wow. something of mine was deleted. it was this newsweek article that said if obama isnt elected, america is racist. http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/
Did you get the feeling the author of that article is racist? The left lives in a fantesy world. They say our candidate is falliing in the polls so it must be because of race. It has nothing to do with the fact people are learning about him and his policies since no one new who he was a few months ago.
I think that that the people who choose McSame over Obama are generally pessimists and have no hope in the world and are supportive of 9/11 being an inside job. Discuss. I know I'm gonna get a thousand people who disagree because most of the politcal people in this off topic forum are McSame fans...but.... their disregard of any optimistic hope that Obama might bring is starling in how much of a cynic these people are
As we always ask other Obomination (Obama) supporters, please tell us of how he is implementing this "change" and how he is not a complete socialist jackass?
I think that that the people who choose McSame over Obama are generally pessimists and have no hope in the world and are supportive of 9/11 being an inside job. Discuss. I know I'm gonna get a thousand people who disagree because most of the politcal people in this off topic forum are McSame fans...but.... their disregard of any optimistic hope that Obama might bring is starling in how much of a cynic these people are
As we always ask other Obomination (Obama) supporters, please tell us of how he is implementing this "change" and how he is not a complete socialist jackass?
Well socialism can work for governments that are not completely corrupt and inept. Ours is neither, amirite?
The irony is that in a perfect world I'd have socialist views as well, but people cannot be trusted to not succumb to corruption. It's kind of like the textbook example of a game theory application for a small cartel where both can choose to play fairly and gain excess profits, but if one plays unfairly the one that plays fairly incurs a huge loss, so it usually behooves both to play unfairly.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Originally posted by Enigma He's the most left winged politician in US Congress. Which means he is just as bad as the most right winged politician in US Congress.
And to put a little perspective on that he's considered to be a politician being a lot to the right in Sweden...
I guess this has to do with the strong republican bias in this forum that comes from who knows where? Maybe the republicans were raised in the south... and their parents hate black people?? how many of you republicans were raised in the south?
I usually try to resist the urge to join these political discussion because it's so pointless. None of us are going to change the politics of anyone on this forum. But this amused me.
First: You are stereotyping people. Implying that white southerners are a bunch of racists.
Second: You are more or less saying that if a person doesn't vote for Obama then he or she is a racist. So...what? We should vote for him just because he is black? Just to prove that we are not racists?
I thought we were not supposed to consider race as a factor at all. Yet here you are, throwing it in people's faces and wagging your finger at them, telling them that race does matter after all.
I'm not thrilled about McCain but I won't vote for Obama because he's too socialist. I don't care what color he is, I don't like his politics.
Anyone the supports Universal Healthcare, Strong Welfare programs, and other social programs similar to this believe that Personal Responsibility is a bad thing.
Ever have a major surgery Cabe? Perhaps something that required a walker or handrails during rehabilitation? Ever break a leg or twist an ankle so bad it required crutches? These aren't implements that deliver people from one point to another, they are implements that help people reach their destination.
It would be naive to say that social systems haven't been exploited and abused by people who have no sense of personal responsibility, and blaming the system itself is an easy out. However, it is a moral imperative that the systems remain in place and that we find a more effective and efficient way to administer them. A cane doesn't move from one place to another on it's own, it takes effort from the wielder. When a cane begins to collect dust, it should be transfered to a person who needs it to actually walk. I have no problem buying canes for people who want to walk and are willing to make the effort. I do have a problem with buying canes for people who have no intention of walking.
Originally posted by //\//\oo The irony is that in a perfect world I'd have socialist views as well
Not I. It should be the people's choice whether to support the others. Call me selfish, but I see no responsibility in sharing what I earned unless I deem it a valid reason.
Anyone the supports Universal Healthcare, Strong Welfare programs, and other social programs similar to this believe that Personal Responsibility is a bad thing.
Ever have a major surgery Cabe? Perhaps something that required a walker or handrails during rehabilitation? Ever break a leg or twist an ankle so bad it required crutches? These aren't implements that deliver people from one point to another, they are implements that help people reach their destination.
It would be naive to say that social systems haven't been exploited and abused by people who have no sense of personal responsibility, and blaming the system itself is an easy out. However, it is a moral imperative that the systems remain in place and that we find a more effective and efficient way to administer them. A cane doesn't move from one place to another on it's own, it takes effort from the wielder. When a cane begins to collect dust, it should be transfered to a person who needs it to actually walk. I have no problem buying canes for people who want to walk and are willing to make the effort. I do have a problem with buying canes for people who have no intention of walking.
