Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's only a matter of time before your lifestyle choices come under attack too. legislation like the patriot act only openly affects a small minority. most people don't even understand the implications nor do they care, thus it is easy to pass. when we get socialised medicine, and we will get socialised medicine, there will come a time when budgets come under strain. apart from rationing care they will look at their biggest revenue drain (probably heart disease, diabetes) and the nanny state will go into action. they'll start sin taxing sugar, fast foods, meat etc. they might then start outright banning certain foods which they decide are harmful. you might think the people will want this socialised care overturned then? wrong, by that time people will have become wholly dependent on it including those who oppose it today! it might sound far fetched but just cast your eyes over to britain and watch how they deal with shortfalls when their huge tax revenue from the boom time economy disintegrates
It sounds like you're opposed to rationing care, prefering instead to promise everyone that they will have all the money they need to live until 110 without a moment's discomfort, attached to tubes and machines if necessary, with a body full of mechanical or transplanted organs, who can live on a diet consisting of nothing but the four major food groups of sugar, fat, salt and alcohol.
One of the risks of living in a free society, is that you might freely be killed.
People should remember that, the next time we are attacked by terrorists.
Indeed. It's not a popular thing to express, but the truth is that those of us who worked in the World Trade Center were well aware that the place was a terrorist target. There were always threats--some taken seriously, some the local nutjobs who call in bomb scares every day to landmarks. Some of my coworkers did not return after 1993 because they were sure we'd be hit again. We used to discuss what the method would be "next time"--I figured a truck bomb a la OKC, but two of my coworkers said they'd come back with planes. Both lived to say "I told you so".
The thing is, life is risk or it's not worth living. After '93 I could have found a job in a safer place out in the 'burbs where I live, but the truth is that the WTC was a very cool place to work. You don't take risks, you don't get to work in the sky.
The WTC was a military target, for the same reason that the German aircraft and munitions plants, full of civilian workers, were military targets. Al Qaeda and other saw the creeping threat of global economic domination as an enemy that would bring western culture along with it, and what better represented the headquarters and nerve center of that threat than a building that even trumpeted its intentions under the name World Trade Center? If you are the head and brain of the perceived enemy, you become the target, the only part that can be effectively cut off.
If Osama Bin Laden's goal when he blew up the Twin Towers was to disrupt normal life in America hasn't he already won?
We can find many examples of what I am talking about. Here are a few:
1. Getting on an airplane has changed dramatically for the worse. I agree that security is necessary to prevent domestic and foreign terrorism. However, I absolutely dread flying anymore. TSA and the rules it has imposed has virtually ruined any pleasure in this form of travel. I now think about every item I am carrying through that security line anymore. I even wear shoes that I know will be easy to take off. I never carry a laptop computer anymore because of the way they scrutinize those things. I make sure my clothes contain no metal. I even try to avoid wearing a belt. Worst of all I dread the mad rush when they almost throw your possessions that have been through the "screener" at you, to keep the line behind you moving. I have things confiscated by TSA agents in the past like a comb that was contained in what look like a knife sheathe.
2. Try getting into a government building anymore. You need I.D. You often have to pass through a metal detector. Again, you have to think about every item you are carrying into that building.
3. Security cameras everywhere. Ever get an itch in a private area of your body that you are afraid to scratch because you think its going to be on camera?
4. Access to some places is now very restricted. I was unable to take a group of scouts to see air traffic control operations at an airport. I am told that since 9/11 this is prohibited. If you take a tour of Hoover Dam or other major sites, you aren't allowed to see things you could have before 9/11. They restrict your movements and again, there is now screening through a metal detector.
5. Budget of billions of dollars to pay for Homeland Security. Much of this was not required before 9/11.
6. Iraq War. Cost of $1 trillion. 4300 American lives. More than half the country felt it was totally unnecessary.
7. Afghanistan War. Maybe we really do need to be there. However, there wasn't a problem before 9/11. Again, this is costing untold billions of dollars and the casualty count among our soldiers is rising.
8. The Patriot Act and other restrictions on personal liberty. Phone tapping by executive order and not by a warrant issued by a court.
I guess all this is a good deal if you work for the government in Homeland Security, DOJ, DOD, etc. For the rest of us taxpayers who have to foot the bill and pay the price for all this it just sucks.
If they killed Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, I think he could claim he lost the battle, but won the war.
The terrorists are the bogey men that gave the truly dangerous people the justification to start more wars for profit and resources.
It sounds like you're opposed to rationing care, prefering instead to promise everyone that they will have all the money they need to live until 110 without a moment's discomfort, attached to tubes and machines if necessary, with a body full of mechanical or transplanted organs, who can live on a diet consisting of nothing but the four major food groups of sugar, fat, salt and alcohol.
i'm glad that's what you think rationed healthcare is. my wife sat in labor for 5.5 days here in britain because targets set by govt mean that doctors should put aside their judgement to meet budgets. on the morning of the 5th day the doctors noticed my unborn baby was in severe distress and decided to do an emergency c-section anyway. the obgyn later told me that he knew on the first day what the outcome would be but that his hands were tied. this was in 2006 when the government here was flush with huge tax revenue.
the problem with you and people like you is that you can only see the world as either corporate or government. you cannot envisage a time when neither were/are involved in healthcare
the problem with you and people like you is that you can only see the world as either corporate or government. you cannot envisage a time when neither were/are involved in healthcare
The problem with you and people like you is that you can only see the world as black and white, with the most extreme anecdotal exlamples defining the two visible ends of the spectrum, with nothing in between. Like rationally rationed health care, with sensible people whom we trust to make value judgments. (That's where the word "rationed" comes from--- a rational judgment about what is a fair share.)
