| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2009 12:56:43 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington |
Now that's FUNNY!!! LOL!!! |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 12:59:25 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Didn't Crichton write some other really cool, FICTION novels, too? |
He wrote a whole bunch of really cool fiction novels.
BUT.....perhaps you ought to look at his CV and general history before you even thinbk about trying to discredit him.
You'll just make yourself look foolish otherwise.
CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Died in Los Angeles, November 4, 2008. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988. |
You're right! He's a brilliant guy!
//www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 02:05:35 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Didn't Crichton write some other really cool, FICTION novels, too? |
He wrote a whole bunch of really cool fiction novels.
BUT.....perhaps you ought to look at his CV and general history before you even thinbk about trying to discredit him.
You'll just make yourself look foolish otherwise.
CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Died in Los Angeles, November 4, 2008. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988. |
You're right! He's a brilliant guy!
//www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html |
I certainly found his argument (against the GW alarmists) a worthwhile read. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 02:20:06 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
PS: Do you believe in health insurance sompanies as an essectial component of any health care "system?" |
Not necessarily. But when someone claims that another system is superior and that "many other countries have better models", then I believe it is appropriate to inquire as to who those countries are and what specific elements are superior to ours.
That to me is reasonable in this type of discussion.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2009 02:40:19 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If you have no problem with this, think of the possibility that about the time this takes full effect Palin/Gingrich could be in charge! I'm just saying... |
Palin has just resigned from her last high office in this country.
Gingrich is a joke. With the skeletons in his closet he'd be lucky to become a dog catcher. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 02:46:27 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Agreed, and it's also surprising that more folks aren't upset with U.S. military spending (more than the rest of the world combined), and especially with the cost of the war in Iraq, a war of choice that economists estimate will cost at least $1 trillion (and possibly as much as $3 trillion). That $1 trillion could have financed health care reform for 10 years. |
HEY..I remember reading about this one...let's all gather at the airport and spit on out baby-killing, murdering soldiers like your liberal assholes did back in the Vietnam era. That really seemed to change the course of the war. Maybe we should try it again?!? Iraq was a threat to our national security, and you are a moron if you can't look beyond Bush and his moronic politics to see that. Why do you think your 'godsend' of a president hasn't yanked all the troops out of there and Afghanistan immediately?!? Would you really pay more for the chance to see a doctor for your hurting little toe than to keep our Country safe from terror? Then again...
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
There will always be dishonest individuals who will cheat the welfare system, and I think we all would like to remedy that situation. But in my opinion it's really a rather minor concern when considering all the other ways in which our tax dollars are squandered. |
OK, if it is really such a minor situation to fix, let's all agree to fix it. Once you can assure and convince me that the bullshit program we call welfare is 100%, and it shouldn't be that difficult since it is such a small problem, I will quit my job and go door-to-door, ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY and help push obamacare support. Deal? |
I wasn't old enough in the '60s to protest anything. And unlike you, I don't blame the victims for their misfortune. So I don't hold the soldiers responsible for the irresponsible decisions of our policymakers. I disagree with your assessment that Iraq was a national security threat, or at least an imminent national security threat that necessitated war. That's a debatable point, and I'd debate it with you if I thought you were capable of making a coherent argument.
And if I'd left $17,000 worth of camera equipment, or anything worth $17,000 for that matter, in my car unattended, I'd really think twice about labeling anyone else a moron. Smart move! |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 03:45:54 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, and cool it with the language and personal attacks, please. You can have a conversation without them or not at all. |
My apologies. I was being overly harsh. I'll try to behave better. This whole idea of adding another government program to a bunch more that are broken ways to hand out freebies really pisses me off. Repair what is broken, prove that the government can put together anything and run it right, then look to give more away. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 03:55:31 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I wasn't old enough in the '60s to protest anything. And unlike you, I don't blame the victims for their misfortune. So I don't hold the soldiers responsible for the irresponsible decisions of our policymakers. I disagree with your assessment that Iraq was a national security threat, or at least an imminent national security threat that necessitated war. That's a debatable point, and I'd debate it with you if I thought you were capable of making a coherent argument. |
Yeah, its always easiest to play the role of the victim, isn't it? So, the only 'coherent' arguments must be the ones that tend to agree with you? That's rational.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And if I'd left $17,000 worth of camera equipment, or anything worth $17,000 for that matter, in my car unattended, I'd really think twice about labeling anyone else a moron. Smart move! |
Wow, how's that for blaming the victim? Unattended...sitting in my freaking driveway. My bad, but maybe the government wants to step in and give me new gear. After all, that's what we tend to teach. Take no personal responsibility or accountability, play the victim and wait for the government to fix it all. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 03:59:57 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Eric, I can tell by the quantity and tenor of your recent posts that you're all excited and stuff, but please, could we keep the stereotyping and divisiveness to a minimum? A less tolerant homosexual (or decent human being) might think you were a bit of a dick after reading that. It certainly doesn't help get your points across. |
Again, my apologies. I was merely illustrating, though not doing such a fine job with it. That was a very dickish thing to write, and I didn't mean to sound homophobic. I'll look to do better with my piss-poor illustrations in the future. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 04:31:28 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Wow, how's that for blaming the victim? Unattended...sitting in my freaking driveway. My bad, but maybe the government wants to step in and give me new gear. After all, that's what we tend to teach. Take no personal responsibility or accountability, play the victim and wait for the government to fix it all. |
Eric, I feel awful for what happened, BUT....I don't leave my camera in my car EVER, even when I go into the store for "just a minute".
It doesn't get stolen that way.
I cannot afford to have it stolen......if it was, I wouldn't be able to replace it.
I don't trust a locked car.....they're too easy to get into.... |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 04:34:58 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
... let's all gather at the airport and spit on out baby-killing, murdering soldiers like your liberal assholes did back in the Vietnam era. |
This occurance is a (liberal?) media-hyped myth, and your language is getting out of hand. Please keep it civil or keep out. Thanks. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 04:37:36 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
PS: Do you believe in health insurance sompanies as an essectial component of any health care "system?" |
Not necessarily. But when someone claims that another system is superior and that "many other countries have better models", then I believe it is appropriate to inquire as to who those countries are and what specific elements are superior to ours.
That to me is reasonable in this type of discussion. |
Check out this informative discussion:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On Monday NPR had a 30-minute on-air discussion of What's Canadian Health Care Really Like?, including guests with the experience to be able to comment on the subject, and members of the public calling in with their experiences and opinions. |
|
|
|
|
07/30/2009 04:43:59 PM · #163 |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 05:29:00 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Flash:
when someone claims that another system is superior and that "many other countries have better models", then I believe it is appropriate to inquire as to who those countries are and what specific elements are superior to ours. |
Depending on the source, the U.S. ranks somewhere between 37th and 72nd, despite spending far more per person than any other country in the world. A basic summary is here. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 05:40:17 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
If you have no problem with this, think of the possibility that about the time this takes full effect Palin/Gingrich could be in charge! I'm just saying... |
Palin has just resigned from her last high office in this country.
Gingrich is a joke. With the skeletons in his closet he'd be lucky to become a dog catcher. |
You are missing my point by several miles. Insert the name of anyone you believe to be as bad or worse then Bush/Cheany. That could be the person in charge of your health care in 2012! King Obama will not be president forever and the democratic party will not be in control forever. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 07:21:45 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
... let's all gather at the airport and spit on out baby-killing, murdering soldiers like your liberal assholes did back in the Vietnam era. |
This occurance is a (liberal?) media-hyped myth, and your language is getting out of hand. Please keep it civil or keep out. Thanks. |
That was already addressed. Does it really require a revisit from each SC member? |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 07:24:42 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
... let's all gather at the airport and spit on out baby-killing, murdering soldiers like your liberal assholes did back in the Vietnam era. |
This occurance is a (liberal?) media-hyped myth, and your language is getting out of hand. Please keep it civil or keep out. Thanks. |
That was already addressed. Does it really require a revisit from each SC member? |
I just responded when I came to your comment -- I didn't skip ahead to read what others had to say. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:18:02 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
when someone claims that another system is superior and that "many other countries have better models", then I believe it is appropriate to inquire as to who those countries are and what specific elements are superior to ours. |
Depending on the source, the U.S. ranks somewhere between 37th and 72nd, despite spending far more per person than any other country in the world. A basic summary is here. |
I do find rankings to be valuable - like when they are showing Cadillacs, Buick, Corvette, Lexus, JD Power, etc. Also when they (rankings) discuss the millions of gun owners and thier safe use of firearms. However, many posters on this site, tend to use rankings only when they serve their particular political leanings. I trust that in the future I can count on you to be more accepting of rankings when they are referencing a subject that you may not particularly support. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:25:36 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
PS: Do you believe in health insurance sompanies as an essectial component of any health care "system?" |
Not necessarily. But when someone claims that another system is superior and that "many other countries have better models", then I believe it is appropriate to inquire as to who those countries are and what specific elements are superior to ours.
That to me is reasonable in this type of discussion. |
Check out this informative discussion:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
On Monday NPR had a 30-minute on-air discussion of What's Canadian Health Care Really Like?, including guests with the experience to be able to comment on the subject, and members of the public calling in with their experiences and opinions. |
|
Although I am not a fan of NPR, it is information like this that I believe is needed to cut through the hype. Obviously (to me), many people in many countries receive adequate health care. And from systems that are tax revenue dependent. Therefore these systems MUST work, or they would be abolished. The question to us is: are these systems BETTER and if so for whom? My take on the current debate is that the proposed system is better for those without insurance, and worse for those with it. Therefore the question becomes; Is health care a right or a priviledge? If it is a right, then is it not a right for every human being - including those in countries with no health care system. What is our obligation to them? If we are not obligated to footing the bill for other countries, then where does the obligation end? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 03:50:55 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Obviously (to me), many people in many countries receive adequate health care. And from systems that are tax revenue dependent. Therefore these systems MUST work, or they would be abolished. The question to us is: are these systems BETTER and if so for whom? My take on the current debate is that the proposed system is better for those without insurance, and worse for those with it. Therefore the question becomes; Is health care a right or a priviledge? |
Obviously, I would choose the latter perspective ...
Here's my question -- we've had health care (in the USA) which for the past 30-40 years has been run by the private sector, and virtually everyone agrees that it's a disaster. My tennis coach taught me that, whatever your style of game, if you were losing, you better try another tactic because what you're doing isn't working. I'm trying to see how trying a true alternative could really be much worse (for the overall health of the population, not the bank accounts of insurance executives).
PS: Whatever your opinion of NPR, at least they are more than a collection of sound bites. Thanks for checking it out.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 15:53:04. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:54:20 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm trying to see how trying a true alternative could really be much worse (for the overall health of the population, not the bank accounts of insurance executives). |
So if I'm trying to lose weight and the all salad diet isn't working, what does it hurt to try the Mcdonald's diet?
Why not actually try to reform the healthcare system rather then re-create it and call it reform (AKA use less dessing on the salads and try exercising as well)? Fix the known problems, remove the existing restrictions, put caps on the mark up on drugs, try to do something to fix our nation's fat problem! Bigger government and higher taxes is not the only solution to a problem.
I read a study the other day and the doctor actually wrote (I'm going off memory): 1/3 of our nation is at risk for being overweight or obese. The other 2/3 already are. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:06:32 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I read a study the other day and the doctor actually wrote (I'm going off memory): 1/3 of our nation is at risk for being overweight or obese. The other 2/3 already are. |
The last stat I heard (in the last two days) is that about 27% of US residents could be classified as obese.
The problem is that the one true reform which will have some effect is "politically non-viable" -- removing the profit motive from the insurance middlemen. Right now they suck out about 30% of health care dollars while providing no useful function. Compare:
Current Costs: Overhead, Supplies, Personnel, Shareholder Profits
Costs with Single Payer: Overhead, Supplies, Personnel
Seems to me that the second option would have to be cheaper ...
The biggest complaint (scare tactic): "Do you want some government bureaucrat making decisions about your health?"
But consider, the alternative is that you have some insurance company bureaucrat making decisions about your health -- someone whose primary duty by law is to maximize shareholder profits, i.e. pay out as little as possible while collecting maximum premiums.
The government bureaucrat is working for you, the insurance company bureaucrat for the a profit-making company with a stranglehold on your access to health care. Which one do you really believe is more likely to make a decision in your best interests? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:29:50 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I read a study the other day and the doctor actually wrote (I'm going off memory): 1/3 of our nation is at risk for being overweight or obese. The other 2/3 already are. |
The last stat I heard (in the last two days) is that about 27% of US residents could be classified as obese.
The problem is that the one true reform which will have some effect is "politically non-viable" -- removing the profit motive from the insurance middlemen. Right now they suck out about 30% of health care dollars while providing no useful function. Compare:
Current Costs: Overhead, Supplies, Personnel, Shareholder Profits
Costs with Single Payer: Overhead, Supplies, Personnel
Seems to me that the second option would have to be cheaper ...
The biggest complaint (scare tactic): "Do you want some government bureaucrat making decisions about your health?"
But consider, the alternative is that you have some insurance company bureaucrat making decisions about your health -- someone whose primary duty by law is to maximize shareholder profits, i.e. pay out as little as possible while collecting maximum premiums.
The government bureaucrat is working for you, the insurance company bureaucrat for the a profit-making company with a stranglehold on your access to health care. Which one do you really believe is more likely to make a decision in your best interests? |
Right. The government option would have no limit to how much they could spend because as the bills go up they just raise taxes some more. No limits, no budget, no problem. In the end we pay more and have less control. But we only tax those evil rich bastards so it's all good.
On the fat thing, about 30% is obese and about 30% is overweight. Thus, about 2/3 are obese or overweight. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:32:50 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The government bureaucrat is working for you |
This deserved a reply by itself!
If you really believe that, I understand why you think the way you do.
I do not believe that. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:55:38 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
On the fat thing, about 30% is obese and about 30% is overweight. Thus, about 2/3 are obese or overweight. |
Luckily, at least according to the BMI table, I still edge into the normal range ...
"...working for you ..." -- I do understand that there is often a sizable gap between theory and practice in this area. Congress can legislate a limit on pharmaceutical profits (the other leech on the system) so that drug costs will come down. Why do Canadians pay less for the very same drugs than you do? Because their government says so ...
By the way, though they tried to keep it under the radar, the FTC recently allowed a couple more mega-mergers between pharmaceutical companies, so that now Big Pharma is essentially controlled by three ("too big to fail"?) companies.
Now there's a headache worthy of something from Bayer  |
|