I must admit that your post was a very pathetic, uninspiring canned response that failed to counter any point he made.
To answer your question, yes, I have had major surgery to which I paid the deductible on the insurance I pay for.
I suggest a solution to those who wish for universal health care. Those who support it, support it monetarily via increased taxation. Those who do not support it - don't. I would love to see that $300+ that goes towards medicaid in my pocket instead of those who didn't earn it.
In fact, do so with social security as well. Those who want it pay - those who want to determine their own retirement do so another way. $700+ more back in my pocket per month so I can invest in something worth it.
Originally posted by //\//\oo The irony is that in a perfect world I'd have socialist views as well
Not I. It should be the people's choice whether to support the others. Call me selfish, but I see no responsibility in sharing what I earned unless I deem it a valid reason.
The problem I personally have with that is the free rider issue: People that would not immediately realize a marginal benefit and would dismiss collective efforts that would eventually improve everybody's life. An example would be a contribution to a highway, or research. Just like companies, people seek to maximize their own utility, but this might come at the cost of global utility (a great example is a welfare reduction, in the economic sense, by a monopoly through limited outputs).
Of course there is no real way to ascertain that forced contributions would all be valid, unless there were a system to ensure that the people could check whether or not they were through input (a real democracy). I see that as one of the larger problems with our government: Once a senator is elected there is little that can be done to force him to act in the people's interests.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
This will be my first presidential election to vote in - I would have never imagined that my first vote would go towards a Republican, but I guess life is full of surprises. Obama is just too inexperienced, and his political rhetoric is a huge turnoff.
I also couldn't help but notice the comparison that was made between Obama and Clinton. Clinton was indeed a good (an edge above mediocre) president, and he was indeed pretty fresh as far as experience. There are quite a few differences between the two men, however. Clinton had years of true executive experience as the governor of Arkansas - Obama started out at as a state legislator and then went on to the national level. Taking this into consideration, the only kind of experience that Obama has more of, when compared to Clinton, is his experience in pandering to lobbyists and IGs. Clinton also ran a campaign that actually communicated his detailed plans for the country ("It's the economy, stupid") - Obama, on the other hand, has only spewed out nonsense about "hope" and "change." Where in the hell is the substance? I feel sorry for the idiots that vote for a guy simply because he says he's going to change things, and that he's going to bring "hope." What is that even supposed to mean?
Speaking of political expediency, Obama also seems to change his views on things rather quickly. While campaigning against Clinton during the primary season, Obama felt it expedient enough to state his support for a near-immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. This completely tore Clinton apart when she admitted that the conditions for withdrawal would change based on ground conditions (Democrats, for some reason, have this thing for unconditional withdrawal - it makes no sense, but that's another story). However, when Obama clenched the nomination, he found it equally expedient to change his position and adopt Hillary's view on the issue in order to make himself look like less of a political newbie in face of McCain.
Another thing that pisses me off (but probably off-topic) is that Obama replaced the American flag on his presidential campaign plane with his trademark logo - that doesn't look too damn good when you have the tendency to not even put your hand over your heart when the anthem sounds off. He also gives off that elitist I'm-better-than-you-and-I-know-it aura (if anyone remembers his view on guns and religion during the Pennsylvania primary).
As far as national politics, it seems like people still vote for the party and not for the person, which is regrettable.
I think that that the people who choose McSame over Obama are generally pessimists and have no hope in the world and are supportive of 9/11 being an inside job. Discuss. I know I'm gonna get a thousand people who disagree because most of the politcal people in this off topic forum are McSame fans...but.... their disregard of any optimistic hope that Obama might bring is starling in how much of a cynic these people are
Discuss what? How you should stay out of political discussions?
Do you really think you are helping your cause?
Optimism won't fix anything, we need deceive actions.
I'm an independent and I'm going to write-in Ron Paul. I don't like either candidate. McCain is going to keep us on our path of financial ruin by keeping us in Iraq. Hell, he may even help to further spur the world into another Cold War. I will give him credit for picking Gov. Palin as his VP. At least I can feel confident that he's surrounded himself with smarter people than Dubya has.
Obama will lead us down the sad, sad path to Socialism, which will do just as much bad for our economy (if not worse) than spending billions in Iraq. His past with working with social activist groups and his voting history of throwing money at the disenfranchised worries me. Plus, you DO NOT RAISE TAXES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TANK. That's one of the reasons the Great Depression happened, this time I doubt that a World War would help us out of it.
Voting for Ron Paul, while essentially would be throwing my vote away, would allow me to vote my conscience. McCain and Obama both represent futures of a nation in debt with no hope for my newborn son to achieve his dreams. I believe this nation needs a leader that will lead by example. A leader that will see how much of America is owned by foriegn (and in many cases hostile) powers. A leader that sees just how far down the spend, spend, spend attitude has screwed the USA and her citizens. We need a leader that will push for personal responsibility and national self-reliance. We're not going to get that from McCain or Obama. Seriously, I am frightened for the future of this country.
<= Southern Democrat. This will be my first presidential election to vote in - I would have never imagined that my first vote would go towards a Republican, but I guess life is full of surprises. Obama is just too inexperienced, and his political rhetoric is a huge turnoff. I also couldn't help but notice the comparison that was made between Obama and Clinton. Clinton was indeed a good (an edge above mediocre) president, and he was indeed pretty fresh as far as experience. There are quite a few differences between the two men, however. Clinton had years of true executive experience as the governor of Arkansas - Obama started out at as a state legislator and then went on to the national level. Taking this into consideration, the only kind of experience that Obama has more of, when compared to Clinton, is his experience in pandering to lobbyists and IGs. Clinton also ran a campaign that actually communicated his detailed plans for the country ("It's the economy, stupid") - Obama, on the other hand, has only spewed out nonsense about "hope" and "change." Where in the hell is the substance? I feel sorry for the idiots that vote for a guy simply because he says he's going to change things, and that he's going to bring "hope." What is that even supposed to mean? Speaking of political expediency, Obama also seems to change his views on things rather quickly. While campaigning against Clinton during the primary season, Obama felt it expedient enough to state his support for a near-immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. This completely tore Clinton apart when she admitted that the conditions for withdrawal would change based on ground conditions (Democrats, for some reason, have this thing for unconditional withdrawal - it makes no sense, but that's another story). However, when Obama clenched the nomination, he found it equally expedient to change his position and adopt Hillary's view on the issue in order to make himself look like less of a political newbie in face of McCain. Another thing that pisses me off (but probably off-topic) is that Obama replaced the American flag on his presidential campaign plane with his trademark logo - that doesn't look too damn good when you have the tendency to not even put your hand over your heart when the anthem sounds off. He also gives off that elitist I'm-better-than-you-and-I-know-it aura (if anyone remembers his view on guns and religion during the Pennsylvania primary). As far as national politics, it seems like people still vote for the party and not for the person, which is regrettable.
For a "democrat", you sure do like to parrot republican talking points. The only legitimate argument you have there that's left is "Experience" but John McCain just threw that one out the window and showed that it wasn't that important by picking Sarah Palin.
<= Southern Democrat. This will be my first presidential election to vote in - I would have never imagined that my first vote would go towards a Republican, but I guess life is full of surprises. Obama is just too inexperienced, and his political rhetoric is a huge turnoff. I also couldn't help but notice the comparison that was made between Obama and Clinton. Clinton was indeed a good (an edge above mediocre) president, and he was indeed pretty fresh as far as experience. There are quite a few differences between the two men, however. Clinton had years of true executive experience as the governor of Arkansas - Obama started out at as a state legislator and then went on to the national level. Taking this into consideration, the only kind of experience that Obama has more of, when compared to Clinton, is his experience in pandering to lobbyists and IGs. Clinton also ran a campaign that actually communicated his detailed plans for the country ("It's the economy, stupid") - Obama, on the other hand, has only spewed out nonsense about "hope" and "change." Where in the hell is the substance? I feel sorry for the idiots that vote for a guy simply because he says he's going to change things, and that he's going to bring "hope." What is that even supposed to mean? Speaking of political expediency, Obama also seems to change his views on things rather quickly. While campaigning against Clinton during the primary season, Obama felt it expedient enough to state his support for a near-immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. This completely tore Clinton apart when she admitted that the conditions for withdrawal would change based on ground conditions (Democrats, for some reason, have this thing for unconditional withdrawal - it makes no sense, but that's another story). However, when Obama clenched the nomination, he found it equally expedient to change his position and adopt Hillary's view on the issue in order to make himself look like less of a political newbie in face of McCain. Another thing that pisses me off (but probably off-topic) is that Obama replaced the American flag on his presidential campaign plane with his trademark logo - that doesn't look too damn good when you have the tendency to not even put your hand over your heart when the anthem sounds off. He also gives off that elitist I'm-better-than-you-and-I-know-it aura (if anyone remembers his view on guns and religion during the Pennsylvania primary). As far as national politics, it seems like people still vote for the party and not for the person, which is regrettable.
For a "democrat", you sure do like to parrot republican talking points. The only legitimate argument you have there that's left is "Experience" but John McCain just threw that one out the window and showed that it wasn't that important by picking Sarah Palin.
Id agree with you If it was Biden Obama.. as it is Not so Mutch.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
Anyone the supports Universal Healthcare, Strong Welfare programs, and other social programs similar to this believe that Personal Responsibility is a bad thing.
Ever have a major surgery Cabe? Perhaps something that required a walker or handrails during rehabilitation? Ever break a leg or twist an ankle so bad it required crutches? These aren't implements that deliver people from one point to another, they are implements that help people reach their destination.
It would be naive to say that social systems haven't been exploited and abused by people who have no sense of personal responsibility, and blaming the system itself is an easy out. However, it is a moral imperative that the systems remain in place and that we find a more effective and efficient way to administer them. A cane doesn't move from one place to another on it's own, it takes effort from the wielder. When a cane begins to collect dust, it should be transfered to a person who needs it to actually walk. I have no problem buying canes for people who want to walk and are willing to make the effort. I do have a problem with buying canes for people who have no intention of walking.
I must admit that your post was a very pathetic, uninspiring canned response that failed to counter any point he made.
To answer your question, yes, I have had major surgery to which I paid the deductible on the insurance I pay for.
I suggest a solution to those who wish for universal health care. Those who support it, support it monetarily via increased taxation. Those who do not support it - don't. I would love to see that $300+ that goes towards medicaid in my pocket instead of those who didn't earn it.
In fact, do so with social security as well. Those who want it pay - those who want to determine their own retirement do so another way. $700+ more back in my pocket per month so I can invest in something worth it.
I don't really need universal healthcare. What I do need is the market to work correctly in the current healthcare system.
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare, and you don't do anything for me except raise my healthcare costs artificially.
I can understand why you don't want to subsidize someone else's healthcare, because I've been subsidizing the insurance companies for years without ever having insurance of my own.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare,
What an idiotic post this is. First, my insurance is nearly $600/mo for me only. Second, one reason rates at hospitals are so high is because the uninsured idiot's who don't pay their bills - mostly of who are here illegally.
Another reason rates are so high are sue-happy individuals who create a huge payment for doctor's malpractice insurance. Your cash payment has nothing to do with rates and the rates of the doctor bill has nothing to do with my insurance rate.
Your whole post lacked any intelligence whatsoever.
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare,
What an idiotic post this is. First, my insurance is nearly $600/mo for me only. Second, one reason rates at hospitals are so high because the uninsured idiot's who don't pay their bills - mostly of who are here illegally.
Another reason rates are so high are sue happy individuals who create a huge payment for doctor's malpractice insurance. Your cash payment has nothing to do with rates.
Your whole post lacked any intelligence whatsoever.
Maybe if they'd charge the uninsured person the $1.00 per aspirin they charge the guy with Blue Cross (still a ripoff) instead of $5.00, the uninsured would be able to pay their bills. Or better yet, charge a reasonable price for aspirin for the Blue Cross guy and the uninsured guy, like the $0.11 per aspirin we pay at Walgreens off the retail shelf.
Maybe if the costs come down to something that is reasonable, people will be less inclined to sue to get their medical bills down, because they'll be better able to pay.
But the way that it is, you are fleeced for $600 a month that goes to inflated rates for people who require much more extensive care than you, and I'm getting fleeced at the clinics and at the drug counter so they can cut your provider a deal.
Seems to me rather intelligent to take issue with the way healthcare is now, because it sure looks like socialized medicine to me and anyone else who isn't a naiive moron. The bureaucrats may be working in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield office building instead of the Department of Health, but contains all the excesses, entitlement culture, handouts, corruption, waste, and inefficiency that you'd expect from a Stalinist initiative, not from a society that believes in markets.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare,
What an idiotic post this is. First, my insurance is nearly $600/mo for me only. Second, one reason rates at hospitals are so high is because the uninsured idiot's who don't pay their bills - mostly of who are here illegally.
Another reason rates are so high are sue-happy individuals who create a huge payment for doctor's malpractice insurance. Your cash payment has nothing to do with rates and the rates of the doctor bill has nothing to do with my insurance rate.