The real fault lies in the fact that we have become a flow-chart society. Every human endeavor follows a flow chart, and it allows for no deviation. Getting health care is as rigid and invariable as choosing a recorded menu number on a phone pad, and pressing zero gets a new dial tone. No human being is trusted enough to pick up the phone and say "How may I help you?"
One of the earliest functions that arose in human civilization was The Judge, who could listen to disputes and be trusted by his community to adjudicate it fairly. The Judge has ceased to exist in modern society. Even in a law court, a Judge has no power, and will be overturned on appeal if he tries to exercise any "Judgment".
Nevertheless, health care MUST be rationed, for the reasons I expressed in my previous post. It would behoove us to put rational people in place to do the rationing.
Sorry about your wife's ordeal. But here in rosy America, my wife's CHF was misdiagnosed for a year, until finally she needed an implanted defibrillator. Uninsured, she had access only to volunteer doctors rushing through public clinics. It's not perfect anywhere, and will never be. Let's look for the best answer in the gray area, not out at the extreme edges.
i'm glad that's what you think rationed healthcare is. my wife sat in labor for 5.5 days here in britain because targets set by govt mean that doctors should put aside their judgement to meet budgets. on the morning of the 5th day the doctors noticed my unborn baby was in severe distress and decided to do an emergency c-section anyway. the obgyn later told me that he knew on the first day what the outcome would be but that his hands were tied. this was in 2006 when the government here was flush with huge tax revenue.
the problem with you and people like you is that you can only see the world as either corporate or government. you cannot envisage a time when neither were/are involved in healthcare
Off topic, but stories like this do get my attention. I've never advocated an NHS like they have in Britain. I think medical providers ought to continue to work in the private sector. What I do support is a single payer health insurance system like they have in Canada, or basically an extension of our Medicare system to everyone and not just the elderly.
A couple of questions for you though: 1. Why do polls report a high degree of satisfaction in Britain with the NHS? 2. Why is the life expectancy for the average Briton longer than for the average American?
i'm glad that's what you think rationed healthcare is. my wife sat in labor for 5.5 days here in britain because targets set by govt mean that doctors should put aside their judgement to meet budgets. on the morning of the 5th day the doctors noticed my unborn baby was in severe distress and decided to do an emergency c-section anyway. the obgyn later told me that he knew on the first day what the outcome would be but that his hands were tied. this was in 2006 when the government here was flush with huge tax revenue.
the problem with you and people like you is that you can only see the world as either corporate or government. you cannot envisage a time when neither were/are involved in healthcare
Off topic, but stories like this do get my attention. I've never advocated an NHS like they have in Britain. I think medical providers ought to continue to work in the private sector. What I do support is a single payer health insurance system like they have in Canada, or basically an extension of our Medicare system to everyone and not just the elderly.
A couple of questions for you though: 1. Why do polls report a high degree of satisfaction in Britain with the NHS? 2. Why is the life expectancy for the average Briton longer than for the average American?
it really doesn't matter what i say, you're convinced single payer is the way to go. i think it is just another bureaucracy which will grow bigger each year, employ more administrators every week and yet the levels of coverage and quality will deteriorate as rapidly as the costs escalate. imo that is what happens every single time the govt gets involved in something. like i said, that is just my opinion.
i really wish that healthcare was still a state issue. there would be states offering your system and if it meant that much to you, you could move there. there would inevitably be states offering no system and that would appeal to me. this would be a fair, a place for you and one for me. the only thing is that states which offered this would have to fund it themselves and not rely on the federal government to subsidize it, ie if you want state healthcare you pay the state taxes. would that not be fair?
you mentioned canada. firstly, canada has about the same population as texas but it is 50 times texas in terms of landmass and probably higher still in mineral wealth. with all this wealth they are still prone to severe shortages. regarding life expectancy in britain, this doesn't paint the real picture. the us has different problems to the uk. for a start there are no where near as many murders. fewer people drive therefore fewer road deaths. while the british diet is generally horrendous these days, it has nothing on the junk we eat in the states. then you have to examine how overmedicated we are. pills for everything and that might cause a few more premature deaths. if you want to get accurate figures you should compare apples with apples. look at survival rates from serious illness. in everything you care to look at the us is superior to britain.
this is not to say that our healthcare is brilliant because it sucks! doctors over test, over treat. thousands of doctors don't practice out of fear of lawsuits. our system is so over regulated. the all-in health insurance encourages abuse and severely distorts supply by supporting false demand. companies can't compete inter state. then there is the lovely tax code which encourages a system whereby you rely on your employer for insurance. then you mentioned medicare. this was essentially a gift to the drug companies, it had zero to do with helping people. secondly, it's broke! did you get that? it's broke!
But here in rosy America, my wife's CHF was misdiagnosed for a year, until finally she needed an implanted defibrillator. Uninsured, she had access only to volunteer doctors rushing through public clinics. It's not perfect anywhere, and will never be. Let's look for the best answer in the gray area, not out at the extreme edges.
never said it was rosy in the states. i'm well aware of how much it sucks because it's corporate healthcare. it will be exactly the same when govt takes over. it will still suck!
The WTC was a military target, for the same reason that the German aircraft and munitions plants, full of civilian workers, were military targets. Al Qaeda and other saw the creeping threat of global economic domination as an enemy that would bring western culture along with it, and what better represented the headquarters and nerve center of that threat than a building that even trumpeted its intentions under the name World Trade Center? If you are the head and brain of the perceived enemy, you become the target, the only part that can be effectively cut off.
So what you are saying is that we should bomb the terroist supporter conutires specificlty targeting civlian who support them? Its alos perfectly proper for your enemies to target you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
