Third parties, who do you like more in the election

I myself like McCain more. I liked Obama a little more at first because he wanted to withdraw from Iraq immediately. He just changed his mind out of nowhere and now he wants to stay. That brings up another point. Obama is too wishy washy and doesn't know what he wants. As soon as the primarys were over and he beat hilary, he changed a lot of his stances on issues and now he isn't even the same candidate. I am afraid if he enters the white house he will change a lot more of his stances and become a totally different man.

McCain has had the same stances that he has had since he was running against all of the other republicans that got him here. He isn't the best president (I feel that he will spend too much money and not apply enough taxes to pay it back.), but I feel that I can trust him and his ideas more than Obama. (Libertarian here.)

I want some libertarians, green parties, and (probably not likely but possibly) constitution parties. Post your opinions.

I'll do it..I'll say it

my vote was on hilary

so now I have no vote.

I voted for Hillary in the primaries by a sort of random vote (had no real preference). Now I'm voting for Obama. I feel positive enough about him to have his campaign sticker on my car. I don't think he's the embodiment of all things good and peaceful, as the media is making him out to be. But he's, in my opinion, a better choice than the alternative.

For me its: Paul, Barr, Nader

I don't like nader a whole lot but, he is better then most red or blue candidates.

My favorite pick right now is a tie between paul and barr, barr is more of a 'mainstream' libertarian, and he has a better chance, being younger also.

I would pretty much agree with guerilla, based on my superficial understanding of U.S. politics. What are Paul/Barrs stances on universal health care though? I mean, I would kinda self-identify as a libertarian, but I think universal health care or whatever it's called is definitely part of what a government exists for. The government should protect people of crime, but also of natural disasters and any recognized physical or mental ailment or illness as well. Basically anything that ensures safety and health if a citizen wishes for that.

Well barr and paul both don't support national health care.

So they have my vote.

I hate when people say "In europe healthcare is FREE!"

No, its not free there, its payed by taxdollars, coming from their pockets...they just don't pay at the office thats all....and they have longer waits, doctors don't get good pay. I heard most docs in the UK have a private practice on the side just to make good money.

Also, I know a few people who were treated in the UK and one woman had a broken bone, and they set the bone in wrong and it healed all retarted, so she had to get it re-broken and re-done here in the states.

makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people say they're moving to canada or the uk for healthcare, sure our healthcare system is totally broken...but the care you get is top notch..if you get the care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I hate when people say "In europe healthcare is FREE!"

No, its not free there, its payed by taxdollars, coming from their pockets...

---

Well, duh. The difference is that it's socialized, i.e. you don't pay only for yourself but everybody pays for everybody.

Quote:

---

they just don't pay at the office thats all...

---

No, that's not all. A socialized health care system means that poor people with cancer can seek treatment without having to go on national TV to beg for donations. It means that people don't have to ponder bartering their health for food and clothing.

Quote:

---

.and they have longer waits, doctors don't get good pay. I heard most docs in the UK have a private practice on the side just to make good money.

---

Well, that coming from somebody who's never lived here... Speaking for Germany, doctors are amongst the wealthiest and they do good work.

Quote:

---

Also, I know a few people who were treated in the UK and one woman had a broken bone, and they set the bone in wrong and it healed all retarted, so she had to get it re-broken and re-done here in the states. makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people say they're moving to canada or the uk for healthcare, sure our healthcare system is totally broken...but the care you get is top notch..if you get the care.

---

This is just ignorant. The health care you get here is just fine. It's not like Europe is a bunch of developing nations.
Also, I would be pretty certain that U.S. doctors have made mistakes before so that's really just an ignorant statement to make.

Quote:

---

I liked Obama a little more at first because he wanted to withdraw from Iraq immediately. He just changed his mind out of nowhere and now he wants to stay. That brings up another point.

---

This is rubbish, McCain was sprending lies about Obama changing his Iraq plan. However, if you seen the Berlin speech or go to his website it says he will withdraw the troops. I don't know what you mean immediately. 16 month withdraw time table is find, it better then ten more years in Iraq or a hundred.

So yeah, he hasen't change his Iraq plan, which because he has the support of the Iraqi prime minister then it will happen. Saying that if you want to stay in Iraq for seven or ten more years vote for McCain, if you want out vote for Obama.

Quote:

---

makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people say they're moving to canada or the uk for healthcare, sure our healthcare system is totally broken...but the care you get is top notch..if you get the care.

---

Actually the NHS is actually really good healthcare. Anecdotal evidence about having bad doctors is not really reliable. If your in the UK and get sick then you get treated and it a fair system, although there is some problems. Free healthcare is good because if your poor you can get treated. America healthcare system is kind of like if your rich then your find, however if your poor then sorry.

I feel sorry for Children or people who have children and they can't get healthcare or there insurance won't pay out.

You must agree free healthcare for children http://www.naturalnews.com/020586.html unless you like sick children or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serkat

Well, duh. The difference is that it's socialized, i.e. you don't pay only for yourself but everybody pays for everybody.No, that's not all. A socialized health care system means that poor people with cancer can seek treatment without having to go on national TV to beg for donations. It means that people don't have to ponder bartering their health for food and clothing.Well, that coming from somebody who's never lived here... Speaking for Germany, doctors are amongst the wealthiest and they do good work.

This is just ignorant. The health care you get here is just fine. It's not like Europe is a bunch of developing nations.
Also, I would be pretty certain that U.S. doctors have made mistakes before so that's really just an ignorant statement to make.

---

I'm not trying to glorify our healthcare, or trying to say europe is a 3rd world area, I'm just saying socalized medicine is NOT the answer.


I don't believe in any social programs really whatsoever, government getting involved in ANYTHING usually means incompetent bureaucrats running the show.

I just don't agree with people who like the whole universal health care idea, its just not my cup of tea.

I'm sure in germany or other nations there is good care but, I just don't like the system being government run and regulated, if you wanna get to the bottom of me...what I'm trying to really say is:

I do not trust government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I'm not trying to glorify our healthcare, or trying to say europe is a 3rd world area, I'm just saying socalized medicine is NOT the answer.


I don't believe in any social programs really whatsoever, government getting involved in ANYTHING usually means incompetent bureaucrats running the show.

I just don't agree with people who like the whole universal health care idea, its just not my cup of tea.

I'm sure in germany or other nations there is good care but, I just don't like the system being government run and regulated, if you wanna get to the bottom of me...what I'm trying to really say is:

I do not trust government.

---

Well, the same goes for me. You're always free to quit and go private insurance though. I'd also like to see something more along the lines of a voucher system or whatever. I think many government-related problems could be reduced if, instead of the services being run by the government the government would act like a broker or organizer between private individuals and companies, i.e. privatizing most stuff, loosening regulation and merely distributing the money for the different sectors to the individuals, like schools, education, health, insurances etc. Also, some of these government services should be mandatory (police, government systems, education, health, public property etc.), while others should be voluntary. This would increase efficiency, thereby saving tax-payer's money, giving them more freedom to choose, more competition, and still maintaining a certain level of social security for the poor.

Serkat for President 2008!

I'm not sure what party you are Serkat but it just makes sense for any libertarian to be against nationalized health care. We Americans need to be able to run ourselves. I have learned not to trust the government with most things, and I don't think I could trust them with providing health care.

Personally (being Libertarian), I don't like either candidate. But, McCain is much more moderate, where as Obama is the most liberal Liberal in Congress. I also disagree with a lot of his stances (Obama that is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

I'm not sure what party you are Serkat but it just makes sense for any libertarian to be against nationalized health care. We Americans need to be able to run ourselves. I have learned not to trust the government with most things, and I don't think I could trust them with providing health care.

---

So you are against federal police as well, and in favor of private armies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serkat

So you are against federal police as well, and in favor of private armies?

---

Actually, that wouldn't work to well itself. We need as little government interference as possible, not none. The only real duty of a government in my opinion is to protect the people from harm and to change the law when it is requested. You think that would be easy in America when the government is run by the PEOPLE, but unluckily it is only run by the power-hungry people. Private health care hasn't been the best thing considering that the companies just want money, but that is what fuels free economy, and I'm sure the government would screw everything up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

Actually, that wouldn't work to well itself. I said as little government interference as possible, not none. The only real duty of a government in my opinion is to protect the people from harm

---

Hence socialized police, fire- and rescue-service and socialized health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serkat

Hence socialized police, fire- and rescue-service and socialized health care.

---

That is different though. Most people wouldn't trust a private company patrolling the streets arresting criminals. Doctors would be doctors whether they are hired by the government or privatized hospitals. It is the same thing. Like Guerilla said, the only difference is that people have to pay through tax rather than through payments, and we should just keep as many services out of the government's hands as possible before it becomes a communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamsinmymynd

That is different though. Most people wouldn't trust a private company patrolling the streets arresting criminals. Doctors would be doctors whether they are hired by the government or privatized hospitals. It is the same thing. Like Guerilla said, the only difference is that people have to pay through tax rather than through payments, and we should just keep as many services out of the government's hands as possible before it becomes a communism.

---

I'm not saying that government should run the relevant institutions but that the payment should be socialized so that everybody can get treatment as needed, no matter the economic class.

Don't forget, we also have socialized roads, bridges, schools, libraries, recreational parks, playgrounds, zoos, museums, 911 service (mostly), food safety, space exploration, study grants, street cleaning, and hundreds of other services. I guess we should get rid of all those too?

Please explain why (in your own words) the dividing line is at healthcare.

My honest guess is that healthcare is the dividing line because all those who make billions of dollars taking advantage of our current system have spent a considerable amount of effort and money to convince you that it is somehow different, and shouldn't be managed in the same way. All the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and those politicians getting kickbacks from them have managed to put such a stigma on socialized medicine, that Americans have bought wholesale into the notion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

No, its not free there, its payed by taxdollars, coming from their pockets...they just don't pay at the office thats all....and they have longer waits, doctors don't get good pay. I heard most docs in the UK have a private practice on the side just to make good money.

Also, I know a few people who were treated in the UK and one woman had a broken bone, and they set the bone in wrong and it healed all retarted, so she had to get it re-broken and re-done here in the states.

makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people say they're moving to canada or the uk for healthcare, sure our healthcare system is totally broken...but the care you get is top notch..if you get the care.

---

Fuckoff, doctors probably get paid on average $ 180, 000 a year. They are paid fucking fine. IN the USA, there are 40 mill without health insurance. Here, whenever I have an ailment, I can walk into A & E. Its easy. It is fucking easy. And it is fucking better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harvey123456

Fuckoff, doctors probably get paid on average $ 180, 000 a year. They are paid fucking fine. IN the USA, there are 40 mill without health insurance. Here, whenever I have an ailment, I can walk into A & E. Its easy. It is fucking easy. And it is fucking better.

---

Gday mate, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Don't forget, we also have socialized roads, bridges, schools, libraries, recreational parks, playgrounds, zoos, museums, 911 service (mostly), food safety, space exploration, study grants, street cleaning, and hundreds of other services.

---

And think about how weakly run those things are. Have you ever seen orange barrels in the same place on a road for four years straight? Do you ever drive by road crews and see that nobody is doing anything? I lived in Oxford, Mississippi for five years when I was a kid. That ENTIRE time, the same stretch of Highway 6 was being "worked on", which means there were orange barrels and lazy ass people doing nothing all over it. That stuff happens because nobody at the top is making a profit. Without that factor, people do a half ass job. Healthcare is life and death, and it cannot be treated that way. The pathetic horror story that is 911 in Jackson, Mississippi is something that can never work its way into the healthcare system. Those idiots sometimes don't even answer the damn phone. I could tell you about ten stories involving me and people close to me that are beyond appalling about 911. The same is true about the other government programs you listed, except for one. Space exploration is different because everybody working in it is in it for the love of it. NASA workers are all excited about advancing space exploration. It is not about profit for those people. Doctors do not exactly work that way. They are all about money and prestige. If they start getting shorted on that, the way they operate will be completely different. It will be a disaster. It can't happen. It is out of the question.

Canada has a very, very slow healthcare system. Imagine how much a medical defect worries people. It will eat a hole in you all day every day. Now imagine having to wait months to see somebody about it, and then waiting months longer to see the specialist, and then waiting months longer to to see somebody about whether or not you need surgery, and then waiting months and months to get the surgery. Here, it happens rapidly because we have greedy ass doctors running things. Yes, they are greedy as Hell, very shallow, and all about image and money. But that is a very good thing for getting things done. I have my problems with shallow people, but they serve a necessary function in the system. We have poor people going to Canada to get free surgery and stuff, but we also have Canadians coming here to actually get the damn surgery before they reach retirement. Also, it is illegal for hospitals to turn people down for emergency treatment here. Our system is the only way.

Another thing that disturbs me about socialized medicine is that it will greatly inhibit our advancing medical technology. It is greed that is driving that too. We need to keep making progress like we are. If we turn our healthcare system into something that works like our public school system, things are going to start to really suck.

I'm Afraid UM is dead on balls accurate right there.

So assuming someone broke has a chronic illness, let's take chronic sinusitis, and needs to undergo surgery to resolve this illness, should this be privately paid? And if he can't get the money together, he has no right to get treated? Mind that this is in no way an "emergency", you can still go to work with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serkat

So assuming someone broke has a chronic illness, let's take chronic sinusitis, and needs to undergo surgery to resolve this illness, should this be privately paid? And if he can't get the money together, he has no right to get treated? Mind that this is in no way an "emergency", you can still go to work with this.

---

It is everybody's responsibility to get their own health insurance, but there are government programs we have and should have for people who cannot work. We have Medicaid and Medicare. You can get private health insurance for as low as $150 a month. We also have private charity organizations. A lot of hospitals will give the surgery and then send you a bill that you can pay off in increments, but there are limits to what kinds of surgery you can get. There is a problem in that picture, but nothing like a healthcare system gone public school.

Or another example:

17-year old with Cystic Fibrosis turns 18, and is no longer covered by parent's insurance. However, even then, family is poor and he himself has little money to spare as he is also trying to get into college, etc. Now, CF may not be fatal and require emergency treatment, it is a chronic and potentially debilitating disease. Should this guy be denied treatment because he can't afford it? At least with universal healthcare, people will have something far more reliable to fall back on than let's say... charity-run clinics. They may not be perfect, but damn, at least you'll be able to count on getting important medicine and treatment.

I think people w/o insurance who can't pay for medical bills should be put on a payment plan, sort of like a car, or a house...so they can slowly pay it off privately, I do not however support government paying for uninsured people, that means me and you and everyone else's tax dollars get spent on people w/o money, I don't like that idea.

The billing/payment option sounds like the most fair to me, people who can't afford medical insurance or bills should maybe receive some kind of discount from regular costs perhaps, the cost of medicine today is way above what it should be also, if richard nixon didn't mess up the system we would still have cheap prescriptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I think people w/o insurance who can't pay for medical bills should be put on a payment plan, sort of like a car, or a house...so they can slowly pay it off privately, I do not however support government paying for uninsured people, that means me and you and everyone else's tax dollars get spent on people w/o money, I don't like that idea.

The billing/payment option sounds like the most fair to me, people who can't afford medical insurance or bills should maybe receive some kind of discount from regular costs perhaps, the cost of medicine today is way above what it should be also, if richard nixon didn't mess up the system we would still have cheap prescriptions.

---

So you put a person into further debt because of vital treatment? Just because they can't afford it?

The number one problem with our healthcare system can be epitomized by looking at the following relationship:

The more insurance claims that are rejected (rightly or wrongly), the more money an insurance company makes.

What is an insurance company's incentive to do what people pay them to do? Companies need money to do business and thrive. They make their money by denying the most expensive treatments, regardless of the effectiveness of that treatment.

Drill down to the insurance company's employees. In the interest of motivating the employees to help the company thrive, they give large bonuses to those who help take in more money. Naturally, as in any business where performance in one area means more money in their pockets, those employees will seek ways to take in more money, while paying out less.

But the only avenue they have to make that happen is to deny claims. The more claims they deny, the bigger their personal paycheck.

There is something VERY broken about a healthcare system where those who are supposed to supply healthcare have a vested interest in denying it. Privatized medicine may not be at fault, but I'd like to hear any suggestions at all that have to do with addressing this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I think people w/o insurance who can't pay for medical bills should be put on a payment plan, sort of like a car, or a house...so they can slowly pay it off privately, I do not however support government paying for uninsured people, that means me and you and everyone else's tax dollars get spent on people w/o money, I don't like that idea.

---

That's the point of human rights though. The point is that the government takes in money to make sure certain rights exist even for the poorest. You might as well go anarchy if you think there's no moral problem with people living below the breadline amongst people with private jets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Or another example:

17-year old with Cystic Fibrosis turns 18, and is no longer covered by parent's insurance. However, even then, family is poor and he himself has little money to spare as he is also trying to get into college, etc. Now, CF may not be fatal and require emergency treatment, it is a chronic and potentially debilitating disease. Should this guy be denied treatment because he can't afford it? At least with universal healthcare, people will have something far more reliable to fall back on than let's say... charity-run clinics. They may not be perfect, but damn, at least you'll be able to count on getting important medicine and treatment.

---

How long do you want him to have to wait for the surgery? At least with a capitalist system, he can get the surgery very soon if he has insurance. If he can't afford the $150 a month for insurance because of college, he needs to put off college. It is his choice one way or the other. We can't wreck the U.S. healthcare system because some people might make bad choices.

We lead the world in medical technology, so it is in the best interest of the entire world for us not to not go public school with our healthcare system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

The number one problem with our healthcare system can be epitomized by looking at the following relationship:

The more insurance claims that are rejected (rightly or wrongly), the more money an insurance company makes.

What is an insurance company's incentive to do what people pay them to do? Companies need money to do business and thrive. They make their money by denying the most expensive treatments, regardless of the effectiveness of that treatment.

Drill down to the insurance company's employees. In the interest of motivating the employees to help the company thrive, they give large bonuses to those who help take in more money. Naturally, as in any business where performance in one area means more money in their pockets, those employees will seek ways to take in more money, while paying out less.

But the only avenue they have to make that happen is to deny claims. The more claims they deny, the bigger their personal paycheck.

There is something VERY broken about a healthcare system where those who are supposed to supply healthcare have a vested interest in denying it. Privatized medicine may not be at fault, but I'd like to hear any suggestions at all that have to do with addressing this problem.

---

That is why people need to read what they are signing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is why people need to read what they are signing.

---

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. What is there to read and sign that prevents this behavior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. What is there to read and sign that prevents this behavior?

---

The terms of the insurance contract. It is not like an insurance company is not bound by an agreement. They do what they are required to do by contract. They don't have the liberty to reject just any medical bill they want to reject. If they did, they would pay for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How long do you want him to have to wait for the surgery? At least with a capitalist system, he can get the surgery very soon if he has insurance. If he can't afford the $150 a month for insurance because of college, he needs to put off college. It is his choice one way or the other. We can't wreck the U.S. healthcare system because some people might make bad choices.

We lead the world in medical technology, so it is in the best interest of the entire world for us not to not go public school with our healthcare system.

---

If you pay the government so much in tax, then you should expect so much from the government in return in terms of service. However, as insurance has shown over and over again, it can't be relied on either. So here we have a situation with people either not being able to afford insurance or getting screwed over by not having the appropriate/best/premium insurance, or the government is not meeting standards. The best solution? Have both public and privately-run hospitals.

Why? Because competition is what really drives medical improvements. Private hospitals may get the most money, but if public hospitals give the same service but with government money, then the private hospitals have to improve in order to compete. In turn, this drives the public hospitals to keep up with the privately-run ones in order to remain a viable alternative.

In the end of the day, it is folly to rely on solely one system. The government should provide a means to cover even the poorest citizens and do so in a decent fashion. If everyone chips in, then everyone should get something out of it, and if the individual chooses private, then he shouldn't be penalised by shitty insurance companies nor be barred from public hospitals. Certain things require regulation in order to make sure everybody gets a decent service, especially a vital one such as Healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The terms of the insurance contract. It is not like an insurance company is not bound by an agreement. They do what they are required to do by contract. They don't have the liberty to reject just any medical bill they want to reject. If they did, they would pay for nothing.

---

I'm sorry, but this is a bit naive. The relationship I described applies to every single insurance company today. "Denied claims = more money" works for each and every one of them. Some are worse than others, to be sure, but there is no language on an insurance contract that will betray their tendencies.

There is a wealth of available court testimony from insurance company ex-employees regarding the kinds of requests management made to them. To hear some of this testimony is to question whether those in charge have any feelings towards their fellow humans at all.

We need to do what the Dutch do.

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm sorry, but this is a bit naive. The relationship I described applies to every single insurance company today. "Denied claims = more money" works for each and every one of them. Some are worse than others, to be sure, but there is no language on an insurance contract that will betray their tendencies.

There is a wealth of available court testimony from insurance company ex-employees regarding the kinds of requests management made to them. To hear some of this testimony is to question whether those in charge have any feelings towards their fellow humans at all.

---

What, according to you, stops insurance companies from denying ALL claims, and why would there ever be a court case over a denied claim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The best solution? Have both public and privately-run hospitals.

---

That is something to consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What, according to you, stops insurance companies from denying ALL claims,

---

Simple economics. No payout means nobody wants or needs insurance at all. There is obviously a tipping point in either direction, and the companies are very aware of where that point is.

Quote:

---

...and why would there ever be a court case over a denied claim?

---

The testimony I heard was not directly regarding any specific denied claim, but about company practices in general. Although of course there are countless cases over denied claims.

If you believe you should be covered for an operation that saves your life, and end up with a bill for $250k instead, wouldn't you consider sueing to get the cost of the operation paid for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

If you believe you should be covered for an operation that saves your life, and end up with a bill for $250k instead, wouldn't you consider sueing to get the cost of the operation paid for?

---

Why? Aren't you saying the insurance companies can do what they want and are not legally bound by anything? Why would such a case ever be allowed into court, based on what you are saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why? Aren't you saying the insurance companies can do what they want and are not legally bound by anything? Why would such a case ever be allowed into court, based on what you are saying?

---

Wow. Are you seriously not aware that this is happening all the time?
I'd appreciate if you'd watch a these and let me know what you think.


By the way, I'm not talking about socialized medicine pro/con anymore. I'm talking about the evil insurance industry and our broken healthcare in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So you put a person into further debt because of vital treatment? Just because they can't afford it?

---

Yep, its not America's problem when a couple of people can't pay their bills, thats how capitalism works, bail outs are for communist societies.

I don't like the whole, "if you can't pay you're bills, we will!" mentality.

Socialism & Communism don't work.

let me put out this example.

Say someone in your neighboorhood is being evicted, is it the responsibility of his neighboors including you, to fork up the money to help them?

Same goes for healthcare, just because some guy in tampa florida can't pay for his heart surgery doesn't mean mr. tax payer in w/e state he lives in has to pay up



you know what I'm trying to say?


This is how capitalism works, true capitalism...

Some hate it, some love it...the one's who hate it are the one's who can't get by, and I feel bad for them but its NOT the responsibility of every other american to take care of them, their own life is their responsibility, not everyones.

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

We need to do what the Dutch do.

/thread

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Yep, its not America's problem when a couple of people can't pay their bills, thats how capitalism works, bail outs are for communist societies.

I don't like the whole, "if you can't pay you're bills, we will!" mentality.

Socialism & Communism don't work.

let me put out this example.

Say someone in your neighboorhood is being evicted, is it the responsibility of his neighboors including you, to fork up the money to help them?

Same goes for healthcare, just because some guy in tampa florida can't pay for his heart surgery doesn't mean mr. tax payer in w/e state he lives in has to pay up



you know what I'm trying to say?

---

That's a pointless statement and comparison. You might wanna take a look at the declaration of human rights, in case you know what that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Yep, its not America's problem when a couple of people can't pay their bills, thats how capitalism works, bail outs are for communist societies.

I don't like the whole, "if you can't pay you're bills, we will!" mentality.

Socialism & Communism don't work.

let me put out this example.

Say someone in your neighboorhood is being evicted, is it the responsibility of his neighboors including you, to fork up the money to help them?

Same goes for healthcare, just because some guy in tampa florida can't pay for his heart surgery doesn't mean mr. tax payer in w/e state he lives in has to pay up

you know what I'm trying to say?

---

What I'm getting across is an irrational fear of some concept which won't be caused by Healthcare. Having a public healthcare system will not cause communism.

You pay your taxes, you get government services. So if you pay so much for universal Healthcare, then you should expect that regardless of whether you prefer private or public healthcare, you have not only the choice, but a good enough fall-back measure. This means that even the poorest folk are guaranteed their basic human right to healthcare reliably, whilst everyone else can choose what service they opt for.

To deny people healthcare (proper healthcare that is, not charity hand-outs and clinics) is to deprive them of one basic human right. This is not a question of communism/socialism, this about actually making sure people can live decent lives regardless of where they fit on the socio-economic scale, especially if this is a developed country like the US. At least in the UK, should I need serious surgery for either emergency or non-emergency circumstances, I can rely on the NHS to provide.

I know you guys disagree with my stance but, im sticking with it reguardless of human rights, I'm just a strict strict libertarian I guess.



Before the US healthcare system was ****ed over it was a whole lot better then any universal plan, costs of drugs were low, prices of insurance were low, and everything was truly affordable up and down the line.

Since HMO's and all of that bologna was introduced, prices have just skyrocketed...

NHS would not fix our problems imo in the USA, NHS will not be any better then the sham of a system we have left.

Wat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

I know you guys disagree with my stance but, im sticking with it reguardless of human rights, I'm just a strict strict libertarian I guess.

Before the US healthcare system was ****ed over it was a whole lot better then any universal plan, costs of drugs were low, prices of insurance were low, and everything was truly affordable up and down the line.

Since HMO's and all of that bologna was introduced, prices have just skyrocketed...

NHS would not fix our problems imo in the USA, NHS will not be any better then the sham of a system we have left.

---

Probably would work if all the money spent on war was actually diverted into improving the country.

Still, human rights are important, regardless of what stance you take. My solution for the US would be a comprehensive mix of public hospitals (owned and funded by the government, etc) and privately-owned hospitals. That way, you have two systems that overlap and help cover everyone, regardless of where they are on the socio-economic scale. Everyone pays taxes, so they should be guaranteed services on certain things. Also, such a system drives competition between private and public sector, and generally ensures (or more likely ensures) a decent service on both sides. This is generally the case in the UK, but on a smaller scale.

Well, I kind of like THAT idea, it suits people like me who like private, and people like you who like social.

I recommend you run for congress :D

(only if I don't have to pay taxes for dead beats)

guerilla,

What you may not realize is that some people can't get insurance at all, and it has little to do with money. Insurers automatically refuse to cover people with certain histories. My wife was once denied coverage from one company because she had once used a prescription medication for acne. Another company denied her because she is only 5 feet tall. Read that again: She was denied coverage because she is only 5 feet tall.

Pay for it yourself, you say? Ok, let's look at that...

The majority of doctors will not see a patient who does not have insurance even if that patient has cash in his pocket! Cash is not good enough (especially for emergency hospital visits). They all want you to be covered.

As you can probably figure out, this makes it very hard to be treated if you don't qualify to obtain insurance. If you want a system where we can all just pay for ourselves, we don't have that either.

Well, thats where the bluefinger health insurance system comes in :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Well, thats where the bluefinger health insurance system comes in :D

---

Well ok then... sign me up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wow. Are you seriously not aware that this is happening all the time?
I'd appreciate if you'd watch a these and let me know what you think.


By the way, I'm not talking about socialized medicine pro/con anymore. I'm talking about the evil insurance industry and our broken healthcare in general.

---

That does not answer my questions. Please do so.

I am not saying insurance companies don't try to skip out as much as they can, and I am not saying they never get sued. You are arguing with points I am not making. Please answer my questions.

In response to the original question, which candidate do I prefer. I prefer McAin. Although I'd consider myself on the left of the political spectrum I value honesty. At least you know what your getting with Mcain, a dumb conservative old man.
With Obama, hes all about a facade, he kind of reminds me of a black Tony Blair, hes all about image. You dont have a fuckin clue what he stands for really, all you know is he can talk to a camera. Hes a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guerilla

Well barr and paul both don't support national health care.

So they have my vote.

I hate when people say "In europe healthcare is FREE!"

No, its not free there, its payed by taxdollars, coming from their pockets...they just don't pay at the office thats all....and they have longer waits, doctors don't get good pay. I heard most docs in the UK have a private practice on the side just to make good money.

Also, I know a few people who were treated in the UK and one woman had a broken bone, and they set the bone in wrong and it healed all retarted, so she had to get it re-broken and re-done here in the states.

makes me sick to my stomach when I hear people say they're moving to canada or the uk for healthcare, sure our healthcare system is totally broken...but the care you get is top notch..if you get the care.

---

You wouldnt say that if you were poor. Over here you dont have to have money to be considered a citizen worth saving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does not answer my questions. Please do so.

---

Ok... assuming these are the questions you meant:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Aren't you saying the insurance companies can do what they want and are not legally bound by anything? Why would such a case ever be allowed into court, based on what you are saying?

---

Yes, insurance companies have legal obligations. The problem is that those obligations are riddled with loopholes, not clearly spelled out, and seldom policed. So they CAN do more or less what they want even though legally restricted.

Why a case would be allowed in court would be to examine a claim that the insurance company did not adhere to their obligations. This is what videos 2 and 3 were demonstrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Yes, insurance companies have legal obligations. The problem is that those obligations are riddled with loopholes, not clearly spelled out, and seldom policed. So they CAN do more or less what they want even though legally restricted.

Why a case would be allowed in court would be to examine a claim that the insurance company did not adhere to their obligations. This is what videos 2 and 3 were demonstrating.

---

That is what I was saying. They have contractual and legal obligations they have to obey. If they don't, they generally get sued and lose. Insurance companies cannot do just whatever they wish. So people need to be careful with the terms of the policies they sign up for. They are contractual obligations concerning them and the insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is what I was saying. They have contractual and legal obligations they have to obey. If they don't, they generally get sued and lose. Insurance companies cannot do just whatever they wish. So people need to be careful with the terms of the policies they sign up for. They are contractual obligations concerning them and the insurance companies.

---

But this is sadly a gross over-simplification. With our current system, it is exceedingly easy for these companies to get away with murder. It all comes down to the relationship of profit to non-coverage. The only way for them to get rich is to deny coverage.

Suing them sounds like a simple solution, but these guys have giant teams of lawyers and huge bankrolls to fund their day in court. The average person who is wronged has neither and will go broke even trying to plead their case. This story plays itself out time and time again these days. A contract is not even nearly enough to keep things fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

But this is sadly a gross over-simplification. With our current system, it is exceedingly easy for these companies to get away with murder. It all comes down to the relationship of profit to non-coverage. The only way for them to get rich is to deny coverage.

---

No, it is not easy. Insurance companies have to obey their contractual obligations, which are not mere contractual suggestions. The companies can only deny claims when doing so gets around the contract or when they think they really have a shot at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Suing them sounds like a simple solution, but these guys have giant teams of lawyers and huge bankrolls to fund their day in court. The average person who is wronged has neither and will go broke even trying to plead their case. This story plays itself out time and time again these days. A contract is not even nearly enough to keep things fair.

---

The insurance companies don't want to lose money in court either. They do not just violate their contracts while holding onto the idea that nobody wants to sue them. It does not work that way. Also, there are tons of plaintiff's attorneys who work on the basis that they will represent a client and charge a fee or percentage ONLY if they win the case. A case of insurance contract breach will attract the Hell out of lawyers like that. The kinds of cases you are talking about are not that common. Insurance companies don't want to shoot themselves in the foot. They only play dirty games when they have a loophole they think will work. It is not a problem so serious we need to go public school system with U.S. healthcare.

I just wanted to say that my mom sells health insurance

it's very complicated delicate procedure. she has to say everything right, make sure she doesn't confuse any information, and the process of which they buy insurance is also very strict. she does anything wrong, its not just her license thats in threat

insurance companies get scammed too, by people who just want to steal money from little old ladies. if they deny to show my mom the proper identification or this or that, she has to report them. and if she doesn't report them, she gets thrown in jail *that silly rule was made under the bush administration* :?

my mom feels that insurance companies are difficult to AVOID being scammed or lawsuits or this or that. for example. she has a client that is eligible for health insurance. the client is old. the children of the client want the client in a nursing home. under this health insurance, a nursing home isn't necessary because the insurance would provide. the old lady doesnt want to go to a nursing home. she wants the health insurance that would provide for her as a free elderly.

so, they are trying to claim that my mom physically forced the older lady to sign the contract *my mom being flabby and weak and 50 herself* and that the older lady has dementia and my mom took advantage of that. my moms upset because the lady was sane enough to provide all the necessary paper work *which half of her elderly don't do* and feels the claims of dementia is a lie.

they keep taking the older lady to doctors to prove she has dementia *of which has yet to be proven* just to toss her in a nursing home. but after they threatened to sue my moms company, my moms boss just told her to back down. walk away and decline.

my mom thinks there should be a universal health care system. as even a health insurance agent, its still difficult to get her own kids *me* proper health insurance! she says, private health care isn't going anywhere. it is still the better option for those who can afford it. but too many americans CAN'T afford it. and insurances are strict and limited sometimes for their own protective reasons.

she's a saleswoman at heart trying to bargain you into a deal. but even after working with one client on and off she was still unable to find an insurance company that would help them. *she doesn't work for a single company, she represents as many insurances as possible*

the client died a month later with cancer.

Universal Health Care is very slow. There was a woman who was raped in Wales 2 years ago. Since then she has not been able to walk, and has not been able to see a specialist. She finally got approved to see a specialist by her normal doctor... 22 weeks from now.

Sounds like she's getting the help she deserves to me! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Universal Health Care is very slow. There was a woman who was raped in Wales 2 years ago. Since then she has not been able to walk, and has not been able to see a specialist. She finally got approved to see a specialist by her normal doctor... 22 weeks from now.

Sounds like she's getting the help she deserves to me! :rolleyes:

---

you make it sound like the option is

universal or private

when in actuality the option FOR THE US IS

universal or NOTHING

just because universal health care doesn't work in one place doesn't mean it will be the same system or format here. private health care isn't going anywhere. although universal is not as good as private - the option for the poor is NOTHING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

you make it sound like the option is

universal or private

when in actuality the option FOR THE US IS

universal or NOTHING

just because universal health care doesn't work in one place doesn't mean it will be the same system or format here. private health care isn't going anywhere. although universal is not as good as private - the option for the poor is NOTHING

---

Even though private health care isn't the best, you are misrepresenting it. The poor get medicaid and medicare; they still get treated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Even though private health care isn't the best, you are misrepresenting it. The poor get medicaid and medicare; they still get treated.

---

I'm afraid you haven't been following this very closely. Millions of Americans do not have access to insurance.

I still fail to see how that that's my fault and I should pay for it. If I feel like giving to charity, that's one thing, but forcing me to pay for others is different. The whole redistribution-of-wealth thing doesn't sit well for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

I still fail to see how that that's my fault and I should pay for it. If I feel like giving to charity, that's one thing, but forcing me to pay for others is different. The whole redistribution-of-wealth thing doesn't sit well for me.

---

It's called building a community and protecting it.

My tax dollars help build roads that I never drive on. Should I complain about that? Or should I understand that other people's tax dollars pay to have mail delivered to my house, whether anybody ever sends them a letter or not.

My tax dollars help pay for child protection services, but I have no children to protect. Should that bug me? Not if I remember that other people's tax dollars pay to keep my local library in business, whether or not they even know how to read.

This is how towns, states, and countries are built. If everything were pay-for-yourself, society goes out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Universal Health Care is very slow. There was a woman who was raped in Wales 2 years ago. Since then she has not been able to walk, and has not been able to see a specialist. She finally got approved to see a specialist by her normal doctor... 22 weeks from now.

Sounds like she's getting the help she deserves to me! :rolleyes:

---

That is not what I call "protection", but forcing the entire country to live like that is what I call "robbery".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not what I call "protection", but forcing the entire country to live like that is what I call "robbery".

---

Universal Healthcare is very slow, which makes it very impractical. There are other ways to set up healthcare so that everyone receives treatment, but don't have to wait 2 years to see a specialist. That is why I don't support Universal Healthcare.

Also, part of my point with that was juroara was acting like, if we had Universal Healthcare, that person that died of cancer would not have died of cancer, but if you look at how slow Universal Healthcare is, you would see that the person that died would have died anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Universal Healthcare is very slow, which makes it very impractical.

---

A tenacious myth with very little supporting evidence save a few anecdotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

A tenacious myth with very little supporting evidence save a few anecdotes.

---

That is not so. My dad has a degenerative back disease, and he is a member of a forum for people with problems with their backs and the like. He knows several members from Canada that would like to move to America because it takes them forever to see a specialist.

Can you tell me you honestly know several people with serious diseases that would argue that the opposite were true?

Don't give me shit about supporting evidence unless you give me some. Please provide me with the people mentioned above, or some links to unbiased web sources.

For the sake of continuing the conversation in standard English, please allow me to point out a standard definition:

Anecdotal
-adjective
Based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

My dad has a degenerative back disease, and he is a member of a forum for people with problems with their backs and the like.

---

This is anecdotal

Quote:

---

He knows several members from Canada that would like to move to America because it takes them forever to see a specialist.

---

Again, anecdotal

Quote:

---

Can you tell me you honestly know several people with serious diseases that would argue that the opposite were true?

---

A request for anecdotal evidence

It's your claim to prove. Please do it without anecdotal evidence. A scientific study or poll usually does the trick.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MODV9pdViIA&feature=related

Let's Do What The Dutch Do And Forget The Stupid Motherfucking Canadians.

All of this is fucking bullshit. I've switched general practicioners like pants and never had a problem with that. If the Canadians can't get it right, that's not the system's fault. You can just call them up and get an appointment within the next couple days. For specialists, sometimes you'll have to wait 2-3 weeks but there's always the possibility to look for someone who's got some more time available. To get a non-emergency operation, I had to wait some 5-6 weeks. This is acceptable, given that it was after the holiday season. Seriously, this "Walk-In Clinic", I don't even know what that's supposed to be. People here go to regular doctors and it seems to work out pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serkat

All of this is fucking bullshit. I've switched general practicioners like pants and never had a problem with that. If the Canadians can't get it right, that's not the system's fault. You can just call them up and get an appointment within the next couple days. For specialists, sometimes you'll have to wait 2-3 weeks but there's always the possibility to look for someone who's got some more time available. To get a non-emergency operation, I had to wait some 5-6 weeks. This is acceptable, given that it was after the holiday season. Seriously, this "Walk-In Clinic", I don't even know what that's supposed to be. People here go to regular doctors and it seems to work out pretty well.

---

Where do you live?

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2006002.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canada

While most reported waiting times as acceptable – some deemed their waits unacceptably long and some experienced adverse effects

Waiting for care is not inherently problematic but may be considered so when patients experience adverse effects (K.D. Kelly et al. 2001), (H.C. Brownlow et al. 2001), (I.N. Ackerman et al. 2005), (H. Hadjistavropoulos et al. 2001) and/or feel they have simply waited too long for care. The proportion of patients who felt that their waiting time was unacceptable was highest among those who waited for specialist visits (29%) and diagnostic tests (21%) and lowest among those who waited for non-emergency surgery (16%) (Chart 2 ; Table 9) even though individuals are more likely to wait longer (i.e. > 3 months) for non-emergency surgical care compared with other specialized services (Table 7). This points to potential differences regarding thresholds for unacceptable waits across different specialized services – i.e. Canadians appear to be more willing to wait longer for surgery than for a visit to the specialist.

Approximately 18% of individuals who visited a specialist indicated that waiting for the visit affected their life compared with 11% and 12% for non-emergency surgery and diagnostic tests respectively. (Table 10) Most of those who were affected reported that they experienced worry, stress and anxiety during the waiting period: ranging from 49% among those whose lives were affected by waiting for non-emergency surgery to 71% among those affected by waiting for a diagnostic test. (Table 11) Between 38% and 51% of individuals waiting for specialist services experienced pain and close to 36% of those who were affected by waiting for non-emergency surgery indicated that they experienced difficulties with activities of daily living. Approximately 28% of those who were affected by waiting for a diagnostic test indicated that it resulted in worry, stress and anxiety for their friends and family.

---

Source: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/PublicH...ces.asp#Graphs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales

Difficulties getting health care

In 2006, excluding those who did not need health care, 13.2 per cent of adults had difficulties getting health care. The main difficulties were: waiting time for an appointment with a general practitioner (36.3 per cent), difficulty in accessing specialists (14.3 per cent), cost of health services (10.7 per cent), waiting time for dental services (10.1 per cent), shortage of general practitioners in area (9.3 per cent), transport issues (8.8 per cent), quality of treatment (7.9 per cent), shortage of health services (7.8 per cent), and waiting time in emergency departments (7.4 per cent).

A significantly lower proportion of males (11.9 per cent) than females (14.6 per cent) had difficulties in getting health care. Among males, a significantly lower proportion of adults aged 16-24 years (4.4 per cent) and 75 years and over (8.0 per cent), and a significantly higher proportion of adults aged 45-54 years (16.7 per cent), had difficulties getting health care, compared with the overall adult male population. Among females, a significantly lower proportion of adults aged 16-24 years (7.7 per cent) and 75 years and over (6.6 per cent), and a significantly higher proportion of adults aged 35-44 years (18.8 per cent) and 45-54 years (18.5 per cent), had difficulties getting health care, compared with the overall adult female population.

A significantly higher proportion of adults in rural areas (21.9 per cent) than urban areas (9.5 per cent) had difficulties getting health care. A lower proportion of adults in the Sydney South West (9.9 per cent), South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra (9.3 per cent), Sydney West (9.1 per cent), and Northern Sydney & Central Coast (9.7 per cent) Health Areas, had difficulties getting health care. A higher proportion of residents in the Greater Western (22.3 per cent), Greater Southern (25.3 per cent), North Coast (20.1 per cent), and Hunter & New England (20.8 per cent) Health Areas, had difficulties getting health care.

Difficulties getting health care increased with socioeconomic disadvantage. A lower proportion of adults in the least disadvantaged quintile (5.9 per cent), and a higher proportion of adults in the second most disadvantaged quintile (19.9 per cent), had difficulties in getting health care, compared with the overall adult population.

There has been a significant increase in the proportion of adults having difficulties getting health care, from 9.9 per cent in 1997 to 13.2 per cent in 2006. This increase was significant in both males (8.8 per cent to 11.9 per cent) and females (11.0 per cent to 14.6 per cent).

---

I'll admit the case with the woman who has had to wait 2 years is rare, but the fact that it has happened also indicates that the system is flawed. I'm not saying our system isn't, but you all act like Universal Healthcare is just so great.

These numbers may seem small to you, but this is for waiting time and difficulty getting care at all. At least now (in America), if you have health insurance, you can get the treatment you need when you need it. If you do not have health insurance, if it's an emergency, I'm pretty sure they have to allow you into the hospital anyway. The only problem is paying them. There, you get your care, but you must wait an average of 3 months to get it. Not everyone waits that long, some get it sooner, some get it later, but that's the median.

Look, I'm all for a new system, but Universal Healthcare isn't the right one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

I still fail to see how that that's my fault and I should pay for it. If I feel like giving to charity, that's one thing, but forcing me to pay for others is different. The whole redistribution-of-wealth thing doesn't sit well for me.

---

redistribution of wealth bothers you?

do you have any idea how much a bugger flipper MAKES monetary wise for their industry, an HOUR, in comparison to how much they actually get paid for their work?

if the distribution of wealth was fair, that is you get paid for your fair share, NO ONE WOULD BE POOR

we have poor because someone on top, CEOs especially, think their employees are worth CRAP

do you realize the purpose of MINIMUM WAGE is to keep people off the streets? is to ensure that the working man makes enough money to pay his bills? is to ensure, that no working man is in POVERTY?

minimum wage no longer meets the minimum standard to keep you above poverty. rather, it keeps you IN POVERTY because you are constantly in dept - or living with mom and dad.

my sister used to have your attitude. used to get angry at the thought of some poor jobless slob getting a penny of her hard income money. that was until, she herself was jobless and desperately looking for a job for months. that was until, her credit cards bounced and she was hundreds of dollars in dept, having done nothing wrong. until you yourself hit rock bottom, you will never know how easy it is for ANYONE to be in a position where they find themselves without a job. Or even in a transitional shitty job that doesn't pay its worth, leaving you in dept because of prior bills you can no longer afford. so just a warning. before passing judgment on poor Americans, look in the mirror.

we are first world country. not a shitty third world starving country. our minimum standard of living, is not a box and one meal a week. this is a first world country, even poor have to pay gas. this is a first world country, most people still need cars to get to work. you need electricity, running and clean water. this is a first world country, YOU SHOULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.

how much money do you have to pay to be protected by police? whether or not you pay taxes, you are protected. that is your right as an American citizen. does that piss you off as well? that someone who doesn't pay taxes still has those rights??? welcome to a first world country. welcome to the new millennium. health insurance should also be a RIGHT.

if you don't want your money to help poor americans everywhere. then start demanding why minimum wage isn't functioning. why minimum wage isn't gauranteeing an income level that can afford all the necessities of American living, including health insurance. realize, if minimum wage was doing its job, we wouldn't even need food stamps!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

redistribution of wealth bothers you?

do you have any idea how much a bugger flipper MAKES monetary wise for their industry, an HOUR, in comparison to how much they actually get paid for their work?

if the distribution of wealth was fair, that is you get paid for your fair share, NO ONE WOULD BE POOR

---

If a person owns a company, all of that is his right. He is not obligated to even hire anybody or even to have a business in the first place. Business owners are shallow, greedy assholes in most cases. But guess what. It is that quality that makes the business work. If you redistribute wealth too much, the business owners quit caring about even having businesses, and then things suck for everybody. That is why socialism is history's failure story and capitalism is history's success story.

Our "poor" aren't really poor. Tons of them are fat, and pretty much all of them have cars, cell phones, and entertainment systems. Do you know why our "poor" are so rich? Because of capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If a person owns a company, all of that is his right. He is not obligated to even hire anybody or even to have a business in the first place. Business owners are shallow, greedy assholes in most cases. But guess what. It is that quality that makes the business work. If you redistribute wealth too much, the business owners quit caring about even having businesses, and then things suck for everybody. That is why socialism is history's failure story and capitalism is history's success story.

Our "poor" aren't really poor. Tons of them are fat, and pretty much all of them have cars, cell phones, and entertainment systems. Do you know why our "poor" are so rich? Because of capitalism.

---

The reason our poor are "so rich" is because of the money they can get from welfare. That money comes from the rich, who got their money by exploiting the workers across the world! And socialism isn't histories greatest failure.

For example, look at http://www.cubatruth.org/

Also remember that the Soviet Union's economy expanded rapidly under Stalin! How did Russia become a super power in just a matter of decades, when it had been so pathetically poor before, if socialism didn't work?

Also, which country sent the first satellite to space and the first man and woman to space?

Also, if it wasn't for Russia, then how do you think world war 2 would have ended?

Stop pretending that socialism doesn't work. The Soviet Union fell because traitors came to power and made the government revisionist. The same thing happened in China.

Its easy for you to say that capitalism works, but how well is it doing in Latin America, Africa, and Asia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

The reason our poor are "so rich" is because of the money they can get from welfare. That money comes from the rich, who got their money by exploiting the workers across the world! And socialism isn't histories greatest failure.

For example, look at http://www.cubatruth.org/

Also remember that the Soviet Union's economy expanded rapidly under Stalin! How did Russia become a super power in just a matter of decades, when it had been so pathetically poor before, if socialism didn't work?

Also, which country sent the first satellite to space and the first man and woman to space?

Also, if it wasn't for Russia, then how do you think world war 2 would have ended?

Stop pretending that socialism doesn't work. The Soviet Union fell because traitors came to power and made the government revisionist. The same thing happened in China.

Its easy for you to say that capitalism works, but how well is it doing in Latin America, Africa, and Asia?

---

Welfare is a big bonus, but even the poor people who don't have welfare have the luxuries I mentioned.

All of the world's richest countries are capitalistic. Remember that I am talking about real versions of capitalism and not watered down versions like they have in South America and other places. The real thing works extremely well.

The Soviet Union under Stalin did not have as good of an economic system as capitalist countries, but it worked as well as it did because Stalin killed people for pretty much anything. The fear of death got things done, but even that is not as powerful of a motivator as greed. Later rulers used way too much of what the government had to compete with the U.S. in the arms race and the space race and in their attempt to take over the world with their very unfair and oppressive form of government. That irresponsibility combined with the futility of socialism is the reason the Soviet Union does not even exist any more.

The Soviet Union was full of businesses that were half ass. The restaurants would have about half of the items that were on the menus, and it would often take two hours for people to get their food. Why would it be any different? There was no owner all boned up about making money. So why would anybody not do a half ass job? That is an example of how things went there. If businesses suck that bad, the economy severely suffers. Money was not getting pumped into the economy like it needed to be.

Tell me something... Fear of death aside, what is the fuel that would make socialism work? What is the driving force in it? In other words, what would ever make anybody give a damn about giving their best effort to do an excellent job with a business? Why would they ever do anything more than simply getting by? I have asked that a great deal, and nobody has ever had an answer for me. Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Soviet Union under Stalin did not have as good of an economic system as capitalist countries, but it worked as well as it did because Stalin killed people for pretty much anything. The fear of death got things done, but even that is not as powerful of a motivator as greed. Later rulers used way too much of what the government had to compete with the U.S. in the arms race and the space race and in their attempt to take over the world with their very unfair and oppressive form of government. That irresponsibility combined with the futility of socialism is the reason the Soviet Union does not even exist any more.

---

Stalin killed reactionaries and counter revolutionaries. Death wasn't the motivation! Its because the proletariat believed that a communist world was possible, and they were going to try to make it a reality.

Quote:

---

Tell me something... Fear of death aside, what is the fuel that would make socialism work? What is the driving force in it? In other words, what would ever make anybody give a damn about giving their best effort to do an excellent job with a business? Why would they ever do anything more than simply getting by? I have asked that a great deal, and nobody has ever had an answer for me. Do you?

---

Why do you have hobbies? Your hobbies can be productive. For instance, why do some people make open source programs? Perhaps it could be because (GASP) they enjoy it?

Why do some people want to work at NASA? Perhaps its because the like building things?

What about mechanics who like to tinker with there car? Why wouldn't they also offer their services to others?

What about people who enjoy raising live stock and having a farm?

People would do what they find interesting.

Also, pay in the Soviet Union was not equal. People who worked harder were given bonuses, but no one was ever given the ridiculous amounts of money that CEOs in the US make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Stalin killed reactionaries and counter revolutionaries. Death wasn't the motivation! Its because the proletariat believed that a communist world was possible, and they were going to try to make it a reality.

---

So people who ran businesses and factories and such were not afraid of Stalin and his evil gang? I know I wouldn't have been screwing up with him as dictator. What about you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Why do you have hobbies? Your hobbies can be productive. For instance, why do some people make open source programs? Perhaps it could be because (GASP) they enjoy it?

---

Most people's jobs are not their hobbies. Do you think people who work forklifts at warehouses consider what they do a "hobby"? What about ditch diggers? McDonalds workers? Construction workers? I have never considered a job of mine a hobby. Ever. However, I love to make money. People do well at their jobs because either they are greedy themselves or they have greedy assholes watching over them and threatening to replace them if they don't work according to plan. The greedy assholes are obsessed with coming up with ideas and putting them into action because they are greedy assholes. Their hobby is making money, not getting buildings built and consumers happy. It is that dollar at the end of it all that makes things work so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Why do some people want to work at NASA? Perhaps its because the like building things?

---

NASA is a good example of an exception. I said that in a thread very recently. Those people love advancing space exploration. Companies don't work that way. Why is it that companies are generally run by greedy assholes? It's because people don't do that stuff for the love of anything other than money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

What about mechanics who like to tinker with there car? Why wouldn't they also offer their services to others?

What about people who enjoy raising live stock and having a farm?

People would do what they find interesting.

---

Some of those people might enjoy doing some of that, but they would not have the will to absolutely whip ass at it all day every weekday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Also, pay in the Soviet Union was not equal. People who worked harder were given bonuses, but no one was ever given the ridiculous amounts of money that CEOs in the US make.

---

Thus, the failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So people who ran businesses and factories and such were not afraid of Stalin and his evil gang? I know I wouldn't have been screwing up with him as dictator. What about you?

---

Stalin was not evil. The purges, for instance, were necessary to rid the party of Trotskyists and other counter revolutionaries who wanted to destroy the government (Trotsky was advocating terrorism).

We killed and jailed counter revolutionaries in the American Revolutionary War. So why is Stalin "evil"?

"Counter Revoloutionaries" is a nice blanket term, as is the word "Terrorist" for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Stalin was not evil. The purges, for instance, were necessary to rid the party of Trotskyists and other counter revolutionaries who wanted to destroy the government (Trotsky was advocating terrorism).

We killed and jailed counter revolutionaries in the American Revolutionary War. So why is Stalin "evil"?

---

Like Saddam Hussein, he killed everybody he even slightly suspected of being oppositional. He killed about 20 million people over that. Considering the weakness and unfairness of socialism and the paranoid genocide Stalin put on, wanting to overthrow Stalin was very understandable. He committed what was the second worst act of genocide in the history of the world. Only Mao beats him. It's not like he was running a fair government and killing just military soldiers who attacked his government.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Quote:

---

Like Saddam Hussein, he killed everybody he even slightly suspected of being oppositional. He killed about 20 million people over that.

---

That's why he was initially funded by the US. When will you finally realize the full picture.

Ron Paul used to work at a hospital, and claims that they never turned anyone away no matter how poor they were. The one doctor who is running for office is against this healthcare crap and no one even listens to him. Not only is Ron Paul a doctor he is one of the most educated people in this country when it comes to the economy. Why doesn't anyone listen to the Doctor who is an expert on money? He knows what he is talking about.

How does someone with no money get health care? They go to someone who is willing to work for free to treat them. You can say that will never happen but Ron Paul did it, and so do many others. They only need to work maybe a few hours, maybe a day out of the week helping people. If there wasn't so much crap going on with the health care now, even more doctors would do such things.

We got so many laws and so much government interference right now, its just making things more expensive. If the government backed out, the price of insurance would drop a lot, and be afforeable.

To be a libertarian or a capitalist you need to believe in what you are doing. Government interference always makes things worse, and free market always gives you the best price. Private companies that compete with each other, always gives you better result than government. You either believe this stuff to be true or you do not.

If you do not believe it, chances are you are a socialist or a communist. You probably do not believe the government can give you superior service but you are to scared to leave it up to chance. Which is why you demand they do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Like Saddam Hussein, he killed everybody he even slightly suspected of being oppositional. He killed about 20 million people over that. Considering the weakness and unfairness of socialism and the paranoid genocide Stalin put on, wanting to overthrow Stalin was very understandable. He committed what was the second worst act of genocide in the history of the world. Only Mao beats him. It's not like he was running a fair government and killing just military soldiers who attacked his government.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

---

The Ukrainian Famine didn't happen on a scale like that.

Read this book to get a better understanding of what happened in Ukraine.

Quote:

---

"Counter Revoloutionaries" is a nice blanket term, as is the word "Terrorist" for that matter.

---

So do you deny that there were monarchists and Trotskyists in Russia who wanted to overthrow the government? :roll:

Edit- Mao didn't have complete control of the Red Guard (or the droughts for that matter :roll:), so you can't blame it all on him for many of the deaths in China.

What you are talking about is irrelevant. Mao and Stalin committed big time hardcore extreme genocide on civilians for the same reasons the genocidal Hussein did. There is no way around that. Look at the numbers in that link I posted. They are the most evil people who ever lived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

That's why he was initially funded by the US. When will you finally realize the full picture.

---

Yeah, the U.S. funded his genocide in the name of Bigfoot. Thank you for your outrage against genocide.

Did you even read the link I gave you?

Don't believe all these pathetic lies. The Ukrainian Genocide myth was started BY HITLER FOR A REASON TO INVADE!! That link has The Black Book of Communism in its list of sources. There are rebuttals of that, and the numbers that it has in the book are outrageous!

Don't believe everything you hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

That's why he was initially funded by the US. When will you finally realize the full picture.

---

The US funded Iraq because of their war with Iran. Iran supported and funded several terrorist groups that created several problems (such as Hezbollah and Hamas). We supported Iraq so that Iran would not win the war and become too powerful, basically using Iraq as a balance.

Relating our funding of a country that's leader tortured and killed millions after we had already funded his country (to stop the killing of others by terrorist groups) is about as relevant as saying that all of Germany is evil because they were the ones that put Hitler in power, who also ended up killing millions.

It's funny how we all speak about capitalism here in the US, while the Fed nearly controls the market. How can you call our system a free market if all of the interest rates and numbers are being diddled with by ben bernanke?

I believe this country is on the borderline of socialism, our capitalism has been slowly taken from us by the federal reserve, central banks who control the economy are wrong and immoral in my opinion it goes against everything a free market stands for.

If we wanted a real capitalist society you wouldn't have the government bailing out freddie mac and fannie mae

Those 2 institutions are crumbling and we are adding 400 billion to 'revive' them when in reality we are delaying the inevitable, weak institutions should be put out to pasture, not bailed out!

REAL capitalism goes like this: if a business is weak, it fails and a better one replaces it

Right now we have a system of idiots in the fed who bail out everyone like bear stearns or Fred and fannie, those 3 need to fail on their own...