[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
You can’t take from someone it is called theft.
Do people in other countries really not understand property rights?[/quote]
Of course they do but they unterstand just as well that they have to pay for services they consume.
[/quote]
Ah, government is a “service”.
[/quote]
Um, the service would be health insurance.
I guess emigrating to another country would be one option.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I am a small business owner with several employees. Let me go on record that this plan will absolutely cause a disincentive for me to expand my business and employ additional workers.[/quote]
How much does Health Care for America cost you as percentage of payroll per employee?
Is there no way to share this burden with the employee? It’s a huge benefit for them after all.[/quote]
The whole premise is wrong since it is already payd by the employee because whatever the costs of hiring someone are, they must come out of the workers productivity.
[/quote]
I do not understand what you mean. If there are additional costs of hiring, either the employer’s profit is reduced or the employer reduces the wages or employer and employee share the burden.
Not subjects Push, more like slaves.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
A plan for affordable health care has been in the making for decades.
[/quote]
So have many socialist agendas. So what?
[/quote]
I guess I do not view affordable health insurance as socialist agenda nor would the majority of people in Europe.
Switzerland.
I think you already knew the answer as far as food goes. So to summarize, social programs should provide for (if the individual CANnot):
I think you have social programs in the USA as well. But I do not know their restrictions.
On the backs of those that are lucky enough to be able to cope on their own but who will profit from these programs when bad luck strikes them.
Actually, I would prefer if you pointed out non idiomatic phrases rather than pointing out words whose meaning I can easily look up should I not know them.
I am not a pacifist at all. But one cannot help wondering whether the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was money spent well. I would also find it strange that there is plenty of money for these wars but not for affordable health insurance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
…I am just amazed why so many of you are so violently opposed to the general good idea of providing affordable health care for everyone…
[/quote]
By the way, apparently English is a second language for you so you may not understand the meaning of some of our more complicated words so I thought I’d provide this for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violently[/quote]
Help me out:
“4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.”
So, what’s wrong with “violently opposed”? It’s not like a lot of you are just slightly annoyed with the new plan. At least that’s not how you come across.
[/quote]
“Violently” comes from the root word…“violence”. Violence is a physical act. Violent passions are those which produce…get ready for this…violence. Want more help or are you willing to concede that those of us that oppose socialistic health care are not burning buses and breaking kneecaps with aluminum Louisville Sluggers?
You spell well but don’t seem to understand English. Where are you from?
[/quote]
Hm, I think the dictionary entry implies that “violent” can also be used in a more figurative sense. So I guess you and everybody else understands perfectly well that I am not indicating you or anyone else is beating up “obamacare” supporters.
But if it makes you happy, I will use “vehemently” next time. Ok, I am off to the gym.
[quote]ghost87 wrote:
Great article from physician and cancer patient. He should know…
Koffman: A Prescription For Life Or Death?
Washington Times (online)
Dr. Brian Koffman
March 17, 2010
Note: Public Affairs is reaching out to the publication to provide Access Solution information.
The ongoing health care debate is of more than academic interest to me.
It is not an exaggeration to say that if I still lived where I was born, in Ontario, I could be dead.
As a board-certified family-medicine doctor, educator, dual citizen of Canada and the United States, and a patient with a dangerous blood cancer, I have seen medical care from both sides of the examining table and both sides of the border.
I am fiercely proud of Canada, the country of my birth. I am forever grateful and in debt for my world-class education as a medical doctor at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec.
But I cannot return to Ontario, where I started my medical career, until I am convincingly cured of my own medical problem, an aggressive form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). I must happily stay in California, my adopted and beloved home for the past 30 years.
I just can’t take the chance with my health.
The drug that saved my life, rituximab, is very expensive (thousands of dollars per cycle on either side of the border, but admittedly more in the United States) and is not covered by the provincial health insurance plans in much of Canada, despite large, well-designed studies that have proved clearly that it is the critical piece of the only treatment known to extend life with my type of leukemia. In my case, I developed a bleeding complication and without rituximab as part of my therapy regime, my status was, as we doctors are wont to say, “guarded.”
Because rituximab is paid for in only some Canadian provinces, it has created what Bill Hryniuk, past chairman of the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, has called a “postal-code lottery for cancer drugs.” Live in a province that covers the medication, and you get state-of-the-art treatment. Live elsewhere, and your care is clearly inferior. That is just the truth.
I would love to see universal health care coverage. It is the compassionate and moral thing, but it is only fair to point out the negative effects of the economic realities that universal care would impose.
It comes down to whom you cover versus what you cover.
You must make those hard decisions in a world of limited resources. To think otherwise is naive. Universal coverage courageously extends its umbrella to all the population, but shouldn’t it also cover all proven therapies? Canada’s situation proves you can’t do both, and lives are lost as a result. Give us universal care, and we will all be covered, but all that coverage had better be cost-effective. What care is good enough, and what is too expensive? What is your life worth? Don’t delude yourself. Someone will be deciding, for you, sooner or later.
Cutting expensive care seems very sensible until you or a loved one is the one in need.
Those who speak of savings from preventive care have not studied the history of the roll-out of universal care around the world. It doesn’t happen. Very soon, rationing care will be part the equation, with decisions made by distant committees that examine not the patient, but the bottom line. I left my practice in Canada because there was always a powerful, if unseen, third person in the consultation room, the government, telling me what I could and could not order.
True, insurance companies are already doing this, but they are regulated and must extend the best possible standard of care. To whom will you appeal when the government health care bureaucracy says no? I like the present checks and balances that insurance competition and government oversight offer.
There are two other concerns that are close to the heart of anyone like me with an “incurable” disorder looking for a better future yet to be invented.
The United States spends an estimated 5.6 percent of its total health expenditures on biomedical research, more than any other country, and $2 out of every $3 is put up by industry. With the government running the show, this, too, surely would decrease as the profit incentive is curtailed.
As big pharmaceutical companies, admittedly not always the best citizens, become the scapegoats for high cost and increasingly are squeezed, who will make good on their contributions to research and development? Without more research and development, most people with my cancer and many with other diseases remain incurable.
Then there is the brain drain - what some have called the “Gretzky effect” - in which the best and brightest from Canada and elsewhere head to the United States.
“Of eight Canadian babies who were born around the same time I was and who went on to win Nobel Prizes, seven of them did their prize-winning work in the U.S.” says Richard Taylor, an Alberta-born physicist and Nobel laureate at California’s Stanford University. Would this continue when our research budgets are cut?
My main point remains that you don’t get something for nothing. More coverage for some means less for others. Less profit means less research. That is an inalienable but often forgotten part of the health care debate that matters to me as a doctor and as a patient on a life-and-death basis.
As the United States moves toward the clear benefits of universal health care, I need to point out the enormous risks.
[/quote]
Doc this is the best post of all time. Love you man.
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
A plan for affordable health care has been in the making for decades.
[/quote]
So have many socialist agendas. So what?
[/quote]
I guess I do not view affordable health insurance as socialist agenda nor would the majority of people in Europe.[/quote]
That’s because the majority of people in Europe are socialist. What a stupid retort. lol
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
You can’t take from someone it is called theft.
Do people in other countries really not understand property rights?[/quote]
Of course they do but they unterstand just as well that they have to pay for services they consume.
[/quote]
Ah, government is a “service”.
[/quote]
Um, the service would be health insurance.
I guess emigrating to another country would be one option. [/quote]
That is interesting, because I can change my cell phone provider in ten minutes, whereas I have to flee my country in order to get rid of my government?
That does not sound like a “service” to me, more like servitude.
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I am a small business owner with several employees. Let me go on record that this plan will absolutely cause a disincentive for me to expand my business and employ additional workers.[/quote]
How much does Health Care for America cost you as percentage of payroll per employee?
Is there no way to share this burden with the employee? It’s a huge benefit for them after all.[/quote]
The whole premise is wrong since it is already payd by the employee because whatever the costs of hiring someone are, they must come out of the workers productivity.
[/quote]
I do not understand what you mean. If there are additional costs of hiring, either the employer’s profit is reduced or the employer reduces the wages or employer and employee share the burden.[/quote]
Everything you get paid as an employee comes out of your own pocket, no matter what it is called.
You cannot “share” the burden because the employer has no burden when it comes to how much you get paid and be it in the form of health insurance.
You cost what you cost and no employer cares what these costs are called.
You have fallen for one of the lies of the European health care system, that you can make employers pay for your insurance when that is simply impossible. Say you earn 2000 EUR. If hbe gets you insured for 300 EUR he can only pay you 1700 EUR. Makes no difference to him, but maybe to you.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]chris666 wrote:
A plan for affordable health care has been in the making for decades.
[/quote]
So have many socialist agendas. So what?
[/quote]
I guess I do not view affordable health insurance as socialist agenda nor would the majority of people in Europe.[/quote]
That’s because the majority of people in Europe are socialist. What a stupid retort. lol
[/quote]
Nononono…
He is right, they are not socialist, they just do not see it as socialism.
There is a big difference in that they have not made a decision but they have never considered that things could actually be different. We have whole generations now that believe that healthcare is governments job.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
In September I finally decided to start my own business. So far so good.
I just think it is a bit misleading to say that people receiving unemployment are too lazy to find a job. It isn’t that simple.
[/quote]
No offense was meant to you, the job market is not always a perfect match. All I’m saying is that there ARE jobs out there, maybe not ones you’d like to do, but when it comes to paying the bills, I’d be out there working 3 jobs and NOT collecting a trivial amount for unemployment.
My political point is that it’s none of the govt’s proper function, that is, to steal from one to give to another.
Good luck with your small business.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Social security (bankrupt); medicare (bankrupt); medicaid (bankrupt); Amtrak (bankrupt); the Post Office (bankrupt). The preceding displays the obvious outcome of any industry either outright controlled by government or even subsidized and heavily regulated by government.
http://mises.org/daily/3737[/quote]
Socialists - read above. What the fuck more do you dummies need to know? There is NOTHING the govt does that PRIVATE INDUSTRY can not do better.
And, can any of the brilliant socialists here please find where in the hell in the Constitution the govt finds authority to mandate health-care?
It’s truly sickening. Section 8 housing, housing projects - built, destroyed and then re-built, undeclared wars, welfare cell phones, food stamps, public education.
“We have given you a Republic. It remains to be seen if you will be able to retain it.”
RIP USA and may all Socialists rot in hell with Liberace’s dick up their ass.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I don’t understand, if such a large majority of people disagree with what congress is doing, WHO THE FUCK KEEPS VOTING FOR THEM??[/quote]
If everyone, including 18 year-olds who can barely wipe their ass, let alone, think rationally, has the right to vote, then who do you think they’re gonna vote for?
A - the guy who says we need to reduce the size and scope of govt or
B - the socialist (Democrat) who promises that you won’t have to do jack shit and you can have FREE education, FREE food, FREE money, FREE cell phone, etc, etc.
Really, it is odd that stupid America elected Jimmy Carter, saw him fuck up then voted for Reagan. It’s nothing more than the pendulum with impetus from ignorant voters.
Should be like in the old days, the only ones who could vote are the ones who own property.