Your whole post lacked any intelligence whatsoever.
Untill doctors get some kind of protection from sue happy America then prices will always be high. I had talked to a doctor friend of mind and he talked about once how being a neruosurgen is not as agreat as it once was. If you could land a spot at a major hospital that covered malpractice hen you were ok. But many end up in small towns where the equpiment and malpratice take almost all of the money they take in.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Actually, medical malpractice accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of health care, and going down.
The reason most economists, researchers, and health care providers cite as the cause of rising health care costs is that nobody in the system we have in place right now promotes...you guessed it...personal responsibility for controlling costs.
Those who are covered by health insurance tend to use health insurance more frequently than they otherwise would, because in most cases it's subsidized by one's employer. Even when it isn't subsidized by one's employer, people tend to use medical services unecessarily after their deductible has been paid, or opt for more expensive and resource-intensive care than they otherwise would.
By the same token, hospitals and doctors are more likely to order unecessary tests and perform unecessary treatments for those who have insurance because they know the insurance company will pay.
The insurance companies want the overall healthcare cost to rise, because that makes their insurance more valuable, justifying higher premiums. They can get away with creating higher premiums because the actual cost of increases are shouldered by the employers and the policy-holder, reducing the impact for both compared to when one shoulders the burden alone. As a result, they lobby for more expensive treatment options and drugs to be added to the standard of care, requiring more medical resources than would otherwise be required.
So the problem is that this so-called "free market system" of health care encourages bad medical decision-making, and there is no incentive for anyone in the process to control costs. Isn't that the main reason why free-marketeers say publically financed programs don't work? The problem of free-riders?
The ones who ultimately end up paying for all this waste of medical resources are threefold:
1) The uninsured and uninsurable. They are charged up to 300% more for the same exact treatment as someone with insurance, because the doctors and hospitals have to somehow cover the cost of the discounts the insurance providers demand.
2) Small business owners and startups. They are charged up the wazoo for health insurance or risk losing their employees to employers who have health insurance. Their small size means they cannot negotiate a favorable deal like GM or Microsoft can.
3) The United States economy. Because healthcare is either wholly or well subsidized by the government in many other industrialized nations, it becomes more expensive for businesses to move or operate here in the US. The prices of US goods also become less competitive, because the price of insuring workers privately is passed on to the consumer. The prices on GM's cars are $1,500 more because of health insurance costs, which might be one of the reasons why our heavy industry is failing, or moving overseas to places like China, who have universal healthcare.
So the way I see it, our system doesn't promote personal responsibility, it encourages personal irresponsibility, and traslates into economic irresponsibility as well.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Comments
Did you get the feeling the author of that article is racist? The left lives in a fantesy world. They say our candidate is falliing in the polls so it must be because of race. It has nothing to do with the fact people are learning about him and his policies since no one new who he was a few months ago.
As we always ask other Obomination (Obama) supporters, please tell us of how he is implementing this "change" and how he is not a complete socialist jackass?
As we always ask other Obomination (Obama) supporters, please tell us of how he is implementing this "change" and how he is not a complete socialist jackass?
Well socialism can work for governments that are not completely corrupt and inept. Ours is neither, amirite?
The irony is that in a perfect world I'd have socialist views as well, but people cannot be trusted to not succumb to corruption. It's kind of like the textbook example of a game theory application for a small cartel where both can choose to play fairly and gain excess profits, but if one plays unfairly the one that plays fairly incurs a huge loss, so it usually behooves both to play unfairly.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
If you really think that either one will make any substantial difference either way, you are probably delusional.
Let's not forget the bottom line - they are all politicians.
And to put a little perspective on that he's considered to be a politician being a lot to the right in Sweden...
I usually try to resist the urge to join these political discussion because it's so pointless. None of us are going to change the politics of anyone on this forum. But this amused me.
First: You are stereotyping people. Implying that white southerners are a bunch of racists.
Second: You are more or less saying that if a person doesn't vote for Obama then he or she is a racist. So...what? We should vote for him just because he is black? Just to prove that we are not racists?
I thought we were not supposed to consider race as a factor at all. Yet here you are, throwing it in people's faces and wagging your finger at them, telling them that race does matter after all.
I'm not thrilled about McCain but I won't vote for Obama because he's too socialist. I don't care what color he is, I don't like his politics.
The republicans who tirelessly try to convince people Obama is an elitist disagree with you.
Ever have a major surgery Cabe? Perhaps something that required a walker or handrails during rehabilitation? Ever break a leg or twist an ankle so bad it required crutches? These aren't implements that deliver people from one point to another, they are implements that help people reach their destination.
It would be naive to say that social systems haven't been exploited and abused by people who have no sense of personal responsibility, and blaming the system itself is an easy out. However, it is a moral imperative that the systems remain in place and that we find a more effective and efficient way to administer them. A cane doesn't move from one place to another on it's own, it takes effort from the wielder. When a cane begins to collect dust, it should be transfered to a person who needs it to actually walk. I have no problem buying canes for people who want to walk and are willing to make the effort. I do have a problem with buying canes for people who have no intention of walking.
Not I. It should be the people's choice whether to support the others. Call me selfish, but I see no responsibility in sharing what I earned unless I deem it a valid reason.
Ever have a major surgery Cabe? Perhaps something that required a walker or handrails during rehabilitation? Ever break a leg or twist an ankle so bad it required crutches? These aren't implements that deliver people from one point to another, they are implements that help people reach their destination.
It would be naive to say that social systems haven't been exploited and abused by people who have no sense of personal responsibility, and blaming the system itself is an easy out. However, it is a moral imperative that the systems remain in place and that we find a more effective and efficient way to administer them. A cane doesn't move from one place to another on it's own, it takes effort from the wielder. When a cane begins to collect dust, it should be transfered to a person who needs it to actually walk. I have no problem buying canes for people who want to walk and are willing to make the effort. I do have a problem with buying canes for people who have no intention of walking.
I must admit that your post was a very pathetic, uninspiring canned response that failed to counter any point he made.
To answer your question, yes, I have had major surgery to which I paid the deductible on the insurance I pay for.
I suggest a solution to those who wish for universal health care. Those who support it, support it monetarily via increased taxation. Those who do not support it - don't. I would love to see that $300+ that goes towards medicaid in my pocket instead of those who didn't earn it.
In fact, do so with social security as well. Those who want it pay - those who want to determine their own retirement do so another way. $700+ more back in my pocket per month so I can invest in something worth it.
Not I. It should be the people's choice whether to support the others. Call me selfish, but I see no responsibility in sharing what I earned unless I deem it a valid reason.
The problem I personally have with that is the free rider issue: People that would not immediately realize a marginal benefit and would dismiss collective efforts that would eventually improve everybody's life. An example would be a contribution to a highway, or research. Just like companies, people seek to maximize their own utility, but this might come at the cost of global utility (a great example is a welfare reduction, in the economic sense, by a monopoly through limited outputs).
Of course there is no real way to ascertain that forced contributions would all be valid, unless there were a system to ensure that the people could check whether or not they were through input (a real democracy). I see that as one of the larger problems with our government: Once a senator is elected there is little that can be done to force him to act in the people's interests.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
<= Southern Democrat.
This will be my first presidential election to vote in - I would have never imagined that my first vote would go towards a Republican, but I guess life is full of surprises. Obama is just too inexperienced, and his political rhetoric is a huge turnoff.
I also couldn't help but notice the comparison that was made between Obama and Clinton. Clinton was indeed a good (an edge above mediocre) president, and he was indeed pretty fresh as far as experience. There are quite a few differences between the two men, however. Clinton had years of true executive experience as the governor of Arkansas - Obama started out at as a state legislator and then went on to the national level. Taking this into consideration, the only kind of experience that Obama has more of, when compared to Clinton, is his experience in pandering to lobbyists and IGs. Clinton also ran a campaign that actually communicated his detailed plans for the country ("It's the economy, stupid") - Obama, on the other hand, has only spewed out nonsense about "hope" and "change." Where in the hell is the substance? I feel sorry for the idiots that vote for a guy simply because he says he's going to change things, and that he's going to bring "hope." What is that even supposed to mean?
Speaking of political expediency, Obama also seems to change his views on things rather quickly. While campaigning against Clinton during the primary season, Obama felt it expedient enough to state his support for a near-immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. This completely tore Clinton apart when she admitted that the conditions for withdrawal would change based on ground conditions (Democrats, for some reason, have this thing for unconditional withdrawal - it makes no sense, but that's another story). However, when Obama clenched the nomination, he found it equally expedient to change his position and adopt Hillary's view on the issue in order to make himself look like less of a political newbie in face of McCain.
Another thing that pisses me off (but probably off-topic) is that Obama replaced the American flag on his presidential campaign plane with his trademark logo - that doesn't look too damn good when you have the tendency to not even put your hand over your heart when the anthem sounds off. He also gives off that elitist I'm-better-than-you-and-I-know-it aura (if anyone remembers his view on guns and religion during the Pennsylvania primary).
As far as national politics, it seems like people still vote for the party and not for the person, which is regrettable.
Discuss what? How you should stay out of political discussions?
Do you really think you are helping your cause?
Optimism won't fix anything, we need deceive actions.
So far neither have completely sold me.
I'm an independent and I'm going to write-in Ron Paul. I don't like either candidate. McCain is going to keep us on our path of financial ruin by keeping us in Iraq. Hell, he may even help to further spur the world into another Cold War. I will give him credit for picking Gov. Palin as his VP. At least I can feel confident that he's surrounded himself with smarter people than Dubya has.
Obama will lead us down the sad, sad path to Socialism, which will do just as much bad for our economy (if not worse) than spending billions in Iraq. His past with working with social activist groups and his voting history of throwing money at the disenfranchised worries me. Plus, you DO NOT RAISE TAXES WHEN THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TANK. That's one of the reasons the Great Depression happened, this time I doubt that a World War would help us out of it.
Voting for Ron Paul, while essentially would be throwing my vote away, would allow me to vote my conscience. McCain and Obama both represent futures of a nation in debt with no hope for my newborn son to achieve his dreams. I believe this nation needs a leader that will lead by example. A leader that will see how much of America is owned by foriegn (and in many cases hostile) powers. A leader that sees just how far down the spend, spend, spend attitude has screwed the USA and her citizens. We need a leader that will push for personal responsibility and national self-reliance. We're not going to get that from McCain or Obama. Seriously, I am frightened for the future of this country.
For a "democrat", you sure do like to parrot republican talking points. The only legitimate argument you have there that's left is "Experience" but John McCain just threw that one out the window and showed that it wasn't that important by picking Sarah Palin.
For a "democrat", you sure do like to parrot republican talking points. The only legitimate argument you have there that's left is "Experience" but John McCain just threw that one out the window and showed that it wasn't that important by picking Sarah Palin.
Id agree with you If it was Biden Obama.. as it is Not so Mutch.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Ever have a major surgery Cabe? Perhaps something that required a walker or handrails during rehabilitation? Ever break a leg or twist an ankle so bad it required crutches? These aren't implements that deliver people from one point to another, they are implements that help people reach their destination.
It would be naive to say that social systems haven't been exploited and abused by people who have no sense of personal responsibility, and blaming the system itself is an easy out. However, it is a moral imperative that the systems remain in place and that we find a more effective and efficient way to administer them. A cane doesn't move from one place to another on it's own, it takes effort from the wielder. When a cane begins to collect dust, it should be transfered to a person who needs it to actually walk. I have no problem buying canes for people who want to walk and are willing to make the effort. I do have a problem with buying canes for people who have no intention of walking.
I must admit that your post was a very pathetic, uninspiring canned response that failed to counter any point he made.
To answer your question, yes, I have had major surgery to which I paid the deductible on the insurance I pay for.
I suggest a solution to those who wish for universal health care. Those who support it, support it monetarily via increased taxation. Those who do not support it - don't. I would love to see that $300+ that goes towards medicaid in my pocket instead of those who didn't earn it.
In fact, do so with social security as well. Those who want it pay - those who want to determine their own retirement do so another way. $700+ more back in my pocket per month so I can invest in something worth it.
I don't really need universal healthcare. What I do need is the market to work correctly in the current healthcare system.
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare, and you don't do anything for me except raise my healthcare costs artificially.
I can understand why you don't want to subsidize someone else's healthcare, because I've been subsidizing the insurance companies for years without ever having insurance of my own.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare,
What an idiotic post this is. First, my insurance is nearly $600/mo for me only. Second, one reason rates at hospitals are so high is because the uninsured idiot's who don't pay their bills - mostly of who are here illegally.
Another reason rates are so high are sue-happy individuals who create a huge payment for doctor's malpractice insurance. Your cash payment has nothing to do with rates and the rates of the doctor bill has nothing to do with my insurance rate.
Your whole post lacked any intelligence whatsoever.
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare,
What an idiotic post this is. First, my insurance is nearly $600/mo for me only. Second, one reason rates at hospitals are so high because the uninsured idiot's who don't pay their bills - mostly of who are here illegally.
Another reason rates are so high are sue happy individuals who create a huge payment for doctor's malpractice insurance. Your cash payment has nothing to do with rates.
Your whole post lacked any intelligence whatsoever.
Maybe if they'd charge the uninsured person the $1.00 per aspirin they charge the guy with Blue Cross (still a ripoff) instead of $5.00, the uninsured would be able to pay their bills. Or better yet, charge a reasonable price for aspirin for the Blue Cross guy and the uninsured guy, like the $0.11 per aspirin we pay at Walgreens off the retail shelf.
Maybe if the costs come down to something that is reasonable, people will be less inclined to sue to get their medical bills down, because they'll be better able to pay.
But the way that it is, you are fleeced for $600 a month that goes to inflated rates for people who require much more extensive care than you, and I'm getting fleeced at the clinics and at the drug counter so they can cut your provider a deal.
Seems to me rather intelligent to take issue with the way healthcare is now, because it sure looks like socialized medicine to me and anyone else who isn't a naiive moron. The bureaucrats may be working in the Blue Cross/Blue Shield office building instead of the Department of Health, but contains all the excesses, entitlement culture, handouts, corruption, waste, and inefficiency that you'd expect from a Stalinist initiative, not from a society that believes in markets.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
The reason your healthcare is so cheap has nothing to do with your payment to your insurance company. The reason your healthcare is so cheap is because the hospital overcharges me so they can undercharge your insurance provider. In truth, I subsidize YOUR healthcare,
What an idiotic post this is. First, my insurance is nearly $600/mo for me only. Second, one reason rates at hospitals are so high is because the uninsured idiot's who don't pay their bills - mostly of who are here illegally.
Another reason rates are so high are sue-happy individuals who create a huge payment for doctor's malpractice insurance. Your cash payment has nothing to do with rates and the rates of the doctor bill has nothing to do with my insurance rate.
Your whole post lacked any intelligence whatsoever.
Untill doctors get some kind of protection from sue happy America then prices will always be high. I had talked to a doctor friend of mind and he talked about once how being a neruosurgen is not as agreat as it once was. If you could land a spot at a major hospital that covered malpractice hen you were ok. But many end up in small towns where the equpiment and malpratice take almost all of the money they take in.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Actually, medical malpractice accounts for less than 1% of the total cost of health care, and going down.
The reason most economists, researchers, and health care providers cite as the cause of rising health care costs is that nobody in the system we have in place right now promotes...you guessed it...personal responsibility for controlling costs.
Those who are covered by health insurance tend to use health insurance more frequently than they otherwise would, because in most cases it's subsidized by one's employer. Even when it isn't subsidized by one's employer, people tend to use medical services unecessarily after their deductible has been paid, or opt for more expensive and resource-intensive care than they otherwise would.
By the same token, hospitals and doctors are more likely to order unecessary tests and perform unecessary treatments for those who have insurance because they know the insurance company will pay.
The insurance companies want the overall healthcare cost to rise, because that makes their insurance more valuable, justifying higher premiums. They can get away with creating higher premiums because the actual cost of increases are shouldered by the employers and the policy-holder, reducing the impact for both compared to when one shoulders the burden alone. As a result, they lobby for more expensive treatment options and drugs to be added to the standard of care, requiring more medical resources than would otherwise be required.
So the problem is that this so-called "free market system" of health care encourages bad medical decision-making, and there is no incentive for anyone in the process to control costs. Isn't that the main reason why free-marketeers say publically financed programs don't work? The problem of free-riders?
The ones who ultimately end up paying for all this waste of medical resources are threefold:
1) The uninsured and uninsurable. They are charged up to 300% more for the same exact treatment as someone with insurance, because the doctors and hospitals have to somehow cover the cost of the discounts the insurance providers demand.
2) Small business owners and startups. They are charged up the wazoo for health insurance or risk losing their employees to employers who have health insurance. Their small size means they cannot negotiate a favorable deal like GM or Microsoft can.
3) The United States economy. Because healthcare is either wholly or well subsidized by the government in many other industrialized nations, it becomes more expensive for businesses to move or operate here in the US. The prices of US goods also become less competitive, because the price of insuring workers privately is passed on to the consumer. The prices on GM's cars are $1,500 more because of health insurance costs, which might be one of the reasons why our heavy industry is failing, or moving overseas to places like China, who have universal healthcare.
So the way I see it, our system doesn't promote personal responsibility, it encourages personal irresponsibility, and traslates into economic irresponsibility as well.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE