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.
The basic flaw in nationalized universal health care is that it causes people to think medical services are free (which they won't be, they will be funded by tax dollars). This in turn creates a situation where demand is greater than supply. This is the reason countries such as Canada and Britian have several months long waits to see a doctor or a dentist. People line up for care and literally die waiting. Or they come to the US for our services. Or they take matters into their own hands and yank their teeth with pliers.
I'm totally against it, and think it will be a disaster on many levels.
I want to reiterate my previous post, and also add that Hillary's plan would force insurers to charge rates for coverage at the same rate for everyone. This means that smokers/non smokers, alcoholics and druggies/abstainers, fat people/fit people would all pay the same rates. So there would be no reward for attempting to avert disease and strive for longevity.
Also, in order for Hillary's plan, for example, to become "universal" it will need to be compulsary. Health care insurance would be a PRECONDITION of employment. Not having it would be a violation, just as driving without a license is.
Not everyone wants to pay for health coverage, as is their right as Americans. Some people in the US actually prefer to seek alternative treatments such as accupuncture, which costs much less than traditional medicine and for some illnesses provides better results.
If you want to live in a socialist soceity where people are made to do things against their will, Hillary is your guy. Oh, I mean woman. If not, vote against universal social medicine. It's like watching a train wreck in the making.
I want to reiterate my previous post, and also add that Hillary's plan would force insurers to charge rates for coverage at the same rate for everyone. This means that smokers/non smokers, alcoholics and druggies/abstainers, fat people/fit people would all pay the same rates. So there would be no reward for attempting to avert disease and strive for longevity.
And there is now? Doctor's are actually given incentives to DENY coverage and treatments for patients by the insurance companies. How is THAT useful?! In Britain, doctors receive bonus pay for how "healthy" they make their patients - such as how many they convince to stop smoking, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmary
Also, in order for Hillary's plan, for example, to become "universal" it will need to be compulsary. Health care insurance would be a PRECONDITION of employment. Not having it would be a violation, just as driving without a license is.
I think she's wimping out with her plan, which is nothing but a windfall to the snake oil salesmen known as HMOs and PPOs. Universal tax payer health insurance, paid for by shrinking the military budget spent overseas should help eliminate or soften any increased tax burden, AND be easy (or even beneficial) to the wallets of both business and employees who foot the bill now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmary
Not everyone wants to pay for health coverage, as is their right as Americans. Some people in the US actually prefer to seek alternative treatments such as accupuncture, which costs much less than traditional medicine and for some illnesses provides better results.
Not sure how much good accupuncture will do when a heart attack sets in... but feel free to try it and get back to us with the results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmary
If you want to live in a socialist soceity where people are made to do things against their will, Hillary is your guy. Oh, I mean woman. If not, vote against universal social medicine. It's like watching a train wreck in the making.
Lady, that healthcare train derailed a LONG time ago in America.
"Wealth" has no correlation to how hard someone works.
Do you HONESTLY believe a big shot real estate broker has a harder job than someone who works out in the fields all day?
Wealth is mostly luck and connections and smarts. You need all three. Not everyone has all three. Because the wealthy can pass their wealth to their deadbeat children, however, anyone who "makes" it will have made their family "rich" forever, because unless squandered, mismanaged terribly or stolen, the beauty of investment and compound interest means wealth will never "go away."
Indeed, have you ever seen the studies that show in "free America," we actually have LESS "class mobility" than in other (*GASP*) commonly referred to as "socialist" countries?!
Hard work is not restricted to simply physical labor. MOst small business owners I know started their businesses by working upwards of 60-80 hours a week. Where are your statistics comparing the means for achieving wealth? Quite a bit of effort is required to make connections and to develop "smarts". Nearly everyone has the propensity to develop "smarts" and "connections". IMO, luck has very little to do with achievement. I feel that we must generate our own "luck".
Hard work is not restricted to simply physical labor. MOst small business owners I know started their businesses by working upwards of 60-80 hours a week. Where are your statistics comparing the means for achieving wealth? Quite a bit of effort is required to make connections and to develop "smarts". Nearly everyone has the propensity to develop "smarts" and "connections". IMO, luck has very little to do with achievement. I feel that we must generate our own "luck".
tell that to the kids grouped in schools socioeconomically. theyre screwed from the start. you want to start up a small business? better have the startup money, or some equity to get a loan. that doesnt appear out of thin air. what connections does a lone immigrant have? what about language barriers? and to imply that field workers dont put in 60-80 hour weeks is downright ignorant. these "connections" are contingent upon numerous factors, and being a privileged white man raised in a good neighborhood gives you a hugeeeeeee advantage. calling it luck isnt that far off.
