Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

Started by PoopyfaceMcGee, December 11, 2006, 01:30:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

fansince61

Quote from: Cerevant on January 18, 2008, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 18, 2008, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on January 18, 2008, 03:58:56 PM
This is a far cry from the "dying waiting for treatment" bullshtein that I was responding to.

Well, I never said that anyone was dying waiting for treatment...
No, that was fs61, who thinks the US shouldn't have subsidized health care because he knows some guy that needs a bypass. 

Quotebut the nature of the system reduces choice, access, and motivation for the most intelligent and ambitious people to enter the medical or pharmaceutical fields.
Actually, the problem is that too many of them go into specialties, because they pay better.  Still, if Canada spent what the US spends on healthcare, the doctors would make much more.

QuoteMaking health care a right of all citizens doesn't mean that we have to go to pure Socialism.
Agreed.  I am for subsidized private insurance...just like Obama (back on topic!)

QuotePlus, you're ugly.
I never contested this.


QuoteCongrats on the new baby, by the way.
Thanks!
[/quote]

No!  What I'm saying is that make health care manditory but let insurance companies compete for your business.  No one payer manditory government system like Canada,  The last I read (Dec WSJ)  health care ratings showed US first, France second, England third, canada fourth,  Canada rating was twice as bad as ours with France and England in between

No!

rjs246

Quote from: fansince61 on January 18, 2008, 06:28:13 PM
No!  What I'm saying is that make health care manditory but let insurance companies compete for your business. 

This is wear I get a little hazy on this whole thing. Are you suggesting that government healthcare be available to everyone, while private companies also have the right to compete for your business? I see a problem with this plan. Namely, the rich getting significantly better better care than the poor. They can afford to get fancy highfalutin doctoring while the poor wait in line to see Doctor Malpractice. 

I don't know, maybe that isn't a problem. I mean, guaranteed health care, even if it isn't the very top of the line is still better than no health care, right? I'm just thinking out loud here.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Cerevant

Quote from: fansince61 on January 18, 2008, 04:51:19 PM
He would have been fixed ASAP in USA with a bypasses .*

*if he had good health insurance
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

Cerevant

Quote from: fansince61 on January 18, 2008, 06:28:13 PM
What I'm saying is that make health care manditory but let insurance companies compete for your business.  No one payer manditory government system like Canada.

Me too. 
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

MadMarchHare

Quote from: rjs246 on January 18, 2008, 06:37:03 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on January 18, 2008, 06:28:13 PM
No!  What I'm saying is that make health care manditory but let insurance companies compete for your business. 

This is wear I get a little hazy on this whole thing. Are you suggesting that government healthcare be available to everyone, while private companies also have the right to compete for your business? I see a problem with this plan. Namely, the rich getting significantly better better care than the poor. They can afford to get fancy highfalutin doctoring while the poor wait in line to see Doctor Malpractice. 

I don't know, maybe that isn't a problem. I mean, guaranteed health care, even if it isn't the very top of the line is still better than no health care, right? I'm just thinking out loud here.

This is already happening.  My father (retired, good pension) pays about 2,000 a year each for himself and my Mom, to be on the preferred list of a list of doctors and specialists.  When they run out of slots, they don't accept more patients.  He still gets charged going rates for treatment, but without the entry fee he couldn't see any of these docs at all.  My guess, this will become the norm within 10 years.
Anyone but Reid.

rjs246

Quote from: MadMarchHare on January 18, 2008, 07:15:46 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 18, 2008, 06:37:03 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on January 18, 2008, 06:28:13 PM
No!  What I'm saying is that make health care manditory but let insurance companies compete for your business. 

This is wear I get a little hazy on this whole thing. Are you suggesting that government healthcare be available to everyone, while private companies also have the right to compete for your business? I see a problem with this plan. Namely, the rich getting significantly better better care than the poor. They can afford to get fancy highfalutin doctoring while the poor wait in line to see Doctor Malpractice. 

I don't know, maybe that isn't a problem. I mean, guaranteed health care, even if it isn't the very top of the line is still better than no health care, right? I'm just thinking out loud here.

This is already happening.  My father (retired, good pension) pays about 2,000 a year each for himself and my Mom, to be on the preferred list of a list of doctors and specialists.  When they run out of slots, they don't accept more patients.  He still gets charged going rates for treatment, but without the entry fee he couldn't see any of these docs at all.  My guess, this will become the norm within 10 years.

Right, the difference now is that there is a whole population of people who don't have ANY insurance. Which I would imagine will encourage this gap between zesty care and top-notch care to expand... but at least everyone will be insured and have access to care.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

Phanatic

Isn't that mandatory capitalism? Something doesn't feel right about that.
This post is brought to you by Alcohol!

PhillyGirl

"Oh, yeah. They'll still boo. They have to. They're born to boo. Just now, they'll only boo with two Os instead of like four." - Larry Andersen

rjs246

Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

MDS

I swear to god if it's Hillary vs. Romney I'm moving to Canada.
Zero hour, Michael. It's the end of the line. I'm the firstborn. I'm sick of playing second fiddle. I'm always third in line for everything. I'm tired of finishing fourth. Being the fifth wheel. There are six things I'm mad about, and I'm taking over.

Cerevant

Um...er...no!  It sucks up here!  Stay down there!
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

shorebird


MadMarchHare

Actually, I consider Hillary v. Huckabee enough to figure out how to nuke the whole nation.
Anyone but Reid.

Cerevant

#1363
Quote from: PhillyGirl on January 19, 2008, 04:41:10 PM
Hillary wins Nevada.  :boom

Not so fast - looks like she won the vote, but not the delegates...
QuoteThe Obama Campaign is now pushing hard to promote this delegate victory. The campaign is convening a post-caucus conference call for reporters -- something that only winning campaigns usually do -- and circulating numerous Clinton quotes about how delegates are the only thing that matter. From the new press release:

    Senator Obama was awarded 13 delegates to Senator Clinton's 12. As Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said, "This is a race for delegates...It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process." [Washington Post, 1/16/08]
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

PhillyGirl

"Oh, yeah. They'll still boo. They have to. They're born to boo. Just now, they'll only boo with two Os instead of like four." - Larry Andersen