kurt Loder seems to directly refute your claim about over seas health care efficiency with his France example.
Well, nice to know that Kurt Loder is your new god, but the Frontline show addresses these issues as well. Most of the health care systems they looked at were in debt, but people also paid significantly less than we do. Even if getting out of debt required doubling the cost, they'd still be paying less than we do.
Additionally, the requirement to keep costs down has resulted in innovation and streamlined paperwork, leading to superior efficiency (which there is currently no motivation to accomplish here).
as for the date line story on health care. Sorry if I don't find a news magazine show whose funding is dependent on ratings as an unbiased, valid, unquestionable source of information.
1. Frontline not Dateline, which is important because, 2. PBS not NBC (ie, no advertisers to appease), and 3. thanks for not even checking out the data which conflicts with your worldview, even though I read your shitty Loder article.
Your little play with the fictional Democrat in the room was cute, but irrelevant. I wasn't making any judgments, just saying that socialized medicine is antithetical to the Republican philosophy, so there's no way you'd agree with the principle.
You might have looked at the data and come to a belief that the system is pragmatically better even if it violates your sense of rugged individualism, and it makes for a higher quality of life, while still allowing you the ability to spend too much money for care if that's what you really want.
But that thing you did was OK too.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dragonite21
Farting Nudist
Member # 475
|
posted 05-21-2008 07:09 AM
10K do you also not believe that education should be free and universal? Emergency services?
From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-21-2008 01:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dragonite21:
10K do you also not believe that education should be free and universal? Emergency services?
Things paid for by taxes does not make them free (surprised?). Some people believe that if the cost of providing a said service by/for themselves (without the government's assistance) would be more than what they pay in taxes to the goverment for the service than the service can be considered essentially "free". That is fallacious - other people are paying the difference in price between the two for you.
Some people say "everybody needs it though" which for some things is true - emergency services, public education, water treatment, etc. This is why such services are subsidized by the government via taxes. However some people are unclear on the line between what constitutes a need and a want.
Should car insurance be socialized? everyone who drives a car has to have it. Ah but wait - not everyone drives a car. Should high speed internet service be subsidized? Ah but wait - not everyone chooses to own a computer. Should energy be subsidized by the government? Should health care be socialized? Everyone who requires expensive medical procedures wants it. Ah but wait - 1.) not everyone requires expensive medical procedures 2.) Health insurance already exists to help those who do.
"but the costs can be inconvenient/prohibitive when you require expensive medical procedures"
1.) Expensive medical procedures should be convenient?
2.) A triple bypass should be universally accessible to everyone at "everyone else's" costs? (This is a crux, I of course disagree)
3.) So now the goverment's expected role shifts to individual's conveniences?
"Yes - look at France"
Feel free to move to France
"no because then I wouldn't live in America"
yes exactly
It's as if this viewpoint relishes the freedom and opportunity America provides and yet desires more regulation, welfare and centralized control by a central government. And the irony remains unseen. And somehow these same people are the "Liberals"? The ones that want more government control and regulation? Never made sense to me.
if we recognize an individual's responsibility to drive a car lawfully (and therefore place the onus on them to pay for damages they cause in the process of driving via personal auto insurance); why do some consider the responsibility of maintaining one's own physical upkeep that of the government's (or anyone else besides our own)? Why is it my responsibility to pay for 7-11 Big Gulp Lady's hypertension pills? The implication is that an individual's health and risk of snowboarding accident is by no means controllable. Which is grossly ignorant. Yes of course shit happens. Why would I ever expect someone else to pay for damages accrued to me via shit happening?
Wants can seemingly be perceived as needs when the cost difference of providing a good or service for yourself, by yourself is compared to the *personal* tax increase if paid to the goverment to provide it for you.
suddenly many things would be less expensive and cantidates for government help by those in want (energy, auto insurance, disaster insurance); and yet in the process, those who are not in need or want foot the bill.
"meer pennies".
Then you pay them.
"but then the system will not work".
Then the system does not work.
"Yes we Can!"
/facepalm
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-21-2008 03:50 PM
10K: Some people believe that if the cost of providing a said service by/for themselves (without the government's assistance) would be more than what they pay in taxes to the goverment for the service than the service can be considered essentially "free". That is fallacious - other people are paying the difference in price between the two for you.
What you're ignoring is that the service would be cheaper for everyone, because unifying the system results in greater efficiency and lower prices (since the government will have collective bargaining power and market forces spur innovation). This isn't theoretical, this is what's happened in numerous instances.
I assume you are currently paying for medical insurance. A streamlined socialized system would result in your payments dropping considerably, for the same level of service. I know you're not interested in helping others, but why wouldn't you want to do what's in your best interest?
However some people are unclear on the line between what constitutes a need and a want.
Your claim is that medical care is not a need?
I know you desperately want to reinforce your Republican beliefs, but the imaginary arguments with positions no one is putting forth are getting a little weird.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dragonite21
Farting Nudist
Member # 475
|
posted 05-22-2008 05:48 AM
10K: Things paid for by taxes does not make them free (surprised?).
...
You know what I mean.
"no because then I wouldn't live in America"
Well, I don't. Since I do live somewhere which has free medical care (paid for through taxation blah blah) I don't particularly care what you do in your country regarding it. It's just interesting.
What happens over there when someone gets seriously ill and they don't have medical insurance? Can they get access to really basic treatment? Or do you just let them die?
From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-22-2008 11:10 AM
@K - I get my health insurance via work. I wouldn't be getting any extra money as salary if the price of coverage was lowered. In fact I would be paying MORE for health insurance because I would be covering your ass and other strangers via taxes.
...so then is my motivation for paying for other people's coverage stemming from an appeal to pity on behalf of the common man that I ought feed, clothe and pay for his triple bypass? :/
quote:
You know what I mean
people actually think "other people paying for it" == free!! >_<
quote:
Can they get access to really basic treatment? Or do you just let them die?[/QB]
no hospital will ever turn down someone for emergency treatment on account of inability to pay. ever.
but wait! you still get billed for it! So even if I can't afford the life saving surgery the hospital gives me, I am still responsible to pay the bill! Sucks more than death huh??
people are generally pissed that after their life is saved they have to pay a lot of money for the services. After all, they assumedly question, how on earth could life saving emergency surgery cost more than a brand new luxury vehicle (which is worth the cost)?
every year, Death kills people in America; however, rest assured billions of dollars are spent here in the hope to someday cure this malignant, unnatural disease ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-23-2008 02:29 PM
10K: I get my health insurance via work.
Almost everyone does. Are you actually paying for it or do they pick up the tab?
If they do, then I can at least respect your God-given Republican right to crow about screwing over the vast majority of the population to benefit an elite few. Although, think how much your company would save if they only had to pay half as much for your insurance.
In fact I would be paying MORE for health insurance because I would be covering your ass and other strangers via taxes.
This is where you're wrong, because you're not paying attention. The price goes down for everyone. I know it just kills you that would be helping others, but you'd do it at no cost to yourself. I know this is not something care about, but you ought to understand that you're only doing it out of spite.
...so then is my motivation for paying for other people's coverage stemming from an appeal to pity on behalf of the common man that I ought feed, clothe and pay for his triple bypass?
No, it ought to be to help yourself (given that you will not be in your current situation for your entire life). Or at least help others at no cost to yourself. Appealing to a Republican's sense of compassion would be foolish.
no hospital will ever turn down someone for emergency treatment on account of inability to pay.
The number of hospital visits could be drastically reduced with preventative care, and it would cost everyone less money if we spent a little money up front to avoid catastrophic events later. Whenever the poor get emergency services they can't pay for, people who buy insurance end up paying for them anyway. Given that that's inevitable, we might as well try to minimize those costs (although this has the outrageous side effect of helping others, and therefore you must oppose it).
people are generally pissed that after their life is saved they have to pay a lot of money for the services.
If you make $30K a year and something beyond your control happens to you, and suddenly you're staring at $20K in hospital bills...you're not "pissed", you're bankrupt. Obviously someone has to pay, but it's hilarious that you are willing to look down your nose at these people, simply because you caught a good break when you were born.
