The best treatment for heart disease is prevention which leads us to education. Sorry, didn't mean up open up a can of worms. Actually, no.
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
| Site Announcements |
|---|
|
View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here: http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned! Welcome to the new forum! If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following: 1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt 2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit 3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided 4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab 5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit. 6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password. If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc. For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button. |
First 100 Days
50 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by djcraig » Fri May 08, 2009 3:58 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by wherewereuin82[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
Canadian health care is documented to be horrible.
[/quote]
But this wouldn't be documented by the opponents of universal health care would it?
I don't know of anyone, family or friends, that has had to wait for anything. Let alone die waiting. Which seems to be the buzz I always hear. I can walk into any hospital in this province and know that I'll get the same standard of care as the rich guy in the room next to me. Maybe he'll get a hotter nurse. That's about it. I know that I'll never have to worry that my parents won't check into a hospital for fear that they won't have enough money to pay for it. The same goes for meds.
Just wondering if this has been your experience with the Canadian health system?
[/quote]
Thank you for posting this.
I always hear the same old story, "I know someone in Canada that had to wait for an operation for 6 months". Everyone must know the same Canadian who has their ear hanging off and can't get a doctor to sew the thing back on for months.
My sister in law lives in Germany and I have spoken to her about health care. She said it is great. Your sick, you go to the doctor and that is it. She doesn't wait for months on end.
[/quote]
Yes, it does seem that there is one Canadian who is on a perpetual waiting list that Hannity et al. love to use as their example of how horrible health care is there, or in European countries in general.
My sister-in-law lives in France, and is very happy with their health care system. She never has to wait. She shows up at the doctor's office and is seen promptly, and that is the experience of other residents and citizens, as well.
This canard that floats around about looooong waiting times for doctors in other countries with varying forms of universal health care is baseless. We would be wise to examine their systems and incorporate what works best into a new system of our own. We are citizens of our communities; IMO, one of our responsibilities is pitching in for health care for all. Which...we already do anyway (as Sally Lightfoot explained above).
[/quote]
"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."
-Paul Dutton at Northern Arizona University, author of Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France.
[i]France, like all countries, faces rising costs for health care. In a country that's so generous, it's even harder to get those expenses under control. Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. [/i]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=92419273
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by marie3[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by wherewereuin82[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
Canadian health care is documented to be horrible.
[/quote]
But this wouldn't be documented by the opponents of universal health care would it?
I don't know of anyone, family or friends, that has had to wait for anything. Let alone die waiting. Which seems to be the buzz I always hear. I can walk into any hospital in this province and know that I'll get the same standard of care as the rich guy in the room next to me. Maybe he'll get a hotter nurse. That's about it. I know that I'll never have to worry that my parents won't check into a hospital for fear that they won't have enough money to pay for it. The same goes for meds.
Just wondering if this has been your experience with the Canadian health system?
[/quote]
Thank you for posting this.
I always hear the same old story, "I know someone in Canada that had to wait for an operation for 6 months". Everyone must know the same Canadian who has their ear hanging off and can't get a doctor to sew the thing back on for months.
My sister in law lives in Germany and I have spoken to her about health care. She said it is great. Your sick, you go to the doctor and that is it. She doesn't wait for months on end.
[/quote]
Yes, it does seem that there is one Canadian who is on a perpetual waiting list that Hannity et al. love to use as their example of how horrible health care is there, or in European countries in general.
My sister-in-law lives in France, and is very happy with their health care system. She never has to wait. She shows up at the doctor's office and is seen promptly, and that is the experience of other residents and citizens, as well.
This canard that floats around about looooong waiting times for doctors in other countries with varying forms of universal health care is baseless. We would be wise to examine their systems and incorporate what works best into a new system of our own. We are citizens of our communities; IMO, one of our responsibilities is pitching in for health care for all. Which...we already do anyway (as Sally Lightfoot explained above).
[/quote]
"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."
-Paul Dutton at Northern Arizona University, author of Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France.
[i]France, like all countries, faces rising costs for health care. In a country that's so generous, it's even harder to get those expenses under control. Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. [/i]
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=92419273
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
- djcraig
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3703
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:28 am
- Location:
by wherewereuin82 » Fri May 08, 2009 4:08 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by djcraig[/i]
"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."
-Paul Dutton at Northern Arizona University, author of Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France.
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
[/quote]
The French can be such snobs.
"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."
-Paul Dutton at Northern Arizona University, author of Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France.
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
[/quote]
The French can be such snobs.
- wherewereuin82
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 4353
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:41 am
- Location: Canada
by djcraig » Fri May 08, 2009 4:31 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>djcraig: [i][Obama recently stated that he would prefer not to have to take over AIG and bail out the banks....] This is a government proposed solution to a government caused problem. Liberal do gooders decided that everyone in America should be able to own a home whether they can afford one or not. Their goal of encouraging the banks to make loans to the unqualified and then not providing oversight has left us all holding the bag.[/i]
False. You've just repeated the smokescreen that Fox News and Wall Streeters have been using to protect their right-wing free-market agenda. [/quote]
I'd be tempted to claim that many of the opposing views on this board are lifted directly from liberal stalwart MSNBC. But since so few actually watch that channel, the reference would be meaningless.
[quote]
djcraig: [i]"Um, yeah, the already gov't takes about half my money earned every year in taxes, so no, I don't get to handle an ever growing amount of my own money. I'd consider that a pretty good amount of intervention. This, in turn, affects my ability to plan for retirement and provide adequate health care."[/i]
Is there a better country with lower taxes that you'd prefer to go to? Marginal tax rates in this country are almost at historic lows, and compare very favorably with any western nation. You take for granted a lot of the things the government provides for you. Try moving to a country with no or low taxes, I think you'll see that you get what you pay for-- poor basic infrastructure, shoddy schools, no poor sanitation and water, bad hospitals, high poverty and crime, lack of democracy or military rule, lack of courts and justice system, etc. You'll soon wish you could go back to your old life in Bedford Falls, George Bailey.
[/quote]
You're right. Here I was mistakenly thinking that I could put my money to good use. Big Brother always knows better what to do with my hard earned dollars.
[quote]
djcraig: [i]"So you think that the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing health care for the "tens of millions" that can't or won't pay for it will result in a higher standard of care for all of us? I can barely pay for my own healthcare and now I'm going to pay for my neighbor too and get better care?"[/i]
Don't you know that we already subsidize health care of the uninsured now?!?! What do you think happens to all of those uninsured people-- you think they don't ever go to emergency rooms or hospitals when they get in car accidents, have babies, get asthma, have heart attacks, or get cancer? No one is turned away from medical care -- the uninsured receive care, and when they can't pay their costs are picked up by public assistance, or the hospitals have to write off the costs (which raises the costs for everyone else). This form of subsidization is very costly, because some of this stuff is preventable or manageable with early care or cheap medications.
Try as you might, you can't sweep all of this under the rug and pretend it isn't there-- the medical problems of poor and/or unemployed people do impact the health care system and the pocket books of the rest of society. [/quote]
Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?[quote]
djcraig: [i]"Hypothetical unless you're the one who's sick. Right now we have citizens traveling abroad to get the treatment they need from countries whos less cumbersome machinations result in faster approval for cutting edge treatments."[/i]
I hear you on this. I know a few people who went to Mexico for experimental cancer treatment. I personally know someone who traveled to the Dead Sea in Israel for treatment of a skin condition. I am in favor of cooperation with approval agencies of other nations. I too would like to see faster approval of drugs and therapies. Not a lot to argue on this one, but I will point out that in the US, we are willing to spend infinite sums of money on treatments at the end-of-life. It is understandable when the issue is personal, but many of these treatments are very expensive and frequently do not significantly lengthen the patient's life or improve the quality. Just thought I'd mention the counterpoint on that.
djcraig: [i]"Is this out of the Karl Marx handbook?"[/i]
If you don't know, you should turn off Hannity's Jingoism Hour and instead read Das Kapital (and its critiques), as well as the work of other leading modern economic minds-- Milton Friedman, for example.
[/quote]
Friedman would have a field day with many of your statements. His belief that the INDIVIDUAL should have autonomy and be able to make decisions unfettered by government intrusion is the antithesis of much of what you've proposed. And much closer to what I believe our founding fathers had in mind.[quote]
If the private sector is provided unfettered access and no oversight, we often end up with monopolistic behavior, poor service, profiteering, worker exploitation, war, corruption, externalized costs and unintended consequences.
[/quote]
This sounds more like the results of socialism to me than anything else. All systems have inherent flaws. Ours, up to this point, has worked pretty well.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” -Churchill
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
<br>djcraig: [i][Obama recently stated that he would prefer not to have to take over AIG and bail out the banks....] This is a government proposed solution to a government caused problem. Liberal do gooders decided that everyone in America should be able to own a home whether they can afford one or not. Their goal of encouraging the banks to make loans to the unqualified and then not providing oversight has left us all holding the bag.[/i]
False. You've just repeated the smokescreen that Fox News and Wall Streeters have been using to protect their right-wing free-market agenda. [/quote]
I'd be tempted to claim that many of the opposing views on this board are lifted directly from liberal stalwart MSNBC. But since so few actually watch that channel, the reference would be meaningless.
[quote]
djcraig: [i]"Um, yeah, the already gov't takes about half my money earned every year in taxes, so no, I don't get to handle an ever growing amount of my own money. I'd consider that a pretty good amount of intervention. This, in turn, affects my ability to plan for retirement and provide adequate health care."[/i]
Is there a better country with lower taxes that you'd prefer to go to? Marginal tax rates in this country are almost at historic lows, and compare very favorably with any western nation. You take for granted a lot of the things the government provides for you. Try moving to a country with no or low taxes, I think you'll see that you get what you pay for-- poor basic infrastructure, shoddy schools, no poor sanitation and water, bad hospitals, high poverty and crime, lack of democracy or military rule, lack of courts and justice system, etc. You'll soon wish you could go back to your old life in Bedford Falls, George Bailey.
[/quote]
You're right. Here I was mistakenly thinking that I could put my money to good use. Big Brother always knows better what to do with my hard earned dollars.
[quote]
djcraig: [i]"So you think that the rest of us taxpayers subsidizing health care for the "tens of millions" that can't or won't pay for it will result in a higher standard of care for all of us? I can barely pay for my own healthcare and now I'm going to pay for my neighbor too and get better care?"[/i]
Don't you know that we already subsidize health care of the uninsured now?!?! What do you think happens to all of those uninsured people-- you think they don't ever go to emergency rooms or hospitals when they get in car accidents, have babies, get asthma, have heart attacks, or get cancer? No one is turned away from medical care -- the uninsured receive care, and when they can't pay their costs are picked up by public assistance, or the hospitals have to write off the costs (which raises the costs for everyone else). This form of subsidization is very costly, because some of this stuff is preventable or manageable with early care or cheap medications.
Try as you might, you can't sweep all of this under the rug and pretend it isn't there-- the medical problems of poor and/or unemployed people do impact the health care system and the pocket books of the rest of society. [/quote]
Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?[quote]
djcraig: [i]"Hypothetical unless you're the one who's sick. Right now we have citizens traveling abroad to get the treatment they need from countries whos less cumbersome machinations result in faster approval for cutting edge treatments."[/i]
I hear you on this. I know a few people who went to Mexico for experimental cancer treatment. I personally know someone who traveled to the Dead Sea in Israel for treatment of a skin condition. I am in favor of cooperation with approval agencies of other nations. I too would like to see faster approval of drugs and therapies. Not a lot to argue on this one, but I will point out that in the US, we are willing to spend infinite sums of money on treatments at the end-of-life. It is understandable when the issue is personal, but many of these treatments are very expensive and frequently do not significantly lengthen the patient's life or improve the quality. Just thought I'd mention the counterpoint on that.
djcraig: [i]"Is this out of the Karl Marx handbook?"[/i]
If you don't know, you should turn off Hannity's Jingoism Hour and instead read Das Kapital (and its critiques), as well as the work of other leading modern economic minds-- Milton Friedman, for example.
[/quote]
Friedman would have a field day with many of your statements. His belief that the INDIVIDUAL should have autonomy and be able to make decisions unfettered by government intrusion is the antithesis of much of what you've proposed. And much closer to what I believe our founding fathers had in mind.[quote]
If the private sector is provided unfettered access and no oversight, we often end up with monopolistic behavior, poor service, profiteering, worker exploitation, war, corruption, externalized costs and unintended consequences.
[/quote]
This sounds more like the results of socialism to me than anything else. All systems have inherent flaws. Ours, up to this point, has worked pretty well.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” -Churchill
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
- djcraig
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3703
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:28 am
- Location:
by MARV » Fri May 08, 2009 4:59 am
Democracy...even when it's bad, it's good.
- Haile Selassie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
- Haile Selassie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
- MARV
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 7419
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:09 am
- Location:
by Frau_Blucher » Fri May 08, 2009 5:16 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>Democracy...even when it's bad, it's good.
- Haile Selassie
[/quote]
Random association...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br>Democracy...even when it's bad, it's good.
- Haile Selassie
[/quote]
Random association...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
- Frau_Blucher
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 10195
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:37 pm
- Location:
by NuWaveRx » Fri May 08, 2009 5:22 am
[quote] Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare[/quote]
Because, until the last 40 years or so. Healthcare was a realtively cheap (and largely ineffective) service.
Think about it. Other than a few drugs and minor surgeries medicine in this country was just about useless (and often harmfull) in the vast majority of cases. Until 1950:
No antibiotics
No effective treatments for cancer
No effective treatments for heart disease
No treatments at all for a wide variety of gastrointestinal, psychiatric, neurologic, or rheumatologic disorders
No bio-tech drugs
No use of prosthetics material or machines: no pacemakers, ICDs, artifical hips/knees, etc.
The bottom line is all this technology and advancement costs money. We live better and longer today because of these advancements (which pale next to public health measures and vacciniations, but that's another argument). Americans want the best technology and drugs for their health--they are going to have to find some way to pay for it.
Note: I'm not advocating "universal health care" (although I'd argue with the rising % of our population on Medicare and Medicaid, we already have a one-payer system for a sizable portion of our population). I'm simply saying that because of these advances and the money we as a nation spend on healthcare, the current system is unsustainable.
Because, until the last 40 years or so. Healthcare was a realtively cheap (and largely ineffective) service.
Think about it. Other than a few drugs and minor surgeries medicine in this country was just about useless (and often harmfull) in the vast majority of cases. Until 1950:
No antibiotics
No effective treatments for cancer
No effective treatments for heart disease
No treatments at all for a wide variety of gastrointestinal, psychiatric, neurologic, or rheumatologic disorders
No bio-tech drugs
No use of prosthetics material or machines: no pacemakers, ICDs, artifical hips/knees, etc.
The bottom line is all this technology and advancement costs money. We live better and longer today because of these advancements (which pale next to public health measures and vacciniations, but that's another argument). Americans want the best technology and drugs for their health--they are going to have to find some way to pay for it.
Note: I'm not advocating "universal health care" (although I'd argue with the rising % of our population on Medicare and Medicaid, we already have a one-payer system for a sizable portion of our population). I'm simply saying that because of these advances and the money we as a nation spend on healthcare, the current system is unsustainable.
- NuWaveRx
- Der Kommissar
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:42 am
- Location:
by MARV » Fri May 08, 2009 6:12 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>Democracy...even when it's bad, it's good.
- Haile Selassie
[/quote]
Random association...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[/quote]
Thanks for picking out what movie I'm watching tonight [:D] Classic, classic, classic eighties flick. Man, I miss those early Eddie Murphy flicks. I miss all those comedy classics with Dan Akroyd, John Candy, Bill Murray, Chevy Chase, etc. What a great decade to be a teenager. Damn.
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>Democracy...even when it's bad, it's good.
- Haile Selassie
[/quote]
Random association...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCERfa8LcS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[/quote]
Thanks for picking out what movie I'm watching tonight [:D] Classic, classic, classic eighties flick. Man, I miss those early Eddie Murphy flicks. I miss all those comedy classics with Dan Akroyd, John Candy, Bill Murray, Chevy Chase, etc. What a great decade to be a teenager. Damn.
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
- MARV
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 7419
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:09 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Fri May 08, 2009 6:48 am
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
The government would not take over the health care industry. You would continue to have employer-insured plans and private doctors. Universal healthcare would be used to cover those who lack employer or private plans. The US would continue to have a system owned, managed and operated by the private sector, but the public safety net would be formally widened to cover the uninsured.
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
You're arguing against progress. Maybe early humans, upon creating the first bonfire grunted, "Meh. So what? We lived eons without."
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Friedman would have a field day with many of your statements. His belief that the INDIVIDUAL should have autonomy and be able to make decisions unfettered by government intrusion is the antithesis of much of what you've proposed. And much closer to what I believe our founding fathers had in mind."[/i]
I said that the government has a vital role to play, and that there's nothing wrong with incorporating elements of socialism in our system. And that's what we already have in the US, an economy loosely based on free-market principles (Friedman) paired with a modest social safety net (Marx). At no point did I argue that our system should be entirely Socialist-- i.e., directly controlling and owning the economy and its major industries.
It's true that I'm not a huge fan of Milton Friedman's economic ideology, but I respect his work. Note however that his ideology is considered the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis. I mention him because, like Marx, it's helps to understand the basis of certain economic policy if you're familiar with his contributions.
It may be that the philosophy of the founding fathers would align with Friedman's Chicago school of economic thought. Given that the founding fathers lived in an undeveloped, rural agrarian society (New York City had around 30k people), it doesn't surprise me that they had strong views about self-reliance. The founding fathers provided a blueprint for democracy and freedom, partly in reaction to the flawed systems in Europe. The founding fathers did not define a revenue strategy that would scale to a 21st century superpower of 300 million. Instead they handed us a democracy to settle those questions as we went along.
As I've said, I think your complaint boils down to that fact that you dislike taxation and/or the way your tax dollars are being spent. I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that while you may be upset with welfare programs or subsidizing fellow citizens, maybe you're okay with the US providing global security through its military. This too is a form of massive subsidy, and it causes us to outspend the rest of the world by a wide margin, many times more than what our closest would-be foes spend. I'm wondering how you square with this type of annual subsidy to foreigners when you resent the notion of support for fellow citizens.
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"This sounds more like the results of socialism to me than anything else. All systems have inherent flaws. Ours, up to this point, has worked pretty well."[/i]
I agree that our system has worked pretty well. And that all systems have flaws. I am not pushing for a socialist state, I'm looking to improve aspects of this country which are not being served by private enterprise. While I believe that revenues could be spent far more wisely, I am not in favor of rolling things back to an 'every man for himself' culture in order to shrink government and reduce taxes. Ron Paul wants that, and I admire his principles and honesty, but I don't think it's the right direction. I think the benefits of a libertarian system would fall primarily to the rich and privileged classes, which is why these ideas are so wildly popular in those circles.
The government would not take over the health care industry. You would continue to have employer-insured plans and private doctors. Universal healthcare would be used to cover those who lack employer or private plans. The US would continue to have a system owned, managed and operated by the private sector, but the public safety net would be formally widened to cover the uninsured.
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
You're arguing against progress. Maybe early humans, upon creating the first bonfire grunted, "Meh. So what? We lived eons without."
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Friedman would have a field day with many of your statements. His belief that the INDIVIDUAL should have autonomy and be able to make decisions unfettered by government intrusion is the antithesis of much of what you've proposed. And much closer to what I believe our founding fathers had in mind."[/i]
I said that the government has a vital role to play, and that there's nothing wrong with incorporating elements of socialism in our system. And that's what we already have in the US, an economy loosely based on free-market principles (Friedman) paired with a modest social safety net (Marx). At no point did I argue that our system should be entirely Socialist-- i.e., directly controlling and owning the economy and its major industries.
It's true that I'm not a huge fan of Milton Friedman's economic ideology, but I respect his work. Note however that his ideology is considered the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis. I mention him because, like Marx, it's helps to understand the basis of certain economic policy if you're familiar with his contributions.
It may be that the philosophy of the founding fathers would align with Friedman's Chicago school of economic thought. Given that the founding fathers lived in an undeveloped, rural agrarian society (New York City had around 30k people), it doesn't surprise me that they had strong views about self-reliance. The founding fathers provided a blueprint for democracy and freedom, partly in reaction to the flawed systems in Europe. The founding fathers did not define a revenue strategy that would scale to a 21st century superpower of 300 million. Instead they handed us a democracy to settle those questions as we went along.
As I've said, I think your complaint boils down to that fact that you dislike taxation and/or the way your tax dollars are being spent. I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that while you may be upset with welfare programs or subsidizing fellow citizens, maybe you're okay with the US providing global security through its military. This too is a form of massive subsidy, and it causes us to outspend the rest of the world by a wide margin, many times more than what our closest would-be foes spend. I'm wondering how you square with this type of annual subsidy to foreigners when you resent the notion of support for fellow citizens.
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"This sounds more like the results of socialism to me than anything else. All systems have inherent flaws. Ours, up to this point, has worked pretty well."[/i]
I agree that our system has worked pretty well. And that all systems have flaws. I am not pushing for a socialist state, I'm looking to improve aspects of this country which are not being served by private enterprise. While I believe that revenues could be spent far more wisely, I am not in favor of rolling things back to an 'every man for himself' culture in order to shrink government and reduce taxes. Ron Paul wants that, and I admire his principles and honesty, but I don't think it's the right direction. I think the benefits of a libertarian system would fall primarily to the rich and privileged classes, which is why these ideas are so wildly popular in those circles.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by marie3 » Fri May 08, 2009 7:01 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>[quote] Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare[/quote]
Because, until the last 40 years or so. Healthcare was a realtively cheap (and largely ineffective) service.
Think about it. Other than a few drugs and minor surgeries medicine in this country was just about useless (and often harmfull) in the vast majority of cases. Until 1950:
No antibiotics
No effective treatments for cancer
No effective treatments for heart disease
No treatments at all for a wide variety of gastrointestinal, psychiatric, neurologic, or rheumatologic disorders
No bio-tech drugs
No use of prosthetics material or machines: no pacemakers, ICDs, artifical hips/knees, etc.
The bottom line is all this technology and advancement costs money. We live better and longer today because of these advancements (which pale next to public health measures and vacciniations, but that's another argument). Americans want the best technology and drugs for their health--they are going to have to find some way to pay for it.
Note: I'm not advocating "universal health care" (although I'd argue with the rising % of our population on Medicare and Medicaid, we already have a one-payer system for a sizable portion of our population). I'm simply saying that because of these advances and the money we as a nation spend on healthcare, the current system is unsustainable.
[/quote]
I also would like to add that the insurance companies weren't in the business for profit years ago.
Have you seen the CEO bonuses of some of these companies?
And years ago the insurance companies didn't dictate how much a doctor was going to be reimbursed for their services. It's all bullsh*t.
<br>[quote] Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare[/quote]
Because, until the last 40 years or so. Healthcare was a realtively cheap (and largely ineffective) service.
Think about it. Other than a few drugs and minor surgeries medicine in this country was just about useless (and often harmfull) in the vast majority of cases. Until 1950:
No antibiotics
No effective treatments for cancer
No effective treatments for heart disease
No treatments at all for a wide variety of gastrointestinal, psychiatric, neurologic, or rheumatologic disorders
No bio-tech drugs
No use of prosthetics material or machines: no pacemakers, ICDs, artifical hips/knees, etc.
The bottom line is all this technology and advancement costs money. We live better and longer today because of these advancements (which pale next to public health measures and vacciniations, but that's another argument). Americans want the best technology and drugs for their health--they are going to have to find some way to pay for it.
Note: I'm not advocating "universal health care" (although I'd argue with the rising % of our population on Medicare and Medicaid, we already have a one-payer system for a sizable portion of our population). I'm simply saying that because of these advances and the money we as a nation spend on healthcare, the current system is unsustainable.
[/quote]
I also would like to add that the insurance companies weren't in the business for profit years ago.
Have you seen the CEO bonuses of some of these companies?
And years ago the insurance companies didn't dictate how much a doctor was going to be reimbursed for their services. It's all bullsh*t.
- marie3
- Der Kommissar
- Posts: 3080
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 8:35 pm
- Location:
by MARV » Fri May 08, 2009 7:03 am
You really need to be a fan of Entourage (LOVE) to fully get this vid clip:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GzrB-My6M8I&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GzrB-My6M8I&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Can I get a holla for Entourage?
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GzrB-My6M8I&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GzrB-My6M8I&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Can I get a holla for Entourage?
<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
- MARV
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 7419
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:09 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Sat May 09, 2009 4:31 am
I can't resist:<br>
[b]Tea Party Douchebags[/b]<br>
<img src="http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m51/mcpreacher/teapartydouches.jpg">
[b]Tea Party Douchebags[/b]<br>
<img src="http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m51/mcpreacher/teapartydouches.jpg">
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by djcraig » Mon May 11, 2009 5:49 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
The government would not take over the health care industry. You would continue to have employer-insured plans and private doctors. Universal healthcare would be used to cover those who lack employer or private plans. The US would continue to have a system owned, managed and operated by the private sector, but the public safety net would be formally widened to cover the uninsured. </quote>
That would be great if it worked out to be a cost effective, efficient solution. Past experience shows that's not likely. Estimates for the Medicare deficit is already between 50- 90 BILLION.
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
You're arguing against progress. Maybe early humans, upon creating the first bonfire grunted, "Meh. So what? We lived eons without."[/quote]
Are you purposely obfuscating? I'm not arguing against fire. I'm arguing against people coming and taking the wood you spent all day gathering to keep your family warm and using it for their fires.
Or better yet, having the government distribute the wood you gathered. For every 5 logs, 1 would get lost, 1 would be used to fund the redistribution program, 2 would actually get distributed to some who needed it (and some who were perfectly able to get their own wood) and you get to keep one.[quote]
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Friedman would have a field day with many of your statements. His belief that the INDIVIDUAL should have autonomy and be able to make decisions unfettered by government intrusion is the antithesis of much of what you've proposed. And much closer to what I believe our founding fathers had in mind."[/i]
I said that the government has a vital role to play, and that there's nothing wrong with incorporating elements of socialism in our system. And that's what we already have in the US, an economy loosely based on free-market principles (Friedman) paired with a modest social safety net (Marx). At no point did I argue that our system should be entirely Socialist-- i.e., directly controlling and owning the economy and its major industries.
It's true that I'm not a huge fan of Milton Friedman's economic ideology, but I respect his work. Note however that his ideology is considered the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis. I mention him because, like Marx, it's helps to understand the basis of certain economic policy if you're familiar with his contributions.
It may be that the philosophy of the founding fathers would align with Friedman's Chicago school of economic thought. Given that the founding fathers lived in an undeveloped, rural agrarian society (New York City had around 30k people), it doesn't surprise me that they had strong views about self-reliance. The founding fathers provided a blueprint for democracy and freedom, partly in reaction to the flawed systems in Europe. The founding fathers did not define a revenue strategy that would scale to a 21st century superpower of 300 million. Instead they handed us a democracy to settle those questions as we went along.[/quote]
Friedman's ideology considered "the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis"? That's just goofy.
We are so far from the ideas that Friedman proposed on free trade, goverment limitations and individual autonomy, we will probably never have an opportunity to see these ideas tested in reality. Not in this country and probably not on this planet.[quote]
As I've said, I think your complaint boils down to that fact that you dislike taxation and/or the way your tax dollars are being spent. I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that while you may be upset with welfare programs or subsidizing fellow citizens, maybe you're okay with the US providing global security through its military. This too is a form of massive subsidy, and it causes us to outspend the rest of the world by a wide margin, many times more than what our closest would-be foes spend. I'm wondering how you square with this type of annual subsidy to foreigners when you resent the notion of support for fellow citizens.[/quote]
Not crazy about it. A certain amount of offshore security is needed but I'm sure we overspend and have tons of waste there too- that's the nature of a rampant centralized government.[quote]
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"This sounds more like the results of socialism to me than anything else. All systems have inherent flaws. Ours, up to this point, has worked pretty well."[/i]
I agree that our system has worked pretty well. And that all systems have flaws. I am not pushing for a socialist state, I'm looking to improve aspects of this country which are not being served by private enterprise. While I believe that revenues could be spent far more wisely, I am not in favor of rolling things back to an 'every man for himself' culture in order to shrink government and reduce taxes. Ron Paul wants that, and I admire his principles and honesty, but I don't think it's the right direction. I think the benefits of a libertarian system would fall primarily to the rich and privileged classes, which is why these ideas are so wildly popular in those circles.
[/quote]
You mean those classes that already pay a vast majority of all taxes and also give more in charitable contributions? Bunch of hard-assed, uncaring elitists if you ask me.
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
<br>[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Having the gov't handle it WON'T make it better. How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
The government would not take over the health care industry. You would continue to have employer-insured plans and private doctors. Universal healthcare would be used to cover those who lack employer or private plans. The US would continue to have a system owned, managed and operated by the private sector, but the public safety net would be formally widened to cover the uninsured. </quote>
That would be great if it worked out to be a cost effective, efficient solution. Past experience shows that's not likely. Estimates for the Medicare deficit is already between 50- 90 BILLION.
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"How the hell did we survive for 200 plus years without universal healthcare?"[/i]
You're arguing against progress. Maybe early humans, upon creating the first bonfire grunted, "Meh. So what? We lived eons without."[/quote]
Are you purposely obfuscating? I'm not arguing against fire. I'm arguing against people coming and taking the wood you spent all day gathering to keep your family warm and using it for their fires.
Or better yet, having the government distribute the wood you gathered. For every 5 logs, 1 would get lost, 1 would be used to fund the redistribution program, 2 would actually get distributed to some who needed it (and some who were perfectly able to get their own wood) and you get to keep one.[quote]
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"Friedman would have a field day with many of your statements. His belief that the INDIVIDUAL should have autonomy and be able to make decisions unfettered by government intrusion is the antithesis of much of what you've proposed. And much closer to what I believe our founding fathers had in mind."[/i]
I said that the government has a vital role to play, and that there's nothing wrong with incorporating elements of socialism in our system. And that's what we already have in the US, an economy loosely based on free-market principles (Friedman) paired with a modest social safety net (Marx). At no point did I argue that our system should be entirely Socialist-- i.e., directly controlling and owning the economy and its major industries.
It's true that I'm not a huge fan of Milton Friedman's economic ideology, but I respect his work. Note however that his ideology is considered the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis. I mention him because, like Marx, it's helps to understand the basis of certain economic policy if you're familiar with his contributions.
It may be that the philosophy of the founding fathers would align with Friedman's Chicago school of economic thought. Given that the founding fathers lived in an undeveloped, rural agrarian society (New York City had around 30k people), it doesn't surprise me that they had strong views about self-reliance. The founding fathers provided a blueprint for democracy and freedom, partly in reaction to the flawed systems in Europe. The founding fathers did not define a revenue strategy that would scale to a 21st century superpower of 300 million. Instead they handed us a democracy to settle those questions as we went along.[/quote]
Friedman's ideology considered "the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis"? That's just goofy.
We are so far from the ideas that Friedman proposed on free trade, goverment limitations and individual autonomy, we will probably never have an opportunity to see these ideas tested in reality. Not in this country and probably not on this planet.[quote]
As I've said, I think your complaint boils down to that fact that you dislike taxation and/or the way your tax dollars are being spent. I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that while you may be upset with welfare programs or subsidizing fellow citizens, maybe you're okay with the US providing global security through its military. This too is a form of massive subsidy, and it causes us to outspend the rest of the world by a wide margin, many times more than what our closest would-be foes spend. I'm wondering how you square with this type of annual subsidy to foreigners when you resent the notion of support for fellow citizens.[/quote]
Not crazy about it. A certain amount of offshore security is needed but I'm sure we overspend and have tons of waste there too- that's the nature of a rampant centralized government.[quote]
[b]djcraig:[/b] [i]"This sounds more like the results of socialism to me than anything else. All systems have inherent flaws. Ours, up to this point, has worked pretty well."[/i]
I agree that our system has worked pretty well. And that all systems have flaws. I am not pushing for a socialist state, I'm looking to improve aspects of this country which are not being served by private enterprise. While I believe that revenues could be spent far more wisely, I am not in favor of rolling things back to an 'every man for himself' culture in order to shrink government and reduce taxes. Ron Paul wants that, and I admire his principles and honesty, but I don't think it's the right direction. I think the benefits of a libertarian system would fall primarily to the rich and privileged classes, which is why these ideas are so wildly popular in those circles.
[/quote]
You mean those classes that already pay a vast majority of all taxes and also give more in charitable contributions? Bunch of hard-assed, uncaring elitists if you ask me.
<a href="http://www.djcraig.net/los_angeles_dj">DJ Craig</a>
- djcraig
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3703
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:28 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Mon May 11, 2009 1:41 pm
[b]djcraig wrote:[/b] [i]"Are you purposely obfuscating? I'm not arguing against fire. I'm arguing against people coming and taking the wood you spent all day gathering to keep your family warm and using it for their fires."[/i]
No, I'm not obfuscating. Perhaps the analogy was bad. It sounded as though you were against progress, or, because things have failed or are wasteful, you would prefer to yank the plug and roll back to 'every man for himself' economy.
I understand that you don't like wealth redistribution, and that it seems unfair and inefficient. But I would not like to go back to the days before taxation. When I look back to before the US had no welfare, no social security, no unemployment insurance, and no minimum wage laws, life was full of hardship. Dangerous working conditions, widespread poverty, starvation, mass unemployment and child labor were the norm. The people who benefited most during this libertarian era were dynasties such as the Rockefellers and the Carnegies.
[b]djcraig wrote:[/b] [i]Friedman's ideology considered "the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis"? That's just goofy.
We are so far from the ideas that Friedman proposed on free trade, government limitations and individual autonomy, we will probably never have an opportunity to see these ideas tested in reality. Not in this country and probably not on this planet."[/i]
[b]<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49D9EJ20081014?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews">Financial crisis haunts Milton Friedman's legacy</a>[/b]
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. economist Milton Friedman, the champion of unfettered markets, is under siege for theories that some blame for unleashing the global financial crisis.
Friedman's theories are interesting, and represent an ideal, but economic theories often don't translate very well into actual practice, human nature being as complex as it is. And yes, the same applies for socialist/marxist economists.
[b]djcraig wrote:[/b] [i]"You mean those classes that already pay a vast majority of all taxes and also give more in charitable contributions? Bunch of hard-assed, uncaring elitists if you ask me."[/i]
I suppose it's not fair that the low-income individuals and families pay less in taxes. You can boil the income distribution down to the following scenario (analysis of CBO data from <a href="http://afferentinput.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-america-had-100-and-100-people.html">Afferintinput</a>):
Pretend America has 100 people in it and that the total income for all of America is $100. Using the CBO income distribution figures for 2005, the people in the top 20 took home $54 of that $100. That leaves $46 for the remaining 80 people. The twenty people in the lowest quintile took home just 19 cents.
I'm sure that the top income brackets in the United States have all earned their money and should be entitled to keep as much of it as possible. It's a bummer for them that the government gives them a forced haircut, which depressingly cuts into the number of vacation homes and race horses they own. However, I think it's a stretch for anyone to suggest that the current tax structure is oppressive to them (and don't get me started on the paltry 15% capital gains tax). We'll see if they 'go-Galt' or expatriate to the banana republics.
I will join the chorus about government waste and inefficiency, but I think the only way forward is reform. That is, spending more wisely instead of sending this country back to the time of the Carnegies and Rockefellers.
No, I'm not obfuscating. Perhaps the analogy was bad. It sounded as though you were against progress, or, because things have failed or are wasteful, you would prefer to yank the plug and roll back to 'every man for himself' economy.
I understand that you don't like wealth redistribution, and that it seems unfair and inefficient. But I would not like to go back to the days before taxation. When I look back to before the US had no welfare, no social security, no unemployment insurance, and no minimum wage laws, life was full of hardship. Dangerous working conditions, widespread poverty, starvation, mass unemployment and child labor were the norm. The people who benefited most during this libertarian era were dynasties such as the Rockefellers and the Carnegies.
[b]djcraig wrote:[/b] [i]Friedman's ideology considered "the theoretical underpinning of the current financial crisis"? That's just goofy.
We are so far from the ideas that Friedman proposed on free trade, government limitations and individual autonomy, we will probably never have an opportunity to see these ideas tested in reality. Not in this country and probably not on this planet."[/i]
[b]<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49D9EJ20081014?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews">Financial crisis haunts Milton Friedman's legacy</a>[/b]
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. economist Milton Friedman, the champion of unfettered markets, is under siege for theories that some blame for unleashing the global financial crisis.
Friedman's theories are interesting, and represent an ideal, but economic theories often don't translate very well into actual practice, human nature being as complex as it is. And yes, the same applies for socialist/marxist economists.
[b]djcraig wrote:[/b] [i]"You mean those classes that already pay a vast majority of all taxes and also give more in charitable contributions? Bunch of hard-assed, uncaring elitists if you ask me."[/i]
I suppose it's not fair that the low-income individuals and families pay less in taxes. You can boil the income distribution down to the following scenario (analysis of CBO data from <a href="http://afferentinput.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-america-had-100-and-100-people.html">Afferintinput</a>):
Pretend America has 100 people in it and that the total income for all of America is $100. Using the CBO income distribution figures for 2005, the people in the top 20 took home $54 of that $100. That leaves $46 for the remaining 80 people. The twenty people in the lowest quintile took home just 19 cents.
I'm sure that the top income brackets in the United States have all earned their money and should be entitled to keep as much of it as possible. It's a bummer for them that the government gives them a forced haircut, which depressingly cuts into the number of vacation homes and race horses they own. However, I think it's a stretch for anyone to suggest that the current tax structure is oppressive to them (and don't get me started on the paltry 15% capital gains tax). We'll see if they 'go-Galt' or expatriate to the banana republics.
I will join the chorus about government waste and inefficiency, but I think the only way forward is reform. That is, spending more wisely instead of sending this country back to the time of the Carnegies and Rockefellers.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
50 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to —Not Necessarily New Wave—
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests