Some recent polling data, poke around:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.
If you want you can look towards MN insurance:
Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]
You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.
Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]
You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…
OMFG!
How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?
OMG!
America has an ethical obligation?
Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?
You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]
a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.
Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!
Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?
[/quote]
No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.
In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.
And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.
Lead by example.
To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.
BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.
It just costs a lot more money.
I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.
You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.[/quote]
well your wrong the supreme court did.
secondly, its about a woman’s right to choose!
Third response lacks logic. From the fact that there is a moral problem with lack of health care justice it doesn’t follow that this is a specific individuals problem.
Look bud, there are a lot of opinions on the health care system in Canada, I am not talking about that, and not all single payer systems would be exactly the same.
Look no need to call name its usually done because one has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.
Also you are complete confused about socialism. secondly the totality of the AMerica economy is a mixed system , with saftey net for those who need it. Plus tax breaks for the 1%. your from canada but are you a CEO? Apparently up there you are able to get private care, who pays for that? you stated you get private care. Medicare is a good system and its cost effective, there is fraud but that’s not exclusive to the system.
[/quote]
No, it did not.
No, its not.
Splendid, so dont make it anyone elses by demanding that they pay for other people.
I did not you call you names, I might though.
I would probably start with ignoramus because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finally, look at my Avatar.
Right under it you see where I live.
God, I hope you are not a second older than 18.
edited. the “not” was kind of missing[/quote]
Look moron On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
You can’t just make things up, I know i know your a true believe. And your wrong about Roe v wade too!!
Its not productive to interact with ignorant cretins like you don’t bother me with your dribble your as irrational as they come!!
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Oh silly I mean silee, people are not refused healthcare here in America. I am by definiton a poor American. My private healthcare has paid over 1.5 million while I have paid only 10 grand, while the federal gov. denied my child medicare because I made 29 grand working 2 jobs. Tell me who was telling who to die, the left wing who controls the govement…
Orion you are to smart for that silee…
[/quote]
The left controls the government?? hahahaha years ago there was a book written about the right wing, called the Paranoid style, what’s new? First of all I doubt it, but secondly assuming you’re telling the truth, this is exactly the kind of thing that the mandate is intended for, to help folks like you. Why would you be in favor of a system that isn’t in your self interest?
I await your response, this ought to be a real hoot… lol
No Silee it is the truth my friend. Folks like me paid the insurance hence the reason I worked two jobs. I am in favor where people actually earn what they work and pay for. I am not in favor of giving out handouts to people who milk the system. I am not in favor of being forced into a government health system and if I opt out I have to pay a fine or tax.
I await your response, it ought to be a real hoot…also what do you mean by folks like me…sounds like you are stereotyping me my friend.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Patients enrolled in Medicaid have worse survival rates than those with private insurance or even no insurance at all, according to a new study focused on Ohio Medicaid recipients published in the journal Cancer.
Researchers Siran Koroukian, Paul Bakaki, and Derek Raghavan compared survival and five-year mortality with Medicaid status in more than 11,000 Ohio adults aged 15 to 54 years and diagnosed in the years 1996-2002 with eight highly treatable cancers. They also sorted the Medicaid enrollees into two categories?those enrolled at the time of their diagnosis and those enrolled afterwards?to get more insight into how coverage impacts outcomes.
The researchers found that compared with non-Medicaid recipients, patients in the Medicaid pre-diagnosis and peri/post-diagnosis groups experienced unfavorable survival outcomes. Of the non-Medicaid patients, fewer than one in 10 died within five years of their cancer diagnosis, whereas more than one in five Medicaid patients died during that period.
This is what you want for all Americans to help those 5% that cannot afford health insurance.
Congratutlations. [/quote]
assuming that study was true and assuming there was nothing wrong with the design of the study and assuming there were enough people in the study. But grant that its all true and honky dory, it doesn’t follow that the system itself is at fault, we are talking about the cost effectiveness of the system. There are many questions raised here.
5%?? try 16.3% in 2010 or nearly 50 Million folks without insurance!! Go read about the people who lost everything or people who insurance refused to pay cause they claimed they had a per-existing condition. We American’s don’t need to go to the extreme right wing school of " you get sick you die!"
[/quote]
- Nobody is refuse health care in america. If you go to the ER you will get treatment for anything.
- Insurance isn’t the problem, cost is. If health care wasn’t so damn expensive, you wouldn’t need insurance. Forcing people to by crappy insurance doesn’t help anything, it continues to drive up cost.
Cost needs to be reeled in and reeled in big time. We do need to free up the free market forces with state to state competition. We need to allow drug imports on a large scale, we do need tort reform, but we also need regulations too. When you have companies that charge Americans 20,000% more for a drug than they charge somebody overseas that’s a problem. When your paying $200 for a half liter of saline, that’s a problem.
You want to fix health care fix the cost. Driving the price up for the many so that a few more people can afford it just makes things worse not better.
Literally, for the cost of this ‘reform’ the government could have bought 31 million people insurance for the next 10 years. That’s how bloated and bad this legislation is.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Patients enrolled in Medicaid have worse survival rates than those with private insurance or even no insurance at all, according to a new study focused on Ohio Medicaid recipients published in the journal Cancer.
Researchers Siran Koroukian, Paul Bakaki, and Derek Raghavan compared survival and five-year mortality with Medicaid status in more than 11,000 Ohio adults aged 15 to 54 years and diagnosed in the years 1996-2002 with eight highly treatable cancers. They also sorted the Medicaid enrollees into two categories?those enrolled at the time of their diagnosis and those enrolled afterwards?to get more insight into how coverage impacts outcomes.
The researchers found that compared with non-Medicaid recipients, patients in the Medicaid pre-diagnosis and peri/post-diagnosis groups experienced unfavorable survival outcomes. Of the non-Medicaid patients, fewer than one in 10 died within five years of their cancer diagnosis, whereas more than one in five Medicaid patients died during that period.
This is what you want for all Americans to help those 5% that cannot afford health insurance.
Congratutlations. [/quote]
assuming that study was true and assuming there was nothing wrong with the design of the study and assuming there were enough people in the study. But grant that its all true and honky dory, it doesn’t follow that the system itself is at fault, we are talking about the cost effectiveness of the system. There are many questions raised here.
5%?? try 16.3% in 2010 or nearly 50 Million folks without insurance!! Go read about the people who lost everything or people who insurance refused to pay cause they claimed they had a per-existing condition. We American’s don’t need to go to the extreme right wing school of " you get sick you die!"
[/quote]
- Nobody is refuse health care in america. If you go to the ER you will get treatment for anything.
- Insurance isn’t the problem, cost is. If health care wasn’t so damn expensive, you wouldn’t need insurance. Forcing people to by crappy insurance doesn’t help anything, it continues to drive up cost.
Cost needs to be reeled in and reeled in big time. We do need to free up the free market forces with state to state competition. We need to allow drug imports on a large scale, we do need tort reform, but we also need regulations too. When you have companies that charge Americans 20,000% more for a drug than they charge somebody overseas that’s a problem. When your paying $200 for a half liter of saline, that’s a problem.
You want to fix health care fix the cost. Driving the price up for the many so that a few more people can afford it just makes things worse not better.
Literally, for the cost of this ‘reform’ the government could have bought 31 million people insurance for the next 10 years. That’s how bloated and bad this legislation is. [/quote]
Pat i didn’t say people are refused health care when and if they need it at emergency rooms. Some hospitals though will divert to other places but the point to you is that those people who don’t have a primary care person and therefore only use the ER when they have to, this drives up the cost for everyone who has insurance. Also another problem is long long wait times at the ER. I’ve experienced that a few times. Had to wait 7 hours once my friend’s son had a broken arm had to wait 10 hours! That’s clearly a problem.
I agree with you about cost. But I think eliminating the profit motive helps. There are facts to back that up.
you know if we weren’t all in this together then I could see your point about not having to buy insurance. That’s one reason why a universal health care system would be better for all.
The uninsured in our system do put a financial burden on all other payers. as an aside so does violence put a burden on the system. I mean a guy gets shot in a fight with another person he is taken to the ER, others are there who have needs, but because they can’t turn him away he adds to the time others have to wait.
Well being a human being we do need access to care. I don’t know any one who wants to go to the doctors ok just to go, i mean who the hell wants to waste time there if they are not sick.
On the other hand I know people who put off going and sometimes they got worst and had to finally go. Its always better to go when you first come down with symptoms since chances of good treatment outcomes are improved. Case in point: a college of mine put off for years getting a knee replacement. Finally went to have it done, is still going for therapy and has some problems getting back to full range of motion. That person is older too 68.
My point is insurance or a universal system is needed as a means to protect again individuals incurring large expenses that in some cases force them to sell their homes or lose them.
I agree on the cost of drugs being outrageous. Bush allowed the clause that the government couldn’t negotiate a lower cost of a drug for people on medicare. People when to Canada or had access to getting the expensive drug sold in America in Canada for a reasonable price.
Tort reform i m not so sure of. Hospitals and medical personnel have to be on their toes in administering health care. If a person brings a bogus case yes that is a different matter. But what about the guy who goes into the hospital because he’s diabetic and is having his right leg amputated and they cut the left leg instead? Should he be told sorry bud, your damages are limited to 250,000 bucks? What’s reasonable?
A lot of the aspects of the Obama plan haven’t come into play yet. THat you can’t be denied for a per-existing condition I believe might have taken effect plus the cost of drugs for people on medicare have come down.
Also and this is important in keeping cost down, individual responsibility for trying to keep oneself healthy. I admit that is a tricky area.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
No Silee it is the truth my friend. Folks like me paid the insurance hence the reason I worked two jobs. I am in favor where people actually earn what they work and pay for. I am not in favor of giving out handouts to people who milk the system. I am not in favor of being forced into a government health system and if I opt out I have to pay a fine or tax.
I await your response, it ought to be a real hoot…also what do you mean by folks like me…sounds like you are stereotyping me my friend. [/quote]
Ok. I agree with you about people who milk the system. we could talk about what exactly that comes down to. I am with you on the Pay CEO’s make which is in many cases 250 to 1 of what the average worker makes. And what do you do when people are out of work? and need care.
If your not in favor of giving people handouts then your against the low taxes if at all that the 1% pay. And against corporations, that are subsidized by the government because in many ways they have to most influence on politicians who do their bidding for them.
well I made a remark about you in regard to your position on health care. I have a relative and know a few folks who say exactly the same thing. Is your daughter healthy now or what?
I am glad you have a job and have a great work ethic but God for-bide if you lost your work. you shouldn’t have to incur damages to your life because you couldn’t afford health care. You need good health for being productive and so do I and everyone i know.
[quote]silee wrote:
I agree with you about cost. But I think eliminating the profit motive helps. There are facts to back that up.
[/quote]
No, there are not.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Patients enrolled in Medicaid have worse survival rates than those with private insurance or even no insurance at all, according to a new study focused on Ohio Medicaid recipients published in the journal Cancer.
Researchers Siran Koroukian, Paul Bakaki, and Derek Raghavan compared survival and five-year mortality with Medicaid status in more than 11,000 Ohio adults aged 15 to 54 years and diagnosed in the years 1996-2002 with eight highly treatable cancers. They also sorted the Medicaid enrollees into two categories?those enrolled at the time of their diagnosis and those enrolled afterwards?to get more insight into how coverage impacts outcomes.
The researchers found that compared with non-Medicaid recipients, patients in the Medicaid pre-diagnosis and peri/post-diagnosis groups experienced unfavorable survival outcomes. Of the non-Medicaid patients, fewer than one in 10 died within five years of their cancer diagnosis, whereas more than one in five Medicaid patients died during that period.
This is what you want for all Americans to help those 5% that cannot afford health insurance.
Congratutlations. [/quote]
assuming that study was true and assuming there was nothing wrong with the design of the study and assuming there were enough people in the study. But grant that its all true and honky dory, it doesn’t follow that the system itself is at fault, we are talking about the cost effectiveness of the system. There are many questions raised here.
5%?? try 16.3% in 2010 or nearly 50 Million folks without insurance!! Go read about the people who lost everything or people who insurance refused to pay cause they claimed they had a per-existing condition. We American’s don’t need to go to the extreme right wing school of " you get sick you die!"
[/quote]
Yeah, well a lot of those are illegal immigrants, children that can get on their parents plans whenever they need to and of course people who dont want to buy healthcare.
Pat handled the cost part.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.
If you want you can look towards MN insurance:
Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]
You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.
Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]
You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…
OMFG!
How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?
OMG!
America has an ethical obligation?
Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?
You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]
a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.
Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!
Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?
[/quote]
No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.
In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.
And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.
Lead by example.
To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.
BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.
It just costs a lot more money.
I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.
You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.[/quote]
well your wrong the supreme court did.
secondly, its about a woman’s right to choose!
Third response lacks logic. From the fact that there is a moral problem with lack of health care justice it doesn’t follow that this is a specific individuals problem.
Look bud, there are a lot of opinions on the health care system in Canada, I am not talking about that, and not all single payer systems would be exactly the same.
Look no need to call name its usually done because one has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.
Also you are complete confused about socialism. secondly the totality of the AMerica economy is a mixed system , with saftey net for those who need it. Plus tax breaks for the 1%. your from canada but are you a CEO? Apparently up there you are able to get private care, who pays for that? you stated you get private care. Medicare is a good system and its cost effective, there is fraud but that’s not exclusive to the system.
[/quote]
No, it did not.
No, its not.
Splendid, so dont make it anyone elses by demanding that they pay for other people.
I did not you call you names, I might though.
I would probably start with ignoramus because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finally, look at my Avatar.
Right under it you see where I live.
God, I hope you are not a second older than 18.
edited. the “not” was kind of missing[/quote]
Look moron On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
You can’t just make things up, I know i know your a true believe. And your wrong about Roe v wade too!!
Its not productive to interact with ignorant cretins like you don’t bother me with your dribble your as irrational as they come!!
[/quote]
Look idiot, the SCOTUS ruled that THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH DOES NOT GET ABOLISHED JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE FREELY.
Huffington Post snuffing retard.
Anything else, you uneducated, opinionated moron?
PS: Found out yet what Roe vs Wade was about you syphilitic, sanctimonious simpleton?
Note to PH, THAT was an alliteration.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.
If you want you can look towards MN insurance:
Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]
You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.
Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]
You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…
OMFG!
How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?
OMG!
America has an ethical obligation?
Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?
You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]
a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.
Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!
Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?
[/quote]
No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.
In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.
And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.
Lead by example.
To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.
BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.
It just costs a lot more money.
I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.
You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.[/quote]
well your wrong the supreme court did.
secondly, its about a woman’s right to choose!
Third response lacks logic. From the fact that there is a moral problem with lack of health care justice it doesn’t follow that this is a specific individuals problem.
Look bud, there are a lot of opinions on the health care system in Canada, I am not talking about that, and not all single payer systems would be exactly the same.
Look no need to call name its usually done because one has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.
Also you are complete confused about socialism. secondly the totality of the AMerica economy is a mixed system , with saftey net for those who need it. Plus tax breaks for the 1%. your from canada but are you a CEO? Apparently up there you are able to get private care, who pays for that? you stated you get private care. Medicare is a good system and its cost effective, there is fraud but that’s not exclusive to the system.
[/quote]
No, it did not.
No, its not.
Splendid, so dont make it anyone elses by demanding that they pay for other people.
I did not you call you names, I might though.
I would probably start with ignoramus because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finally, look at my Avatar.
Right under it you see where I live.
God, I hope you are not a second older than 18.
edited. the “not” was kind of missing[/quote]
Look moron On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
You can’t just make things up, I know i know your a true believe. And your wrong about Roe v wade too!!
Its not productive to interact with ignorant cretins like you don’t bother me with your dribble your as irrational as they come!!
[/quote]
Look idiot, the SCOTUS ruled that THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH DOES NOT GET ABOLISHED JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE FREELY.
Huffington Post snuffing retard.
Anything else, you uneducated, opinionated moron?
PS: Found out yet what Roe vs Wade was about you syphilitic, sanctimonious simpleton?
Note to PH, THAT was an alliteration.
[/quote]
It has been understood, for decades, that corporations are â??personsâ?? under the Constitution. And nothing the Supreme Court said Thursday undermined that notion. If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate â??persons,â?? treating them â?? under the First Amendment free-speech clause â?? as the equal of human beings.
What dont’ you get? you are factually wrong period!!
I’m finished trying to help a right wing cretin/simian understand plain english.
And roe v wade was about giving women the right to choose. Abortion was illegal before 1973 and its now the law of American land. choosing is an option but prior to 1973 there was no option. Then it was illegal. And as it is there are certain time limitations the court placed on it.
[quote]silee wrote:
a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.
Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!
[/quote]
Wow, you’re a fool. First of all, the vast majority of farmers in this country do not receive subsidies.
Secondly, almost 90% of farm subsidies go to growers of corn, wheat, soy, and the like. The subsidy program is essentially designed to screw over the farmers. The product is contracted to companies that turn the corn into HFCS, soybean into soybean oil, etc. The companies buy the crop at below market value. Then the government throws the subsidies at the farmers…just enough to keep their heads above water. These contracts lock the farmers into the system, and even if they try to change things, they cant afford to. The whole subsidy system is designed to put money into the pockets of big companies who use their money and lobbyist to buy political influence and continue to fuck over the farmer…
Great system your promoting there…
But what do I know, I’ve only been working in the fields since I was a kid and am the son/nephew, grandson, great grandson, and great great grandson of farmers and am using data that can be found with a quick google search…fucking moron.
[quote]silee wrote:
I’m finished trying to help a right wing cretin/simian understand plain english.
And roe v wade was about giving women the right to choose. Abortion was illegal before 1973 and its now the law of American land. choosing is an option but prior to 1973 there was no option. Then it was illegal. And as it is there are certain time limitations the court placed on it.
[/quote]
I’m thinking that you’re the one who needs the lesson in understanding plain English, kid.
Abortion was not illegal prior to Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was a state by state basis, like how gay marriage, the death sentence, and etc are now. In other words, abortion would be legal in California, illegal in, say, Georgia. All Roe v. Wade did was make it a federal legal issue, not a state by state issue.
Put down the Kool-Aid, child.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.
If you want you can look towards MN insurance:
Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]
You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.
Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]
You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…
OMFG!
How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?
OMG!
America has an ethical obligation?
Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?
You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]
a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.
Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!
Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?
[/quote]
No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.
In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.
And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.
Lead by example.
To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.
BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.
It just costs a lot more money.
I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.
You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.[/quote]
well your wrong the supreme court did.
secondly, its about a woman’s right to choose!
Third response lacks logic. From the fact that there is a moral problem with lack of health care justice it doesn’t follow that this is a specific individuals problem.
Look bud, there are a lot of opinions on the health care system in Canada, I am not talking about that, and not all single payer systems would be exactly the same.
Look no need to call name its usually done because one has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.
Also you are complete confused about socialism. secondly the totality of the AMerica economy is a mixed system , with saftey net for those who need it. Plus tax breaks for the 1%. your from canada but are you a CEO? Apparently up there you are able to get private care, who pays for that? you stated you get private care. Medicare is a good system and its cost effective, there is fraud but that’s not exclusive to the system.
[/quote]
No, it did not.
No, its not.
Splendid, so dont make it anyone elses by demanding that they pay for other people.
I did not you call you names, I might though.
I would probably start with ignoramus because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Finally, look at my Avatar.
Right under it you see where I live.
God, I hope you are not a second older than 18.
edited. the “not” was kind of missing[/quote]
Look moron On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
You can’t just make things up, I know i know your a true believe. And your wrong about Roe v wade too!!
Its not productive to interact with ignorant cretins like you don’t bother me with your dribble your as irrational as they come!!
[/quote]
Look idiot, the SCOTUS ruled that THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH DOES NOT GET ABOLISHED JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE FREELY.
Huffington Post snuffing retard.
Anything else, you uneducated, opinionated moron?
PS: Found out yet what Roe vs Wade was about you syphilitic, sanctimonious simpleton?
Note to PH, THAT was an alliteration.
[/quote]
It has been understood, for decades, that corporations are â??personsâ?? under the Constitution. And nothing the Supreme Court said Thursday undermined that notion. If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate â??persons,â?? treating them â?? under the First Amendment free-speech clause â?? as the equal of human beings.
What dont’ you get? you are factually wrong period!!
I’m finished trying to help a right wing cretin/simian understand plain english.
And roe v wade was about giving women the right to choose. Abortion was illegal before 1973 and its now the law of American land. choosing is an option but prior to 1973 there was no option. Then it was illegal. And as it is there are certain time limitations the court placed on it.
[/quote]
Actually it has been understood for centuries now that corporation to some degree can act like persons in that they can enter into contracts. Which is kind of the whole purpose of a corporation.
Second, it was also understood that persons owned and ran the company. So, you cannot simply deny free speech, especially not political free speech just because some people form a corporation.
Furthermore it was not all corporations, just some, because newspapers and tv stations are corporations too.
So all the SCOTUS did was saying that it cannot be that if people assemble in the form of a union they have the right to free speech, if they assemble in the form of a company they dont, unless its is some form of “press”, then they do again.
And even you, yes, even you should be able to understand that, because you have never spoken to a corporation in your life. They are utterly unable to speak in any way shape or form so why would you even think that a free speech issue could even apply to them?
Then, no abortion was not illegal prior to Roe vs Wade it was a state matter. What Roe vs Wade did was federalize via the notion of a right to privacy.
That in and of itself was not even that bad because the constitution is not a paper enumerating the rights of US citizens but the powers of the federal government and it can be argued that the right to privacy is one of those that go without saying and the US constitution does imply that such rights exist.
How the same SCOTUS that then concluded that privacy = federal right to abort when they stood idly by while the right to privacy was anally raped, even with the 4th amendment to guide them ,is anyones guess, but quite frankly, you are already so way out of you depth that I would turn around and head for the shore before you hurt yourself.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
I’m finished trying to help a right wing cretin/simian understand plain english.
And roe v wade was about giving women the right to choose. Abortion was illegal before 1973 and its now the law of American land. choosing is an option but prior to 1973 there was no option. Then it was illegal. And as it is there are certain time limitations the court placed on it.
[/quote]
I’m thinking that you’re the one who needs the lesson in understanding plain English, kid.
Abortion was not illegal prior to Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was a state by state basis, like how gay marriage, the death sentence, and etc are now. In other words, abortion would be legal in California, illegal in, say, Georgia. All Roe v. Wade did was make it a federal legal issue, not a state by state issue.
Put down the Kool-Aid, child.[/quote]
He cant he already drank it.
Interestingly enough it has not killed him, only the abilities to discern fact from fictions, follow or develop an argument, to paint with anything more subtle than a broomstick…
Well, thats one drug I will never try, I like being able to tie my own shoes.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.
Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!
[/quote]
Wow, you’re a fool. First of all, the vast majority of farmers in this country do not receive subsidies.
Secondly, almost 90% of farm subsidies go to growers of corn, wheat, soy, and the like. The subsidy program is essentially designed to screw over the farmers. The product is contracted to companies that turn the corn into HFCS, soybean into soybean oil, etc. The companies buy the crop at below market value. Then the government throws the subsidies at the farmers…just enough to keep their heads above water. These contracts lock the farmers into the system, and even if they try to change things, they cant afford to. The whole subsidy system is designed to put money into the pockets of big companies who use their money and lobbyist to buy political influence and continue to fuck over the farmer…
Great system your promoting there…
But what do I know, I’ve only been working in the fields since I was a kid and am the son/nephew, grandson, great grandson, and great great grandson of farmers and am using data that can be found with a quick google search…fucking moron.[/quote]
You my friend are a hot headed idiot! I am not disagreeing with what you said about framers, I’ve always had respect for them. I am not in favor of big corporate farms hurting the family farms but they have big time. I was thinking of during of the Nixon era policies.
You’re over reacting ! And i don’t have a gut reaction that subsides aren’t hurting framers ok. Big corporate frams are.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
I’m finished trying to help a right wing cretin/simian understand plain english.
And roe v wade was about giving women the right to choose. Abortion was illegal before 1973 and its now the law of American land. choosing is an option but prior to 1973 there was no option. Then it was illegal. And as it is there are certain time limitations the court placed on it.
[/quote]
I’m thinking that you’re the one who needs the lesson in understanding plain English, kid.
Abortion was not illegal prior to Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was a state by state basis, like how gay marriage, the death sentence, and etc are now. In other words, abortion would be legal in California, illegal in, say, Georgia. All Roe v. Wade did was make it a federal legal issue, not a state by state issue.
Put down the Kool-Aid, child.[/quote]
I smell a rat and not someone and rats run in packs. There was nothing wrong with my understanding. My point was and is that Roe V Wade gave the women the right to choose. That doesn’t mean as your fellow pack rat said its about abortion. Its a subtle point and yes abortion would be recognized as federally legal the law of the land, but from that it doesn’t follow that it a woman lived in a state where it wasn’t legal and if conditions arose where she deemed in necessary for abortion services then she wouldn’t have to be in fear of breaking the law and she wouldn’t have to travel to a state that it was or be in trouble with the law since she is a resident of the state where it wasn’t legal. . The most you could say is my understanding didn’t go far enough for your like, and that’s fair enough. I am sure that if we had an in dept scholarly written paper we would find out more facts but due to the structure of this forum and who the hell is going to read a length piece here come on dude …
Is it heat rather than light you want? What type of framing was in your family, are they still working the land? what’s the nature of their farming these days?
[quote]silee wrote:
You my friend are a hot headed idiot! I am not disagreeing with what you said about framers, I’ve always had respect for them. I am not in favor of big corporate farms hurting the family farms but they have big time. I was thinking of during of the Nixon era policies.
You’re over reacting ! [b}And i don’t have a gut reaction that subsides aren’t hurting framers ok. Big corporate frams are.[/b][/quote]
Subsidies are designed to hurt the average person. They are designed to hurt average people while empowering corporations and politicians. All subsidies. Look at CFLs for example. Between the factory in China and your shopping basket, do you realize that you’ve already spent about $20 dollars in tax money per bulb? Money that goes into the pockets of large corporations and politicians/government workers.
Subsidies are there for one reason and one reason only…to hurt average people and strengthen big companies and the government. And if you are pushing subsidies, you’re pushing the hurting of average Americans.
[quote]silee wrote:
I smell a rat and not someone and rats run in packs. There was nothing wrong with my understanding. My point was and is that Roe V Wade gave the women the right to choose. That doesn’t mean as your fellow pack rat said its about abortion. Its a subtle point and yes abortion would be recognized as federally legal the law of the land, but from that it doesn’t follow that it a woman lived in a state where it wasn’t legal and if conditions arose where she deemed in necessary for abortion services then she wouldn’t have to be in fear of breaking the law and she wouldn’t have to travel to a state that it was or be in trouble with the law since she is a resident of the state where it wasn’t legal. . The most you could say is my understanding didn’t go far enough for your like, and that’s fair enough. I am sure that if we had an in dept scholarly written paper we would find out more facts but due to the structure of this forum and who the hell is going to read a length piece here come on dude …
Is it heat rather than light you want? What type of framing was in your family, are they still working the land? what’s the nature of their farming these days?[/quote]
Should I quote you again?
[quote]silee wrote:
And roe v wade was about giving women the right to choose. Abortion was illegal before 1973 and its now the law of American land. choosing is an option but prior to 1973 there was no option. Then it was illegal. And as it is there are certain time limitations the court placed on it.
[/quote]
Regardless of what you MEANT, that is what you said. So either A, you knew what you were saying was incorrect and were flat out lying in order to try to strengthen your political opinion because you knew your opinion didn’t have two legs to stand on. B, you lack an accurate understanding of the subject and should try to do a little bit of reading to increase your understanding of something before joining a conversation. Or C, learn to proofread so that you say what you mean instead of spouting out pure inaccuracies because you lack the mental comprehension to form a coherent sentence.
As far as my family. Name it, someones probably grown it…apples, tomatoes, grapes, olives, peppers, alfalfa, grass, sweet potatoes, etc…All but one great uncle who’s transitioned into real estate, and a few nephews, yes, still farming. Everything to selling tomatoes to Del Monte and Heinz to selling hay through brokers to having small roadside stands.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]silee wrote:
You my friend are a hot headed idiot! I am not disagreeing with what you said about framers, I’ve always had respect for them. I am not in favor of big corporate farms hurting the family farms but they have big time. I was thinking of during of the Nixon era policies.
You’re over reacting ! [b}And i don’t have a gut reaction that subsides aren’t hurting framers ok. Big corporate frams are.[/b][/quote]
Subsidies are designed to hurt the average person. They are designed to hurt average people while empowering corporations and politicians. All subsidies. Look at CFLs for example. Between the factory in China and your shopping basket, do you realize that you’ve already spent about $20 dollars in tax money per bulb? Money that goes into the pockets of large corporations and politicians/government workers.
Subsidies are there for one reason and one reason only…to hurt average people and strengthen big companies and the government. And if you are pushing subsidies, you’re pushing the hurting of average Americans. [/quote]
Thats like saying that bacon is only there to hurt the pigs.
The truth is, the pigs dont matter.
They are livestock.