| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:53 pm |
|
| Fortunately I am follically challenged, or I would be pulling my hair out over the past few posts.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 511 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 08:08 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: Terrance wrote: Habanero wrote: It is also happening right here in the US. There are groups and organizations pushing for the denial of all kinds of service, from healthcare to adoption, from housing to employment for those who do not conform to the lifestyle police.
This country was NOT founded on socialism and it should be avoided at all costs. I assume you are referring to the Republican Party. Terrance, have you gone mad? The Republicans are the farest thing from socialism there is. And Habanero, you qare right. The country was not founded on socialism but there was a fairness and an equality of sorts. That is the failing of this country. Its refusal to recognize that there can be a democratic socialism fair and equal to all. Why do you oppose it?' Thank God that the Republicans are the furthest thing from a socialist. And so are most conservative Democrats. Although Bernie Frank does have his place with the Democratic Socialist Caucus (or is it the Socialist Democratic Caucus?) It's one or the other and has been posted and discussed in the past.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:42 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: Terrance wrote: Habanero wrote: It is also happening right here in the US. There are groups and organizations pushing for the denial of all kinds of service, from healthcare to adoption, from housing to employment for those who do not conform to the lifestyle police.
This country was NOT founded on socialism and it should be avoided at all costs. I assume you are referring to the Republican Party. Terrance, have you gone mad? The Republicans are the farest thing from socialism there is. And Habanero, you qare right. The country was not founded on socialism but there was a fairness and an equality of sorts. That is the failing of this country. Its refusal to recognize that there can be a democratic socialism fair and equal to all. Why do you oppose it?
ESAD
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:33 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Habanero wrote: It is also happening right here in the US. There are groups and organizations pushing for the denial of all kinds of service, from healthcare to adoption, from housing to employment for those who do not conform to the lifestyle police.
This country was NOT founded on socialism and it should be avoided at all costs. I assume you are referring to the Republican Party. Terrance, have you gone mad? The Republicans are the farest thing from socialism there is. And Habanero, you qare right. The country was not founded on socialism but there was a fairness and an equality of sorts. That is the failing of this country. Its refusal to recognize that there can be a democratic socialism fair and equal to all. Why do you oppose it?
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3961 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:08 pm |
|
Remember what hppens when one ASSUMES.
I did not refer to any political party, that was your assumption.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
Habanero wrote: It is also happening right here in the US. There are groups and organizations pushing for the denial of all kinds of service, from healthcare to adoption, from housing to employment for those who do not conform to the lifestyle police.
This country was NOT founded on socialism and it should be avoided at all costs.
I assume you are referring to the Republican Party.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3961 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: Why would anyone in their right mind reject equal care for everyone? By the government running it, it will guarantee funding and total equality regardless of race, color, creed, class status, or citizenship. Why oppose this? Those in opposition are quite mad.
BS.........just look at what is happening across the Atlantic. Once the government controls health care they can and DO dictate who will be treated. One need only look at the British press about the number of people being denied treatment because they drink or smoke or are overweight.
It is also happening right here in the US. There are groups and organizations pushing for the denial of all kinds of service, from healthcare to adoption, from housing to employment for those who do not conform to the lifestyle police.
This country was NOT founded on socialism and it should be avoided at all costs.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 03:29 pm |
|
| Everyone has health coverage now, all you need do is go to the emergency room and by law they have to see you. Now for paying for it that is a different story.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 03:24 pm |
|
The best plan for a universal health care plan is the one that people mistakenly denounce as "Hillary care." It was an excellent plan that guaranteed the absolute right to health care coverage for every resident of the United States. Because of Republican monopolists the plan was trashed in the media. However, my greedy friends, it will be resurrected in some form because there is the possibility that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be named as the "health czarina." Why would anyone in their right mind reject equal care for everyone? By the government running it, it will guarantee funding and total equality regardless of race, color, creed, class status, or citizenship. Why oppose this? Those in opposition are quite mad.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6577 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 03:05 pm |
|
No, Bix, they will not.
There is no "liberal" plan for health care. I know it is easier to demonize something you don't understand or don't want to understand by putting them all in a big honkin' pot and calling them all the same, but there are many differences between the various plans.
The Free Market is not perfect. Anybody who has studied economics knows there are a few classic problems with it, which is why over the years some areas have been defined as public goods, or where laws have been set up to prevent things like child labor, which flourish under a totally free market.