09-21-2007, 07:27 PM
proudmary
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
And there is now? Doctor's are actually given incentives to DENY coverage and treatments for patients by the insurance companies. How is THAT useful?! In Britain, doctors receive bonus pay for how "healthy" they make their patients - such as how many they convince to stop smoking, etc.
I think she's wimping out with her plan, which is nothing but a windfall to the snake oil salesmen known as HMOs and PPOs. Universal tax payer health insurance, paid for by shrinking the military budget spent overseas should help eliminate or soften any increased tax burden, AND be easy (or even beneficial) to the wallets of both business and employees who foot the bill now.
Not sure how much good accupuncture will do when a heart attack sets in... but feel free to try it and get back to us with the results.
Lady, that healthcare train derailed a LONG time ago in America.
You mean to tell me, that you had no idea that insurance rates grant a break in price for those who say, for example, don't smoke and/or are young as opposed to old, until I just posted it?
Since I never stated that I personally use accupuncture as my sole means of medical treatment, I won't be able to get back to you on how it might turn out for me should I have a heart attack. However, I do believe and am prepared to tell you that I have every reason to believe that accupuncture, as well as traditional Chinese herbal medicine, can very well help prevent serious health risks, like heart attacks from happening.
And don't call me 'lady", as I'm not your girlfriend. You may call me Mary.
Hard work is not restricted to simply physical labor. MOst small business owners I know started their businesses by working upwards of 60-80 hours a week.
You do realize that wealth is not "infinite"? Not everyone can be a business owner, or else there'd be no employees to work. Not everyone can "better" themselves because there are positions that REQUIRE "unbettered" workers to complete. They are all essential in the economy, and being a manager or owner is NOT an indication that you've worked hard.
Our own president was handed how many companies he ran into the ground? Only the finest counter-example to the rich are "hard workers."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amznjohn
Where are your statistics comparing the means for achieving wealth?
Family Fortunes
Where men fall on the pay scale
as adults when their fathers were
in the . . .
Note: 1995-98 wages for sons born
between 1963-68. Figures don't add
up to 100% due to rounding
source: Bhashkar Mazumder:
Federal Reserve Bank
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amznjohn
Nearly everyone has the propensity to develop "smarts" and "connections". IMO, luck has very little to do with achievement. I feel that we must generate our own "luck".
In your glorious libertarian society, LUCK would be the single most important factor in determining how far a person would go (as it is now, actually). Kids "lucky" enough to be born into wealthy families would get to go to the best schools (all private in Libertarian-ville), and would have many more resources to develop their "smarts." Unlucky kids born to the poor would have whatever could be afforded (or nothing at all, like back in the 1800s).
Here's a nice little article showing that the United States is only the "Land of Opportunity" in myth and legend, where "rags-to-riches" is the exception, rather than the rule:
As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls
Those in Bottom Rung Enjoy Better Odds in Europe; How Parents Confer an Edge Immigrants See Fast Advance
DAVID WESSEL / Wall Street Journal 13may2005
The notion that the U.S is a special place where any child can grow up to be president, a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class, dates to Benjamin Franklin.
[...]
But the reality of mobility in America is more complicated than the myth. As the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth — or a rich child will fall into the middle class — remain stuck. Despite the spread of affirmative action, the expansion of community colleges and the other social change designed to give people of all classes a shot at success, Americans are no more or less likely to rise above, or fall below, their parents' economic class than they were 35 years ago.
Although Americans still think of their land as a place of exceptional opportunity — in contrast to class-bound Europe — the evidence suggests otherwise. And scholars have, over the past decade, come to see America as a less mobile society than they once believed.
[...]
"The U.S. and Britain appear to stand out as the least mobile societies among the rich countries studied."
— Miles Corak, an economist for Canada's national statistical agency
You do realize that wealth is not "infinite"? Not everyone can be a business owner, or else there'd be no employees to work. Not everyone can "better" themselves because there are positions that REQUIRE "unbettered" workers to complete. They are all essential in the economy, and being a manager or owner is NOT an indication that you've worked hard.
Our own president was handed how many companies he ran into the ground? Only the finest counter-example to the rich are "hard workers."
Family Fortunes
Where men fall on the pay scale
as adults when their fathers were
in the . . .
Note: 1995-98 wages for sons born
between 1963-68. Figures don't add
up to 100% due to rounding
source: Bhashkar Mazumder:
Federal Reserve Bank
In your glorious libertarian society, LUCK would be the single most important factor in determining how far a person would go (as it is now, actually). Kids "lucky" enough to be born into wealthy families would get to go to the best schools (all private in Libertarian-ville), and would have many more resources to develop their "smarts." Unlucky kids born to the poor would have whatever could be afforded (or nothing at all, like back in the 1800s).
Here's a nice little article showing that the United States is only the "Land of Opportunity" in myth and legend, where "rags-to-riches" is the exception, rather than the rule:
As Rich-Poor Gap Widens in the U.S., Class Mobility Stalls
Those in Bottom Rung Enjoy Better Odds in Europe; How Parents Confer an Edge Immigrants See Fast Advance
DAVID WESSEL / Wall Street Journal 13may2005
The notion that the U.S is a special place where any child can grow up to be president, a meritocracy where smarts and ambition matter more than parenthood and class, dates to Benjamin Franklin.
[...]
But the reality of mobility in America is more complicated than the myth. As the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child born in poverty will climb to wealth — or a rich child will fall into the middle class — remain stuck. Despite the spread of affirmative action, the expansion of community colleges and the other social change designed to give people of all classes a shot at success, Americans are no more or less likely to rise above, or fall below, their parents' economic class than they were 35 years ago.
Although Americans still think of their land as a place of exceptional opportunity — in contrast to class-bound Europe — the evidence suggests otherwise. And scholars have, over the past decade, come to see America as a less mobile society than they once believed.
[...]
"The U.S. and Britain appear to stand out as the least mobile societies among the rich countries studied."
— Miles Corak, an economist for Canada's national statistical agency
This article is simply one person's interpretation of the statistics. What the article fails to point out is the proof of cause and effect. The economic attitudes of the poor typically infiltrate the minds of their children, causing them to depend on government hand-outs and redistribution of wealth from those who have chosen to achieve. The last couple of generations, not coincidentally beginning during the invention of Johnson's Great Society programs, have increasingly become generations of victims and dependency. Unfortunately, this mentality is self-sustaining and even multiplying. This same mentality breeds crime and disrespect for others and their property. Until this cycle is interupted and ultimately reverse, we will continue to see the gap between poor and wealthy widen. Until individuals learn the principles of personal responsibility and humility, more and more will refuse to attempt to help themselves, instead relying upon the resources of others to fill their troughs.
The opportunities are still there, probably moreso than ever. Yet taking advantage of them requires more initiative from those willing to succeed, because of the nature of the transition from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.
Last edited by Amaznjohn; 09-21-2007 at 09:17 PM..
tell that to the kids grouped in schools socioeconomically. theyre screwed from the start. you want to start up a small business? better have the startup money, or some equity to get a loan. that doesnt appear out of thin air. what connections does a lone immigrant have? what about language barriers? and to imply that field workers dont put in 60-80 hour weeks is downright ignorant. these "connections" are contingent upon numerous factors, and being a privileged white man raised in a good neighborhood gives you a hugeeeeeee advantage. calling it luck isnt that far off.
You're right. Some situations require more effort than others. Does this mean that these individuals should just give up? throw in the towel? forever live off the resources of others? Where's has the dishonor of relying upon others gone, when one has the mental and physical capabilities of supporting themselves?
09-21-2007, 09:15 PM
proudmary
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
You're right. Some situations require more effort than others. Does this mean that these individuals should just give up? throw in the towel? forever live off the resources of others? Where's has the dishonor of relying upon others gone, when one has the mental and physical capabilities of supporting themselves?
The dishonor of relying upon others, unfortunately, to my, as well as for all decent, working and thinking Americans dismay, fell to the wayside a long time ago. This happened when we began calling things which were intended to be for emergency situations (ie federal assistance): first relief, then welfare, and now entitlements.
There cannot be dishonor when those who utilize such governmental programs feel that it's not charity, it's not shameful, it is something they deserve.
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.
