Senator pushes for Universal Healthcare

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Then run for office if you think you can change things for the better, letting CEOs and private industry run the show is a race for everyone to the bottom except the owners of industry.

There is a total conflict of interest between making money and actual human lives, this will always be the big failure of capitalism.

Is that why our avg lifespan has grown and on avg we have a higher standard of living?

 

[Steeplerot]

Lesse, things that the govt has done that have been efficient: The world wars, our freeway system, large dams and bridges, SS is still trucking along regardless of the doomsayers, and well, we are still here after all these years with a pretty much intact constitution.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Then run for office if you think you can change things for the better, letting CEOs and private industry run the show is a race for everyone to the bottom except the owners of industry.

There is a total conflict of interest between making money and actual human lives, this will always be the big failure of capitalism.

Is that why our avg lifespan has grown and on avg we have a higher standard of living?

Depends on what third world country you are comparing us to.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Then run for office if you think you can change things for the better, letting CEOs and private industry run the show is a race for everyone to the bottom except the owners of industry.

There is a total conflict of interest between making money and actual human lives, this will always be the big failure of capitalism.

Is that why our avg lifespan has grown and on avg we have a higher standard of living?

Depends on what third world country you are comparing us to.

How about 1930s USA.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Jadow
And I get my water from a well I own on my property.

So I take it that groundwater pollution by an upstream chemical plant woudn't phase you in the least, and you don't think it would be government's business to regulate such pollution.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Then run for office if you think you can change things for the better, letting CEOs and private industry run the show is a race for everyone to the bottom except the owners of industry.

There is a total conflict of interest between making money and actual human lives, this will always be the big failure of capitalism.

Is that why our avg lifespan has grown and on avg we have a higher standard of living?

Depends on what third world country you are comparing us to.

How about 1930s USA.

It is called medical science Genx, Now c'mon I know you can do way better then that.

 

[Jadow]

well Steeplerot, one thing is sure, your government is the answer to everything, and my government IS the problem stances aren't going to change, if we're on AT long enough, we'll still be having this debate 20 years from now, so I'm done for today. Merry Christmas!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Then run for office if you think you can change things for the better, letting CEOs and private industry run the show is a race for everyone to the bottom except the owners of industry.

There is a total conflict of interest between making money and actual human lives, this will always be the big failure of capitalism.

Is that why our avg lifespan has grown and on avg we have a higher standard of living?

Depends on what third world country you are comparing us to.

How about 1930s USA.

It is called medical science Genx, Now c'mon I kno you can do way better then that.

You said the current system is a race to the bottom. I am trying to figure out how you race to the bottom by recieving better care than before?

Sounds to me like if what you blab is true, our lifespan should have gone down and we should have seen a lower standard of living.

 

[Steeplerot]

Yes, we had something called the labor movement to counteract the negative effects of unfettered capitalism, maybe review a 20th century history class?

I am still waiting for a good one, try again.

 

[Vic]

Service Employees International Union

FYI: this union controls the state government in Oregon.

If you are single with no dependents and working full-time, then public healthcare will be a bad deal for you.
If you have dependents, then it'll be a great deal, and you'll be fsckin' over all the people without dependents, i.e. forcing them to pay for your children.
If you're not working, or work part-time, then this will be mixed. Virtually all states offer some form of low-income health coverage for those in need.
If you're disabled or retired, then this won't matter, you already get Medicare.
If you're self-employed or owner of a small business, this is good news, albeit a bit mixed as your tax burdens will increase, probably proportionate to your cost savings. However, those who have trouble getting coverage due to (say) a small group size will no longer have that problem.
If you're an illegal immigrant, this is fantastic.
If you're a privacy rights advocate, this is the worst thing in the world, as a national ID card is certain to follow.

If you're the CEO of a major corporation, especially one with union healthcare obligations, then Wyden is your new hero.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Yes, we had something called the labor movement to counteract the negative effects of unfettered capitalism, maybe review a 20th century history class?

I am still waiting for a good one, try again.

Oh, so if we had this labor union movement and our health and standard of living went up? What are you so worried about? Obviously the boogeyman of capitalism is contained.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Typical response from a right-wing ideologue who has utterly lost any human perspective, moral perspective and common sense.

Government exists for the *serving of the needs of the public*, the welfare of the citizens, the benefit of the people, all those nice phrases.

Times change for rational people who are not locked into pretending the economy and technology are still in the 18th century. Our founding fathers looked forward to changes.

Medical care is something everyone needs available. Our economy gets the benefits of increased productivity by allowing some to be left out; the system not rewarding some people is built in to the way it works. Clearly, you are not one of the people who cannot afford medical insurance. Nor are you moral enough to care much about those who are.

When rational people look at the issue, they look at the costs to society of not having such insurance, the feasibility of providing it, the benefits of healthier people, the moral issue, and every industrialized nation on the planet but the US, and a majority of the public of our nation, has reached the same conclusion, that the government should offer universal health care. A right-wing ideologue, though, mocks the needs of the poor, mocks the need for healthcare, and demands the ideology be followed.

Some imagined catastrophe causes him to insist that healthcare must be kept as it is, while the tens of millions who need healthcare are ignored.

It's an utterly immoral, irrational approach. The debate points of the ideologue do not stand up. The ideologue is unaware of the influence of the propaganda of those who have a vested interest in the enormous profitability of the status quo continuing, and is unable to weigh that interest against the public's interest. Luckily, the ideologue is losing ground on this issue, and like countless others, society will progress in spite of him.

Your emotional arguments and senseless partisan hackery add nothing to the discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

How many times are people going to have the same argument over universal health care? By any objective standard universal health care offers more care at lower cost then our current system does. This has been linked to dozens of times. This is not news. Complain about the role of government if you want, complain about lack of choice for you, but don't say that it doesn't work... because it's been proven to work time and time again.

People have a tendancy to ignore information that they find unpleasant or information that contradicts their world views.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski
Hehe, "screw us". The lack of such a thing is screwing you over a whole lot more.

Why should I be financially for someone else's health problems?

By the way, I've had about $300,000 in back surgeries over the past couple years and I think I paid $20 in co-pay once because my mom didn't have $20 on her.

Someone else Paid for your Surgery. Those Else's Paid a whole lot more than if it was Paid through a Universal Program. As part of a Co-Pay you are already Paying for someone elses health problems and are financially responsible(believe you missed this word ) for them.

In short, you already are.

Please prove the bolded. Thank you.

 

[Steeplerot]

I was not talking about health, you said health compared to the 30's and I said it was medicine, case closed.

I was speaking about Jadows naive statements about capitalism and the race to the bottom, you are kinda slow today, go grab a coffee perhaps.

 

[Jadow]

you're talking about naive statements? how about this one:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How many times are people going to have the same argument over universal health care? By any objective standard universal health care offers more care at lower cost then our current system does. This has been linked to dozens of times. This is not news. Complain about the role of government if you want, complain about lack of choice for you, but don't say that it doesn't work... because it's been proven to work time and time again.

People have a tendancy to ignore information that they find unpleasant or information that contradicts their world views.

If it's been linked dozens of times, then link it again. The fact is, if what you are saying were true, then those you claim oppose your own world view and agenda would jump on this faster than flies on sh!t. So obviously there's something a little deeper here, dontcha think?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Your emotional arguments and senseless partisan hackery add nothing to the discussion.

Vic has officially entered the thread.... :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
How many times are people going to have the same argument over universal health care? By any objective standard universal health care offers more care at lower cost then our current system does. This has been linked to dozens of times. This is not news. Complain about the role of government if you want, complain about lack of choice for you, but don't say that it doesn't work... because it's been proven to work time and time again.

People have a tendancy to ignore information that they find unpleasant or information that contradicts their world views.

You get cherry picking on both sides.
However the problem with universal healthcare for me is the costs of it all.
This will be picked up by the taxpayer. You just burdened a lot of people with a cost that is currently picked up by their employer.
The second is the inefficiency of govt in general. You can gurantee they will spend more than needed on everything.
The Third is the fact that you are going to see budget issues with the healthplan. This will lead to rationing or outright refusal of services for procedures. This currently happens in many countries with universal healthcare and it will happen here.

Does the system need tweaking? I think it does. But I dont think letting our federal govt take care of it is in our best interest.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Jadow
you're talking about naive statements? how about this one:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it takes a authoritarian state to keep people treating one another fairly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is Vic being a tool trying to misrepresent what he knows was a typo to discredit other posters, he has a bit of a ethics problem on this forum.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I was not talking about health, you said health compared to the 30's and I said it was medicine, case closed.

I was speaking about Jadows naive statements about capitalism and the race to the bottom, you are kinda slow today, go grab a coffee perhaps.

How do avg people get access to medicine?
Nice try at dodging, like usual.

Your idea we race to the bottom is nothing more than alarmist BS, typical of your ilk.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Your emotional arguments and senseless partisan hackery add nothing to the discussion.

Vic has officially entered the thread.... :roll:

Am I wrong? No. He blats mindless emotional garbage and partisan hackery as though those add in any fashion to sensible discussion, or to the possibility of peaceable resolution of differences. I can understand why you roll your eyes though, as you're no different. And there's no reason to be nice to you (or him) in turn, because you can't reason with or compromise with a hate-filled selfish radical.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Your emotional arguments and senseless partisan hackery add nothing to the discussion.

Vic has officially entered the thread.... :roll:

And time for leechlerot to be proved the fool again lol

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Your emotional arguments and senseless partisan hackery add nothing to the discussion.

Vic has officially entered the thread.... :roll:

Am I wrong? No. He blats mindless emotional garbage and partisan hackery as though those add in any fashion to sensible discussion, or to the possibility of peaceable resolution of differences. I can understand why you roll your eyes though, as you're no different. And there's no reason to be nice to you (or him) in turn, because you can't reason with or compromise with a hate-filled selfish radical.

You are not one to speak, you can clear a thread faster then anyone else here, and it is not because you are insightful, trust me.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Your emotional arguments and senseless partisan hackery add nothing to the discussion.

Vic has officially entered the thread.... :roll:

And time for leechlerot to be proved the fool again lol

Sorry you can't handle your own, maybe get a pair of cajones on loan?