As has been asked for several times, we need a discussion on health care without throwing around labels as soon as someone suggests something that is in any way different then the system you have and you enjoy.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 06:40 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: The persistent indifference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals will virtually guarantee that government will devour the private market for health care. It is time they take up the debate and argue for the same kind of free market solutions to health care that economist Adam Smith's acolytes have applied to other aspects of the economy around the world
Give it a rest.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1432 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 02:23 pm |
|
The persistent indifference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals will virtually guarantee that government will devour the private market for health care. It is time they take up the debate and argue for the same kind of free market solutions to health care that economist Adam Smith's acolytes have applied to other aspects of the economy around the world
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:33 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Not a Physician in America would attest to that.
Is there a little humor breaking through or are you just being honest as the day is long?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
| Not a Physician in America would attest to that.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:21 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I have papers.................
The kind that say you are well now?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:18 am |
|
| I have papers.................
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:16 am |
|
| On some posts I'm a friend, on others I'm not. Beware anarchists and people suffering from MPD and/or BiPolar disorders.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:14 am |
|
On the contrary my friend, anarchy does not come in play.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:11 am |
|
| Alert!!! Alert!!! We are not only in peril form socialists and Marxists, but I fear anarchists are creeping into this discussion.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:09 am |
|
| I have the ultimate faith in our ability to govern ourselves. I have no faith in the current bureaucracy to govern us. Hence my support for the first and second ammendments.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
| What! Are you saying you have no faith in our ability to govern ourselves?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:04 am |
|
| I think Karl Marx is waiting for you on line 2.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:03 am |
|
| In this country, we are the government. I guess there are those out there who wish to have others control our health care.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
| I only asked if it was possible to leave government control of helath care out of the equation.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 12:55 am |
|
We're having enought trouble discussing this without analogizing it to hair care. Call me crazy, but unlike totalitarian countries we are the government. We get to choose what our government does or doesn't do.
Bixby I notice you disappeared when I asked you about whether or not maintaining a military was socialism. That question is still on the table for you.
Under our current "free market" system of health care, we actually do pay for all those who can't afford to. Those "free market" providers just pass the cost along to the rest of us.
We also subsidize medical schools and medical research. We do all kinds of special things for drug and insurance companies.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 12:34 am |
|
Only if you leave government control out of the equation.
Terrance wrote:
Terrance says lets talk about health care and leave politics out of it. Is that possible?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1432 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 4th, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
Those of you who really want socialized medicine, that is, a single payer (that being the government) with total equal access and equal treatment regardless of the ability to pay fee-for-service. Fee for service will be phased out should the Democrat plan be accepted. It is a watered down version of the old draconian “Hillary Care.” Even Obama in one of his recent meetings alluded to the fact that “perhaps Hillary care should be revisited.” Too many people have been beguiled into thinking that this government run health care will be “free” and for some, that may be true. But take a closer look at “free.” People like Mendavor think that we are born with a moral right to health care. Dig this analogy.
Universal Hair Care
Suppose we had a moral right to HAIR CARE provided by a loving government. What would happen under such a moral theory? Haircuts are now free, like the air we breathe, so some people show up at the hair care center for new and different styling. The government pays out more and more as the hair care system becomes overwhelmed. After all, its “free” for all who want it. The barbers and stylists now revel in their newfound incomes and the profession starts to grow ravenously. Bald people come out in droves for free hair implants; a new school of fancy specialized eyebrow pluckers develops and grows, and its all free government paid services. Stylists and barbers become overworked trying to give everyone everything they want. The government begins to complain of the drain on the system and the money the stylists and barbers are making. The budget is out of control.
As usual, a flurry of directives comes out of the Congress. First, limit the supply of barbers and stylists and limit their earnings. A new bureaucracy arises and a computerized office of investigators and examiners shoots up, red tape and all. Some barbers are still making too much money so therefore they must be getting more than their “fair share” of national hair care clients. Legislation arises that states all barbers and stylists must have special “Certificates of Need” in order to buy more razors and scissors while peer review boards are established to assess the busy and not too busy. In the end, there are long lines and long waits for those wretched customers waiting for their hair care. The solution? Why we must ration hair care. limit the number of annual visits, determine the necessity for hair care by age and physical appearance. If you are too old, you don’t need it. If you are too young, you can afford to wait longer.
So do you think that the situation would be improved by having hair care cooperatives organized by the government? Have them engage in “managed competition” managed by the government? Will we have to purchase hair care insurance from companies controlled by the government? If this is what would happen under government managed, controlled or run hair care, what else can possibly happen?
Now change the scenario from hair care to health care. Get the picture?