I think Thrax hit the nail on the head:
quote:
so basically you're a boring, uninteresting person who thinks being rich and constantly mentioning his rich-people toys is an acceptable substitute for being interesting. ... you are pretty much a kind of sentient cancer that the rest of the world has to put up with.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-23-2008 04:09 PM
quote:
If you make $30K a year and something beyond your control happens to you, and suddenly you're staring at $20K in hospital bills...
quote:
Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
...so then is my motivation for paying for other people's coverage stemming from an appeal to pity on behalf of the common man that I ought feed, clothe and pay for his triple bypass? :/
additionally - and tied in further below (see preventative care), what happens if something in your control happens to you? No difference? You stipulated "beyond control" so I am thinking there is a difference -- what happens when 7-11 Big Gulp Lady has here triple bypass or develops liver failure due to alcoholism? (or are they considered beyond control)?
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.K:
Obviously someone has to pay
K: "someone = everyone"
me: "someone = person who had the surgery"
K: ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
quote:
The number of hospital visits could be drastically reduced with preventative care, and it would cost everyone less money if we spent a little money up front to avoid catastrophic events later.
So fewer hospital visits with more doctor visits? I think you missed the footnote that preventative care is the responsibility of an individual to take of themselves... it is strange that you assume a doctor needs to be paid to do this for everyone in America "to reduce health care costs".
if instead you aknowledge preventative care for what it really is (exercise, eating well etc.)... I'm wondering why you want me to pay for those who do not take care of themselves due to either ignorance or apathy. Oh wait I see. (I bolded it above)
quote:
simply because you caught a good break when you were born.
I take that to mean "Denver, CO is way cooler than Florida" and I agree -- otherwise what
quote:
"you're a boring, uninteresting person who thinks being rich and constantly mentioning his rich-people toys is an acceptable substitute for being interesting. ... you are pretty much a kind of sentient cancer that the rest of the world has to put up with."
per aspera ad hominem! (if I may coin a phrase)
and look it's even in Latin! The fitting choice of a conservative, rugged individualist. Being a Classics major just felt useful
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-23-2008 06:21 PM
The point you continue to ignore is that everyone benefits from a more streamlined system, including you.
I accept not wanting to help others at some cost to you as a selfish but logical position, but preventing everyone (including yourself) from having a better time of things because some freeloading action that has no effect on you will take place is inexplicable in any context except spite, or perhaps ignorance.
10K: I'm wondering why you want me to pay for those who do not take care of themselves due to either ignorance or apathy.
Because it saves you money and results in better service for you. The side effect is that others have a nicer life and our society becomes more civilized, but you can ignore that stuff and still reap the benefits (unless you place a higher value in righteous anger than quality of service or cost).
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MewtwoSama
Asshole
Member # 12
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-25-2008 03:01 PM
I have no income and the state pays my medical and dental bills.
e: The state also gives me food.
[ 05-25-2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
- - - - -
Hade ni ikuze!
From: Abyss of Evil | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ieR2
Farting Nudist
Member # 3934
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-25-2008 05:45 PM
blah blah blah, boring guys. Let's summon Jumpman already.
EARTH!
- - - - -
Itidiots.com
From: CA | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-27-2008 10:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
The point you continue to ignore is that everyone benefits from a more streamlined system, including you.
please quantify your lazy assertion with how this system is implemented. quid pro quo and all that jazz; (the black guy waving a fairy wand doesn't count). And no sources that you won't link to >_<
[ 05-27-2008, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 05-30-2008 05:20 AM
I already linked to the source, but I assume you've been too lazy to click.
There's proof of the improved efficiency in numerous other countries who have completely switched from our system to universal health care, as well as proof in our own country of Medicare and Medicaid saving buttloads of money (due to increased bargaining capacity, streamlined paperwork, etc.).
Note that if it's universal, everyone who pays taxes is paying for it. That means you'll only be able to get angry at those who currently pay no taxes, which is not a lot of people. Well, I suppose you can get angry at whomever you like, but you get my point.
EDIT: Note that Obama's health plan isn't a proper universal plan anyway (due to irrational fears from certain citizens, and maybe he's a slave to the same pharmaceutical companies that own Hillary, I dunno), but that doesn't make this conversation any less valid.
[ 05-30-2008, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dragonite21
Farting Nudist
Member # 475
|
posted 05-31-2008 06:02 AM
K: The Boomers, by the way, have lots of political power, income, and numbers. They are also extremely vain, and so, potentially, will have the power to affect policy that leads to a high quality of life for the elderly. And old people vote like crazy.
I hope that we outnumber them at some point. The Boomers are largely complicit, as a whole, in impoverishing my generation and they can fuck off for all I care.
Kind of off topic, though. Also I realise it's paradoxical to support universal healthcare but not old people but...you know, old people suck.
Also the world they instituted was accepted - grudingly, in some cases, I think, but still accepted - by GenXers like 10K who, as a result, are an astonishingly self-interested bunch of narcissists, with no real idea about the mechanics of society. I mean, Libertarianism was fine when we all lived in hamlets or whatever, but in the context of an industrial or postindustrial society where most of the human population in the West live in urban conurbations?
You only have to look at his posts which boil every single other person in the world apart from 10K down to 'Big Gulp Lady' (whoever the fuck that is) to see what I mean. If you want to put it in economic terms, a healthy nation is more productive and therefore in the interests of everyone, just as an educated nation is. But any suggestion of that is rebutted with "no u!" because heaven forbid that a country's citizens have an obligation to one another, even when it's everyone's interests to do so.
Isn't it a paradox that those who most loudly proclaim that they "love America" seem most willing to let its citizens suffer with sub-par healthcare (and education?) and spend the money instead on bombing shitty countries and then spending more reconstructing them.
Maybe I've just got the wrong end of the stick.
[ 05-31-2008, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Dragonite21 ]
From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-02-2008 12:07 PM
quote:
The Boomers are largely complicit, as a whole, in impoverishing my generation and they can fuck off for all I care.
...Also I realise it's paradoxical to support universal healthcare but not old people but...you know, old people suck.
so you are all for socialized health care but don't think it should cover old people -- "interesting."
quote:
Also the world they instituted was accepted - grudingly, in some cases, I think, but still accepted - by GenXers like 10K who, as a result, are an astonishingly self-interested bunch of narcissists, with no real idea about the mechanics of society. I mean, Libertarianism was fine when we all lived in hamlets or whatever, but in the context of an industrial or postindustrial society where most of the human population in the West live in urban conurbations?
actually the majority of US population (subject of this thread) resides *outside* of large cities.
regardless you need to present why altruism is required by modern society. (Would also be nice if you can explain why unselfish devotion to old people is *not* required).
finally you described some people as "astonishingly self-interested". What is astonishing about being self-interested?
[ 06-02-2008, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dragonite21
Farting Nudist
Member # 475
|
posted 06-03-2008 09:36 AM
10k: so you are all for socialized health care but don't think it should cover old people
I don't think I said that. I was thinking more about pensions, and their complaints about the increase in energy/fuel prices (which is a symptom of the energy crisis at large, and therefore not something that anyone can do much about).
actually the majority of US population (subject of this thread) resides *outside* of large cities.
I did not say 'large cities', the concept of what constitutes a 'large city' being subject to flux; I said 'urban area'.
regardless you need to present why altruism is required by modern society.
If by 'required' you mean 'what is the economic benefit?', I did.
finally you described some people as "astonishingly self-interested". What is astonishing about being self-interested?
Fair point, I suppose.
From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
White Cat
Nobody knows why I'm an admin.
Member # 42
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-04-2008 01:14 AM
Your long national nightmare is over.
From: Calgary | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-04-2008 02:45 AM
What's astonishing (well, not really) is the way 10K flees from any interesting point of discussion or data and leaps on any pointless detail or personal attack with such relish. I'm a little embarrassed by how long it took me to notice I was being griefed.
Also I never thought I'd read anything of value from Cracked, which was always Mad magazine's shitty inbred second cousin. And Mad was never good either. I knew the intarweb was for something.
Also also I have a larger version of that picture of the monkey riding a dog and I was going to make it the Karp Park image before I got so completely bored with the place that I even stopped doing simple maintenance.
Also also also the only foreseeable thing that Obama could to do make me not vote for him would be to make Hillary VP. This is his first big test in my eyes. He's said most of the right things so far (whereas Hillary pointed out how great it would be if someone would just murder the negro and give her the friggin' biscuit already).
Also also also also it's funny that Hillary keeps saying she's going on. The press should have started ignoring her months ago. Once you lose the game, it doesn't matter whether you concede defeat or not. It's not like you have to wait for the coaches to shake hands before a loss is official. You don't lose the Super Bowl and then have a press conference discussing where your season is moving on from here and the important decisions you still have to make.
The media is worthless.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-04-2008 11:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
[QB]What's astonishing (well, not really) is the way 10K flees from any interesting point of discussion or data and leaps on any pointless detail or personal attack with such relish. I'm a little embarrassed by how long it took me to notice I was being griefed.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
bait ?
also what's your idea of interesting converstaion? drag's sweeping, vague notion that Gen Xers + old people == terrible state of world today doesn't really warrant comment, nor does "no srsly - this dateline article is really good". It was interesting - it didn't move me believe we need to adopt a socialized health care system (just like MTV's article didn't unconvince you of the same) so N/A.
What interests me surprisingly are the things you have passed over instead choosing passive aggressive cold reading to present resentment (like the legality/ethics of tobacco, Carl's Jr. 4th of July Burger in a publicly funded health care system).
quote:
Also also also also it's funny that Hillary keeps saying she's going on. Once you lose the game, it doesn't matter whether you concede defeat or not. It's not like you have to wait for the coaches to shake hands before a loss is official. You don't lose the Super Bowl and then have a press conference discussing where your season is moving on from here and the important decisions you still have to make.
I know - because when things get hard - just give up, right? hopefully lolbama has learned this lesson if he becomes president. If this is the model behavior you want people to follow no wonder you are all for a social welfare system (we'd need it) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
a guy here at work said that if Hillary was a Republican she would have won the party nomination a long time ago based on how they determine majority (is that true?). But yeah she should have watched the youtube video's featuring Black Eyed Pea Will-I-Am (YES WE CAN) and known she was done for. Screw that Mrs. Smith goes to Washington crap.
quote:
The press should have started ignoring her months ago ... The media is worthless.
do you just throw shit against a wall and hope that some sticks? "media is worthless" from the guy that says "Nightline fixt healthcares"...
a great thing if Obama gets elected is that Sharpton, Jackson and anyone else that feeds off of social divisions between the races will not have a leg to stand on (with a Black President elected). That might make Obama's glib policy remarks, wife, and gross 6th grade motivational rhetoric endurable ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
also looking forward to less type cast comedy stand up where black guys play the race card for an "YOU KNOW YALL HATE BLACK FOLK" punch line. Can Lolbama add that to his fat platform to?
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-04-2008 03:53 PM
10K: also what's your idea of interesting converstaion?
Well, you momentarily tricked me into thinking you wanted to talk about Obama or health care, but really you just want to shoot the shit about the most appallingly dull superficialities.
I guess I'm spoiled. I'm just not used to all these empty carbs in my conversation. I thought we were gonna do Face the Nation, not Entertainment Tonight. I'm sure you and your friends think you're real deep, but I'm just not interested in what Shia LaBeouf is up to.
I know - because when things get hard - just give up, right?
You can do better than that. At least pretend to defend some plausible position someone might actually have.
[ 06-04-2008, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dragonite21
Farting Nudist
Member # 475
|
posted 06-05-2008 03:59 PM
10K: also what's your idea of interesting converstaion? drag's sweeping, vague notion that Gen Xers + old people == terrible state of world today doesn't really warrant comment
Hm. Perhaps. I've had exams & consequently a fried brain, and parts of my posts are perhaps not the greatest things ever written.
But this is rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You're making some pretty sweeping statements yourself; I mean, what's up with 'Big Gulp Lady'? I don't who she is (cultural reference of some sort?), but am going to assume it's a generic overweight character, whose self-inflicted obesity you use as a good reason not to support universal health care. This ignores the fact that her problems may not be of her own doing, or otherwise could potentially have been kept in check by regular prevantative diagnostics and treatment, which she may be unable to afford under the current system.
Conversely, you might have, say, a single, working mother with two kids who is at the limits of her spending ability and is thus unable (despite being both responsible and hard-working) to spare money for either health insurance or treatment as needed. There does seem, after all, to be a correlation - not exact, but identifiable - between poorer states and the percentage of people who remain uninsured.
My hypothetical situation can no more be taken for the norm than yours, of course, but then, that was the point of the article on Cracked I linked to a couple of posts back. Simply boiling every person who might use universal health care down to whichever bogeyman (or martyr, in my case) you want to use to make your point is hardly a detached and rational way to criticise policy.
The way in which any of this benefits you is more abstract. You could make a comparison with the fire service; it's better to have firemen put out all houses which catch fire, than just the ones which are insured. This is because, even though your own house might be insured, your neighbour's might not, and if it catches fire then it will, of course, affect yours. The same point can be made for healthcare. As for an obligation to the fellow citizens in your country...I know an appeal to altruism probably isn't worth it; when you say stuff like
quote:
every year, Death kills people in America; however, rest assured billions of dollars are spent here in the hope to someday cure this malignant, unnatural disease
then I think we've established what sort of person you are. But consider whether you want to be that sort of person.
I know - because when things get hard - just give up, right? hopefully lolbama has learned this lesson if he becomes president. If this is the model behavior you want people to follow no wonder you are all for a social welfare system (we'd need it)
That's missing the point, which was that Clinton couldn't catch up to Obama & by staying in the race was exacerbating splits in the Democratic Party. Not everything in life warrants a gun-slinging battle to the bitter end of any little thing, you know, especially when the consequences of doing so will be entirely negative.
[ 01-01-2009, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Dragonite21 ]
From: London, United Kingdom | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-05-2008 08:54 PM
The problem is that 10K doesn't really want to talk about policy or reality. His arguments against universal health care boil down to hypothetical anecdotal situations which, if he thought about them a little bit, he'd realize are already a part of the system he supports.
He could have actually made the reasonable argument that I wanted Hillary to drop out, yet supported Nader, which would have forced me to think a little bit about my position. But, he didn't go that route, so instead I thought about it on my own.
Nader wasn't running for personal political gain, he was running to inject ideas into the public campaign. Hillary's policies are virtually identical to Obama's, and she never talks about them anyway. Her constantly changing message has always been about herself (ready on Day One, ready to take late night phone calls, I'm a doer, I'm a fighter, etc.) whereas Obama's primary message has always been simple, but substantive: change. It's an actual reason to vote for him, not just "vote for me because I would like you to vote for me".
The truth is, she wasn't fighting for anything other than herself.
On the other hand, it's surprising how effective "vote for me because I have a vagina" is. I have a friend who is a die hard Hillary supporter, despite knowing absolutely nothing about anything she has done in the past, any of her policies, or anything she has ever said. She does know that she allegedly has a vagina, and that's enough.
I suppose it's true that many blacks voted for Obama on similar grounds, but the Clintons sort of helped that along by making an endless series of baffling racist remarks.
Anyway, once it became impossible for her to win, all she was doing was giving the media an excuse to talk about her, and not actual news, which is Hillary's overriding goal. One day after Obama's historic victory, Hillary was the top story on all the news pages.
My beef with the media is that they love the horse race so much, they make up stuff like "momentum", which pretty much doesn't exist. Months before all of the major contests, you could have easily predicted all the winners (and people did). It was no surprise that Obama swept 11 races in a row, and he wasn't gaining momentum, he was simply winning contests that demographically favored him and everyone knew he was going to win.
Everyone also knew Hillary was going to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia and she didn't gain any momentum by winning states when she was already mathematically eliminated.
The momentum thing bothers me more than even the nonsense about flag pins, because it's a complete fabrication on the part of the media.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-06-2008 02:35 PM
quote:
This ignores the fact that her [Big Gulp Lady's] problems may not be of her own doing [ ], or otherwise could potentially have been kept in check by regular prevantative diagnostics and treatment, which she may be unable to afford under the current system.
Obesity isn't the individual's responsibility? Whose is it then? Mine apparently if you are urging me to pay for the affects of it.
That's an issue drag. I don't want to pay to support or "keep in check" someone's unhealthy life and the government doesn't exist to enable irresponsible, unhealthy lifestyles. And for the multiple time it doesn't take more $$ doctor visits ("more healthcare") for someone to live healthy. etc.
quote:
My hypothetical situation can no more be taken for the norm than yours, of course, but then, that was the point of the article on Cracked I linked to a couple of posts back. Simply boiling every person who might use universal health care down to whichever bogeyman (or martyr, in my case) you want to use to make your point is hardly a detached and rational way to criticise policy.
there are lots of things an individual can do to support others that do not involve increasing government welfare systems or taxes. If you want to make the most impact the best thing you can do is drive yourself to make the world a better place instead of wanting the government to.
as for "Big Gulp Lady is not valid" I think the archetype does well at exposing the side of the issue that proponents of socialism are very quick to bypass, namely personal responsibility and motivation (subset:in maintaining one's own health).
You and K ignore this as a small detail it is not. In claiming that an individual is powerless to provide for themselves - you state that they really arn't expected to. having two kids and not a husband absolves a mother from the obligation to properly provide for her family, as drag inferred and entitles her for support. what a gross notion that is.
quote:
The way in which any of this benefits you is more abstract. You could make a comparison with the fire service; it's better to have firemen put out all houses which catch fire, than just the ones which are insured. This is because, even though your own house might be insured, your neighbour's might not, and if it catches fire then it will, of course, affect yours. The same point can be made for healthcare.
for everything that isn't a national disease pandemic, your analogy fails. As for a national disease pandemic, the government has done just fine without a socialized health care system heretofor (Polio as an example).
quote:
As for an obligation to the fellow citizens in your country...I know an appeal to altruism probably isn't worth it..then I think we've established what sort of person you are. But consider whether you want to be that sort of person.
[offtopic]
you still never explained why altruism is an ideal or more importantly for whom. For the individual sacrificing or the individual being sacrificed for? You hinted that it's healthy for a society in general. How so?
on the implied morality of altruism... I would urge to to examine your motivation for being altruistic (or for others to be) as I don't believe they are as unselfish as you imply. topics for another thread if you feel like it.
quote:
Anyway, the guy who wrote it is basically one of the best people I've come across on the internet (he's written a bunch of excellent articles; (and a serious Christian) who can realistically assess why universal health care is necessary,
Amazing, right?
I really liked that thread on universal health care that you linked but perhaps for different reasons; the concerns presented critically addressing the idea of what a UHC system would manifest as were a great read. While the OP's thoughts didn't particularly impress me, I didn't see a lot of strawmans or sweeping generalizations touted by the people discussing the topic. a lot of public discussion on pros/cons. good read and thanks for sharing
The monkey bubble article was pretty meh. It could have been edited to better state its explanation that humans are generally self interested, if not to such coffee-table-becoming novelty.
other stuff explaining social relativism such as "Now, the cold truth is this Bin Laden...The key to understanding people like him, ... is realizing that *we* are the caricature on his T-shirt. "
is that profound? in the same way "The Secret" is to Oprah devotees, the last harry potter novel is to my sister, or a popped balloon and empty honey pot are to Eeyore -- to some people I guess.
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-06-2008 06:08 PM
10K: I don't want to pay to support or "keep in check" someone's unhealthy life...
You already do right now. The new system would save you money.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-07-2008 02:52 AM
I am still waiting for black guy's big powerful speech on how he is going to bitch-slap or pistol-whip or glock or whatever black people do to the criminal cartel of American ISPs so that we can have good internet at a fair price.
With a real infrastructure we could be streaming high-def YouTube videos faster than we can consume them. Instead, we get bitchy hand-waving about how (not 'if', we're way past that) they're going to fuck us next.
You office-line Internet2 fucks have it good.
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-09-2008 06:20 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603498.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
^ i like that article
Obama says that he wants to free the internet:
(edit - when you go to barackobama.com it first prompts you to make a donation before giving access to information. I got a hoot out of that)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
"Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internet’s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."
another thing I remembered while there was:
"Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum."
didn't he just talk about the internets in the paragraph above that? >_< oh well more money needs spending I suppose.
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-11-2008 01:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
Obama says that he wants to free the internet:
Yeah, I have gazed longingly at his "Technology" page many times before. He says all the right things, but there's no telling whether or not he'll do any of it. Most people don't give two fucks of a shit about internet stuff.
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-12-2008 04:18 AM
There's no guarantee that any politician will do anything about anything, even if they want to, but it's nice that he's saying it.
The thing that pushed me over the edge with Gore was his abject refusal to in any way discuss the environment, which was obviously his major interest. After 8 years of Clinton backing off from things he claimed to care about, I was sick of it. Maybe if he'd had a web page that said all the right things back then, I would have thought twice, but I dunno.
I know it's a cop out, but Obama would have to spend 20 minute splaining the issue to the average voter and they'd be asleep by the time he got to his position on it. Most people don't even know what the Internet is. (I recently got into an argument with a tech at my ISP who insisted that the web and the Internet are exactly the same thing.) At least Obama put his plans on the web where nerds will see them.
I don't think you could expect much more from any politician, especially one who is already being called "elitist" (as if anyone who thinks they should be running the free world is not an elitist).
Also, 10K, what did you like about that Washington Post article? Their "good news" seemed to be that universal health care was becoming more likely as the middle class gradually gets shittier and shittier care.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
starCaliber
is evil and also MewtwoSama
Member # 268
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-16-2008 01:53 AM
Oh man, another heartbreaker. I really hope people think twice on this one.
"Hey guys, we heard there was some, er, uh... kiddie porn in there! Yeah! That was it, that's one of those things people universally dislike, kiddie porn! That's the thing we found and the excuse we're using to block off newsgroup access."
If Verizon's complete reprehensibility as a wireless carrier is anything to go off of, you'd already know to steer clear of them as a broadband ISP. Trouble is, they're the ones rolling out FiOS which means that if you're coming to the party, you're playing by their rules. I can't imagine we're getting any kind of zany fiberoptic batshit-fast internet out here in Colorado anytime soon, but I've heard that a bunch of the east coast and you Florida fucks in particular are getting all kinds of FiOS loving. At least you've got that bitter Big Cable Company aftertaste to help you wash it down now.
I guess the whole thing probably isn't a dealbreaker -- Comcast is every bit the piece of shit Verizon is and then some, but this strikes me as the next big shouting session from these worthless dicks that they're begging for a big old slice of government to keep them in check.
I wish we had that slice.
[ 06-16-2008, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: starCaliber ]
From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-16-2008 11:05 AM
^^ you know what would really impress me with Obama? if he put his money where his mouth was and OBJECTED to blocking "kiddie porn" from the interweb in order to keep it "free and open".
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 06-16-2008 11:15 AM
I liked this part of the article:
"The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And there are clear disparities in how different racial and ethnic groups are affected. Only 13 percent of non-Hispanic white Americans is uninsured, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of Native Americans, 22 percent of blacks and 17 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.
Politicians understand what this means in practical terms. If a lack of health insurance were truly a white middle-class crisis, then conservatives and liberals would long ago have joined together, carved out a compromise and done something. Instead, we're served a constantly recycled set of excuses for legislative stalemate.
The unofficial Republican attitude toward universal health care can be boiled down to the three "nots": not our voters, not our kind of solution and not our priority. None of the Republican presidential candidates even pretended to present a serious plan for universal coverage, nor did Republican primary voters demand one. The only candidate who had actually worked successfully toward universal health care -- former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney -- apologetically disowned his own groundbreaking achievement. Presumptive nominee John McCain's recent health care proposal doesn't make anything more than a start toward covering all the uninsured.
Meanwhile, Democrats play their own "us vs. them" games. Although high-profile party leaders are loudly calling for universal coverage -- recall the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton slugfest over their respective plans -- they reassure the middle class that the cost of compassion will be covered by repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. This "free lunch" approach may tax credulity, but it does avoid the need for discussing other taxes."
as for the suggestion that someday the motivations of middle class america will be forcibly shifted by steadily rising health care costs to pursue a socialist system: awesome. When the need exists for me I will rock that vote. However until then, rocking my vote on account of big gulp lady, nty.
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic