Who Supports the War(s)

[Radar]

Actually, I think healthcare is far too important to leave it to the free market.

The free market never fails to provide the best products and services at the lowest cost. The reason health care costs have gone up isn't because of the free market, but because of government intervention. The most expensive health care on earth are in the most socialist and communist nations. The more they embrace socialism or communism the more people pay for healthcare, and other substandard services provided by the government.

The government is like King Midas, except instead of gold, whatever they touch turns to shit. Government is NEVER as good as private enterprise at providing any product or service other than killing. Private enterprise can get 6 pounds of oil across the world for less than it costs to send a letter across the street.

Read this article


Slang: Your idea isn't new. That's the way healthcare used to be in America when we had the best system on earth. You would only require insurance to pay for serious problems....broken legs, surgery, etc. But for your common colds, flu, etc. you would pay to see a doctor.

COBRA is a backup plan just to help you out between jobs or until your new job benefits start. It's reasonable to assume if you're leaving one job for another the new job pays more. Most people move up rather than sideways. So it's reasonable to assume you can afford Cobra for 1-3 months until the new insurance starts. Most company insurance costs about $100 per month for one person and that includes medical, dental, and vision.

--I live in the greatest country in the world. I'm willing to work hard, pay my taxes, and be the best American I can be. I'm entitled to be taken care of by my country, since I help take care of it.

You're paying taxes to fund unconstitutional social programs. And it's not your duty to take care of the government. It's also not the place of government to provide healthcare, retirement, education, or charity to the people. The ONLY VALID ROLES of governemnt is to DEFEND our borders, to regulate commerce, and provide a judicary. Nothing else.

--People who have health coverage may be more apt to go see a doctor when they do not feel well...rather than try to wait the illness out. This will get them on the road to recovery faster, and will result in more productivity, which helps the company work better, which helps the economy work better, etc.

Yes, people with health insurance are more likely to see a doctor every time they get the sniffles. And they keep the hospitals crowded and force the price of medical care up.

[wolf]

Fortunately, I think you're funny too ...

(don't make me come up there and kick your ass ...)

(after my doctor lets me drive and after the roads are clear enough that I won't risk smushing my new car).

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Radar


Yes, people with health insurance are more likely to see a doctor every time they get the sniffles. And they keep the hospitals crowded and force the price of medical care up.

I'd rather they caught that case of crabs when they first noticed the little buggers crawling around. Seriously, though, preventing a disease, or catching it in its infant stages, is a much better approach than trying to deal with it later, when you've already spread it, and the treatment has to be harsher. You know - that whole ounce of prevention line.

The free market never fails to provide the best products and services at the lowest cost.

Oh, like the recording industry? How about the software biz?

he reason health care costs have gone up isn't because of the free market, but because of government intervention. The most expensive health care on earth are in the most socialist and communist nations.

When you're dealing with something like people's lives, I don't think you can focus entirely on the cost. You need to focus on the effects - who has the healthier citizens. That would be a nearly impossible survey to conduct, because how would you account for all the variables in society - people's diet and exercise habits, etc?

I think that at this point the choice is between which system offers the most benefits. Each one offers a level of services to all people; the difference is where that level begins. I believe that level should not be 0 (as it is now), but it should be set at a reasonable level to discourage overuse and bad behavior, and not discourage universal health. I'll be the first to admit, however, that I have no idea what that level is.

[perth]

Originally posted by warch

Especially small kids. Eatting dirt and pickin' their noses and stuff.

i just dug my kids brand new crayons out of his molars.

~james

[Radar]

Oh, like the recording industry? How about the software biz?

Funny you should mention those. Software is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. So are computers. And the government doesn't regulate either of them. Also a CD right now costs less of a percentage of your income now than a record did in the 60's.

When you're dealing with something like people's lives, I don't think you can focus entirely on the cost.

No, you also have to focus on the quality of healthcare provided and the United States without question has the best doctors on the planet. Nobody would dispute that point.

You need to focus on the effects - who has the healthier citizens.

That's more of a question of culture rather than healthcare. Americans have more money, fast food, etc. We drive cars instead of riding bicycles, etc. That's hardly a relevant comparison to determine who has a better healthcare system.

I believe that level should not be 0 (as it is now), but it should be set at a reasonable level to discourage overuse and bad behavior, and not discourage universal health.

Our level isn't 0. Anyone in America can walk into any emergency room and get care even if they're homeless. That's far from being at a 0 level.

I'm all for encouraging exercise, better eating habits, and other healthy habits. But I'm also for getting rid of laws that prevent people with medical training from providing medical assistance simply because they aren't a doctor certified with the AMA.
There are people from other countries that live here and haven't gone through our medical training system who know a lot. But the AMA and the FDA keep medicines and treatments out of the hands of people that need it.

There are plenty of people who can administer first aid, know how to treat a cold, the flue, broken bokes, or other treatments besides AMA certified doctors who specialize in symptomatic rather than preventative medicine. If these people were allowed to help others, medical treatment would be far cheaper and you wouldn't even need insurance except for serious problems like a heart transplant or something.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Radar


Our level isn't 0. Anyone in America can walk into any emergency room and get care even if they're homeless. That's far from being at a 0 level.

It is 0 if you can't afford it. You may be able to walk in and be guaranteed service, but if you can't afford the bills you're going to receive from this, you're going to avoid it at all costs.

There are plenty of people who can administer first aid, know how to treat a cold, the flue, broken bokes, or other treatments besides AMA certified doctors who specialize in symptomatic rather than preventative medicine. If these people were allowed to help others, medical treatment would be far cheaper and you wouldn't even need insurance except for serious problems like a heart transplant or something.

You want to discredit our medical system? Allow any quack to fool the average American into using unproven medical techniques? That would be a horrible situation. It would undermine our faith in the system that you claim is the best in the world, or, at the very least, has the best doctors. Funny how you want to undermine that. Of course, great doctors don't necessarily mean a great system.

Software is cheaper now than it was 20 years ago. So are computers. And the government doesn't regulate either of them. Also a CD right now costs less of a percentage of your income now than a record did in the 60's.

Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

[elSicomoro]

(Apologies to those that read this earlier before I revised it.)

Originally posted by Cairo
Such as revising the Bible so it's more gender friendly

The Bible may be a book of history to you...it's a book of faith to me. The Bible is incredibly subjective, depending upon the religion and the person, so it's unfair to include it in this argument.

revising Texas History so it doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings

I've found in my own studies that the US pulled some neat stunts in taking Texas. The Gadsden Purchase was slick too. Oh, and don't forget Hawaii. You can call it "revisionism" if you like; I call it "looking at a situation from multiple perspectives and coming to a reasonable conclusion."

Even if the revisions are being done so that the information "doesn't hurt hispanic children's feelings," we can all benefit from multiple perspectives of history...whether you like it or not, it can only enhance your knowledge. A perfect example of this is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Next you'll tell me how romantic Manifest Destiny was...

revising that Thomas Jefferson raped and produced children with a slave, when DNA proved otherwise

I've never heard it described as a rape, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

And while I have heard some say that the deed was done (though I only saw some minor media attention given to the outcome of the DNA tests), the only definite link is that a male descendant of Sally Hemings has the same Y-chromosome DNA as the Jefferson males.

I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise." The DNA tests didn't prove that Tommy Boy was the father of Eaton Hemings, but he can't be ruled out.

The folks that run the Monticello say this: "The Thomas Jefferson Foundation stands by its original findings - that the weight of evidence suggests that Jefferson probably was the father of Eston Hemings and perhaps the father of all of Sally Hemings' children" (Source)

All in all, I'd say it certainly deserves some historical mention, just as the Clinton-Lewinsky deal does as well.

I can tell you how I reached my opinion that bin Laden is dead...

Whoa! Hold on here...

Originally posted by Cairo on 12/4/2002
Our forces killed bin Laden during the attack on Tora Bora. Bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is not.

I don't know what they taught you in school, but most people would call the above quote a statement of fact. There is no "I think," "I believe," etc. in your statement, which would then make it a statement of opinion.

So, are you now saying that it is your opinion that bin Laden is dead?

If it seems like I'm not taking you seriously Cairo, it's because I don't. You come across like Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell, both of whom are out-of-touch nutjobs, IMO.

You are more than welcome to embrace hard conservative views with open arms if you wish...that's your right. However, understand that almost everything here at the Cellar is subject to incredible scrutiny. Particularly when "outlandish" claims and statements are made. Hard lefters get their asses checked too, so don't try and cry a liberal bias.

[Radar]

It is 0 if you can't afford it. You may be able to walk in and be guaranteed service, but if you can't afford the bills you're going to receive from this, you're going to avoid it at all costs.

It's not 0 ever. Even if you can't afford it you will get service. You can be a homeless drunk and walk into an emergency room and get treatment. If you don't pay the bill you can keep going in and still get treatment.

You want to discredit our medical system?

No I don't want to discredit the medical system. I just want to discredit the AMA and FDA. Our doctors are the best on earth and I'm all for doctors getting certified and still being the best. But I think doctors should be privately certified and other people with medical training shouldn't be prevented from giving care. If they harm someone they will be responsible as any other doctor would be.

Allow any quack to fool the average American into using unproven medical techniques? That would be a horrible situation.

Who says the medical techniques are unproven? Most Eastern medicine has been used for thousands of years. It couldn't be more proven. But many of those techniques and medicines are outlawed in America.

I'm not saying everyone should see these people for every problem. What I'm saying is that if someone chooses to see someone like that they should be able to see anyone they want, especially if they've got a small problem like the sniffles, a rash, etc.

It would undermine our faith in the system that you claim is the best in the world, or, at the very least, has the best doctors. Funny how you want to undermine that. Of course, great doctors don't necessarily mean a great system.

It wouldn't undermine anything. It would provide more faith in our health care system because less people would be waiting in emergency rooms, insurance would be cheaper, and we'd still have the best doctors on earth. And you're correct, the best doctors don't necessarily make the best system. America once had the best healthcare system on earth until the government passed the HMO act, started medicare, and otherwise meddled with the free market medical care system.

Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

You're barking up the wrong tree here pal. I've been a computer programmer and network engineer for 17 years. Software now has more features and does more with less effort than ever. Even development is easier. It's also cheaper. So are computers. So is long distance service. And so is music. Music is also digitally mastered and provides superior quality.

[Radar]

The Bible may be a book of history to you...it's a book of faith to me.

A highly flawed one at that. It's full of holes.

Nothing in the bible is factual. It's a book of fairy tales and nobody with an IQ with 3 digits can possibly expect anyone to accept it as historical fact.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by hermit22
Just because they're cheaper doesn't mean they're the lowest cost or the best products. I know there are many people on this board who are less than pleased with both industries.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Have the government set price ceilings on CD's? Have the government fund all software development? What exactly are you advocating here?

I have server sitting 10 feet from me that's running free web, email, FTP, SSH, database, remote access, LDAP, and backup services, all on a free OS. All I paid for was the hardware, and the time it took me to get it all configured. How could it get any better than that?

I also have a little free time in the evenings, and so I'm helping to adapt said backup software to use a database backend. I'm giving back to the community because it helps others, yes, but foremost because it helps me. That's free market for ya -- take care of numero uno, and you accidentally help others.

How could the government possibly improve on that system?

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by sycamore
I'm entitled to be taken care of by my country, since I help take care of it.

I wholeheartedly disagree. You aren't <I>entitled</I> to squat, except life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Radar
Nothing in the bible is factual. It's a book of fairy tales and nobody with an IQ with 3 digits can possibly expect anyone to accept it as historical fact.

A man named Jesus Christ was born in a town called Bethlehem. That is a historical fact.

He was also killed by crucifixion. Again, historical fact.

Whether He is the savior of men, or the Son of God, you may disagree with. But saying "Nothing in the bible is factual" is incorrect.

[Radar]

A man named Jesus Christ was born in a town called Bethlehem. That is a historical fact.

He was also killed by crucifixion. Again, historical fact.

Whether He is the savior of men, or the Son of God, you may disagree with. But saying "Nothing in the bible is factual" is incorrect.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell all Christians. PROVE IT!

Show me his bones, dna evidence, some prove of the actual man. And not fake evidence like the shroud of turin which has been dated 600 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

There may or may not have been a man named Jesus of Nazareth. But the bible is a book of fairy tales designed to help people with a set of values. It has a lot of social and historical relevance itself. But what's in it isn't historically accurate until we have actual physical evidence.

I don't recognize the accuracy or authority of the bible. I've read it 3 times and know it better than most Christians. The teachings of the character "Jesus of Nazareth" are enciteful and wise and were also taught long before the life of Jesus assuming he actually was alive.

And it's sweet that you use linux. I like to play with it when I can but I've only got one box so I use Win2k. I'm a MCSE, MCT, A+, CNA, CNE. I'm not married to any OS but I like open source and I like linux. I have yet to see a web server better than apache. When I build my next box I'll probably make this one Linux. But there are a lot of flavors to use. The last one I used was Redhat and it installed in a snap. It recognized all my devices and had drivers for them. It required hardly anything to set up. Even easier than MS OS's

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by Radar

I'm a MCSE, MCT, A+, CNA, CNE.

You're an MCSE? Really? Wow. I never would have guessed.

D00d... j00 r liek s00p3r-3|33t! G0t 4ny w4r3z? Pr0n?

[jaguar]

*sighs*
I leave for a compel of days to get take little pills and pound my eardrums and look what I have to come back to....

Radar. Yes, the bible is full of holes. On the other hand it is also full of verifiable historical fact backed up by archeological research. I am an atheist. Jesus being born etcetc is far more questionable, but you cannot dismiss everything in the bible as rubbish out of hand.

I'm a MCSE

You really want to say that in public?

What do you suggest as an alternative? Have the government set price ceilings on CD's? Have the government fund all software development? What exactly are you advocating here?

The freer the market the freer the people my fucking arse.

It is an issue of moderation and control.

It is undeniably true a free market can create a great spirit of competition that in theory benefits customers, and often does, but once a field is established it can be close to impossible for new players not to be squeezed out by force of simply economies of scale, which leaves entire markets ripe for exploitation by price fixing cartels, formal or informal. Direct intervention into the market by government should, IMHO as limited as possible but powers should be in place to make it possible for the govt to really, and I mean really, slap down anti-competitive practices, My own little dream scenario/social experiment would be to have a very, very small government, entirely free economy and a small group of overseers who could at discretion intervene, to keep things fair. Don't bother pointing out the flaws, just a nice experiment of sorts.

Health systems.....
I’m not sure of the details of the system in Canada but from memory it is not too different to ours. I have a Medicare card, its government issues. I can walk into any doctor that does bulk billing, swipe the card and the govt picks up the tab, I can d the same @ public hospitals. I can also get private health insurance, independent of my employer and use private hospitals and doctors as well as specialists at my discretion. Personally I think it's the best of both world. Everyone has access to health care, free of charge, and those who wish can have private care. Personally I do have private health insurance, it helps pay for things like contact lenses.