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1432 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 4th, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Terrance says lets talk about health care and leave politics out of it. Is that possible? No. Not if it is under government control or government run. If you leave it free market, yes.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 4th, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
| Terrance says lets talk about health care and leave politics out of it. Is that possible? Last edited on Mon Aug 4th, 2008 06:39 pm by Terrance
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 511 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 4th, 2008 06:02 pm |
|
An old article from Pravda no doubt? Even Putin would choke at your assertions.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 224 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 4th, 2008 01:18 am |
|
You people are failing to understand that it is the government who can effectively run a health care system, just as they run social security. By the government running health care we take the profit motive out of the equation and then we can stifle the greed factor. Just as in european systems doctors will only be allowed to make so much and charge so much for medical procedures. That alone will drop costs a lot. Just think of what a healthy society we can have if everyone had equal rights to health care, just like Terrence says. So if its socialist, so what? Socialism is a good thing and just what this country needs. It is the equalizer that otherwise escapes a majority of the masses, who are mainly the downtrodden. As soon as the bourgeoisie understand this the better off we all can be.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:57 pm |
|
dis·joint·ed
play_w2("D0274000")
(d s-join td)
adj.
1. Separated at the joints.
2. Out of joint; dislocated.
3. Lacking order or coherence:
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:45 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: When the government takes over your life it becomes disjointed. Do you really think this group of politicians we have elected can manage a health care system?
Are you Cobra too? I asked Cobra what he meant. Do you speak for him? He used the term, I wasn't sure what he meant. I would like to know what he meant.
Go provoke someone else.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
| When the government takes over your life it becomes disjointed. Do you really think this group of politicians we have elected can manage a health care system?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:30 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: Terrance wrote:I would like an affordable, equitable, and excellent health care system. It wouldn't matter to me what form it took as long as it worked. I think the single payer system holds the most promise.
I think some earmarks for such a system would include: everyone paying the same amount for the same service from the same provider; no one being denied treatment; an end to interference from drug companies and others in terms of where consumers bought their medications; and an end to all the separate administratively costly systems such as medicare and medicaid. I think your reply is somewhat disjointed. Who would be the "single payer?"
Everyone paying to the same provider? Who would that be?
The only possibility would be the government.
I'm not sure what you mean by disjointed.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 272 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
Terrance wrote:I would like an affordable, equitable, and excellent health care system. It wouldn't matter to me what form it took as long as it worked. I think the single payer system holds the most promise.
I think some earmarks for such a system would include: everyone paying the same amount for the same service from the same provider; no one being denied treatment; an end to interference from drug companies and others in terms of where consumers bought their medications; and an end to all the separate administratively costly systems such as medicare and medicaid. I think your reply is somewhat disjointed. Who would be the "single payer?"
Everyone paying to the same provider? Who would that be?
The only possibility would be the government.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
Footloose wrote: I think that everyone here agrees that we need some kind of health care reform. The question is, what form does it take on?
Government sponsored and run health care?
Government control of the health care industry?
Single payer with the government (er, I mean we taxpayers) paying for it?
A competitive free market system with fee for service?
I see a lot of what people don't want, and that's fine, but what is it exactly what forum members here do want?
I hope we all agree that we need some kind of health care reform. I wish we could discuss all the various options without descending into ideological name calling.
I would like an affordable, equitable, and excellent health care system. It wouldn't matter to me what form it took as long as it worked. I think the single payer system holds the most promise.
I think some earmarks for such a system would include: everyone paying the same amount for the same service from the same provider; no one being denied treatment; an end to interference from drug companies and others in terms of where consumers bought their medications; and an end to all the separate administratively costly systems such as medicare and medicaid.
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 305 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 07:59 pm |
|
I think that everyone here agrees that we need some kind of health care reform. The question is, what form does it take on?
Government sponsored and run health care?
Government control of the health care industry?
Single payer with the government (er, I mean we taxpayers) paying for it?
A competitive free market system with fee for service?
I see a lot of what people don't want, and that's fine, but what is it exactly what forum members here do want?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 05:20 pm |
|
Bluesman wrote: Terrance politics is big business with much to be gained and lost. Those in control of both parties aren't about to lie down, they stand to loose everything.
That's right. That's true about everything. Those of us who are civilians need to work together to put the pressure on the politicians to do our business. One way we do that is to vote. Another is to share info so we don't get divided up and neutralize each other out.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2942 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 05:10 pm |
|
| Terrance politics is big business with much to be gained and lost. Those in control of both parties aren't about to lie down, they stand to loose everything.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 05:03 pm |
|
Bluesman wrote: Playing the Game wrote: It would be nice if we really did have that "right". Unfortunately, it has come to pass that our government tells us what to spend our money on, and we have foolishly allowed them to get away with it.
It would be nice if we would all acknowledge that special interest groups and corporations own this country, especially the healthcare industy. They tell the politicians what to do on both sides of the political arena.
We collectively need to tell our elected officials "the politicians" enough.
That about sums it up. I hope that's what we are seeing unfold now.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2942 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 04:31 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: It would be nice if we really did have that "right". Unfortunately, it has come to pass that our government tells us what to spend our money on, and we have foolishly allowed them to get away with it.
It would be nice if we would all acknowledge that special interest groups and corporations own this country, especially the healthcare industy. They tell the politicians what to do on both sides of the political arena.
We collectively need to tell our elected officials "the politicians" enough.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 03:35 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: It would be nice if we really did have that "right". Unfortunately, it has come to pass that our government tells us what to spend our money on, and we have foolishly allowed them to get away with it.
Terrance wrote:
........I said we have a right to decide whatever we wish to spend our money on. Isn't that also right?
Are you saying we don't have a right to choose what we want to spend our money on? In a free society, wouldn't that be wrong?
I guess you pick and choose what you respond to. You clearly didn't want to acknowledge that I never said health care was a right. Right?
We elect the people who represent us. Our representatives enact legislation that prioritizes what we spend our money on. You seem to be saying that we are living in a dictatorship or some other form of totalitarian society and that is clearly not the case.
Even more interesting, you encourage people to vote for a candidate and a party that has done more to curtail and destroy our Counstitutional rights than most. You are aware that for most of Bush's terms, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and Bush vetoed almost nothing.
In the end, you simply cannot resist playing the victim card.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 01:26 pm |
|
It would be nice if we really did have that "right". Unfortunately, it has come to pass that our government tells us what to spend our money on, and we have foolishly allowed them to get away with it.
Terrance wrote:
........I said we have a right to decide whatever we wish to spend our money on. Isn't that also right?
Are you saying we don't have a right to choose what we want to spend our money on? In a free society, wouldn't that be wrong?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 01:03 pm |
|
Bluesman wrote: Healthcare needs to be reformed it has become nothing more than a shining example of corporate greed. The importance of a black number at the bottom instead of red one on the quarterly earnings reports so that the investors are kept happy.
Once again for the second time in 2 years Milford hospital has violated federal regulations and turned an uninsured patient away. This person is a good friend of mine and is currently hospitalized in an ICU unit at another hospital with Urosepsis.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope your friend's condition improves.
|
Bluesman
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2942 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 12:55 pm |
|
Healthcare needs to be reformed it has become nothing more than a shining example of corporate greed. The importance of a black number at the bottom instead of red one on the quarterly earnings reports so that the investors are kept happy.
Once again for the second time in 2 years Milford hospital has violated federal regulations and turned an uninsured patient away. This person is a good friend of mine and is currently hospitalized in an ICU unit at another hospital with Urosepsis.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Is clean air a "right" defined in the Constitution? How about an honest government? A postal service?
There are many things that we have chosen to do that are not required nor a "right" as defined by the Constitution. I'm waking up Ben here ,but the government from early on decided that they needed to do more then the very simple things set up in the Constitution.
The neat thing was that they framework allowed it to happen. Now, whether or not it should be a state or federal thing, or a state thing subsidized by the Federal government, or tax subsidy, we need to decide.
Getting back to the original question is whether or not or health care system needs to be reformed or not. That is the ultimate question that keeps getting lost or blurred.
Why do you figure it keeps getting blurred? Why can't these folks talk about this without resorting to personal attacks and spouting ideology?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6577 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 12:38 pm |
|
Is clean air a "right" defined in the Constitution? How about an honest government? A postal service?
There are many things that we have chosen to do that are not required nor a "right" as defined by the Constitution. I'm waking up Ben here ,but the government from early on decided that they needed to do more then the very simple things set up in the Constitution.
The neat thing was that they framework allowed it to happen. Now, whether or not it should be a state or federal thing, or a state thing subsidized by the Federal government, or tax subsidy, we need to decide.
Getting back to the original question is whether or not or health care system needs to be reformed or not. That is the ultimate question that keeps getting lost or blurred.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 974 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:23 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: By winning the war, you got free speech, not self determined rights.
By winning the war, our founders got to say what an inalienable right was. By surviving as a country we have been able to determine for ourselves what rights we wish to bestow upon ourselves.
But all this has nothing to do with what I was saying about health care. I said I didn't think health care was a right. Isn't that right? I said I thought it was a good idea. Isn't that right too? I said we have a right to decide whatever we wish to spend our money on. Isn't that also right?
Are you saying we don't have a right to choose what we want to spend our money on? In a free society, wouldn't that be wrong?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1734 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 11:14 am |
|
| By winning the war, you got free speech, not self determined rights.
|
Current time is 10:02 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|