Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

I was reading the posts relating to this issue, sinsboldly or Merle, not sure if I can call you that anyway, this seems to show an aspie trait from your part to take that sentence so literal, it doesn't seem to be a personal attack, it didn't seem to be an ad hominem attack, we should have to read the post in context, and I am somehow familiar with AG posts, brilliant btw, I wouldn't agree with his views though, he seemed to just making an example of someone being a fool in the case, talking in general terms and not directing it at the person he was talking to, I would take it as that if he was replying to me, it seems to me like that, however I can understand as an aspie taking things literal, and interpretating that to be personal.

Adding, what's wrong with being a fool anyway? I don't find it insulting actually. I am a fool, so what?

Greenblue,
you can call me Merle. I call 'em as I see 'em.
when you are moderator, you can call 'em as you see 'em.

Merle

I know.


Yes, businesses are sociopathic, which is why they are good. Sociopaths pursue their ends without fail, and frankly, a business, as a part of society, must pursue it's ends without fail. Well, the issue is that I do not think that large companies will need much control.

The reason I do not think that will happen is because I do not think such an outcome would be efficient. Certainly the wealthy will push for laws supporting them, but they I doubt they'd have the power or drive to push for laws that prevent other people from pushing for their own positions. On some level, the wealthy already do have laws promoting their ends in that they have private law enforcment. The issue is that I do not think that coercion will be regarded as more efficient than trade.

Well I think that sociopathic businesses are a bad idea, which means they are bad. The idea is screw the customer as much as possible while manipulating others to come taste the sweet sweet nectar of the pitcher plant (its a plant that eats bugs). Its my belief that companies must do what they promise to do if they promise to get rid of your ant problem then they need to get rid of the ants, if they promise to clean your house spotless then it should be done if they promise to cover your medical needs they should do just that. But the medical company don't always do as they say they will, so even people who can afford to pay monthly payments don't get treatment. It all comes down to economics if they deny more people than that approve then bam they make a profit of course this is the simplified version but you get the point.

For once we agree Awesomelyglorious the laws are made by the wealthy so they are geared more so they wealthy stay wealthy. People are easily manipulated with lots of ads, pretty colors etc. So to solve this problem each candidate should only be allowed to use a certain amount money, equal for each candidate. Also election changes need happen, if 51% of a state votes for then it is treated as if 100% of the state voted for someone. This is not right if 51% voted for a candidate 51% of the electoral votes should go to that candidate while the remanning 49% go to the other candidate.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. V from V for Vendetta

Morality is based upon what you think of something?


The idea is to maximize profits. Screwing people over does not get repeat business, nor does it leave people with very good word of mouth.

Right, I believe that they must do what they promise, and I think that the notion of a legal contract supports that idea. If a contract is violated, then there can be some recourse to address that violation due to the violation of it. The other issue is that if you just deny people then they give up on the idea of getting coverage because they hear it is useless, so even if companies deny coverage, they can only do so to a certain extent.

Well, right, the laws are, and on some level there is some truth to the claim that they are in support of entrenched groups. Certain regulations are anti-competitive, certain actions support businesses at the cost of the public, so on and so forth. I disagree on the ease of manipulation, not only that, but if people are *only* sheep, then what is the point of having elections or voting? Sheeple cannot exercise free will, but rather are determined by other people, therefore, why have the additional step? The issue is still that even if we deny electoral votes, we cannot split up the presidency, so, you still have 51% of voters ruling over 49% of voters and 100% of non-voters.

People should not have much reason to think of their governments and governments should not interfere too much with their people.

Yes Morality is based on personal beliefs however some aspects are the same for 98% of the people of earth, we want equality, tolerance, fairness, etc.

Sadly we have no other option than to buy into private health care, so its easy to screw people over again and again. It don't matter because without health insurance your chances of getting treatment are about as great as a Cardinal becoming president.

See we agree on the contract not so different huh??

Sheep can be very dangerous is pissed off. I was also just saying the new election idea was more fair ^_^ that's all not like we will get it right now no no no we need to become angry dangerous sheep first.

What does you last statement mean??

Well, the issue is if it is morality, then why is it personal? Isn't the personal the same as the subjective? Also, if all people are morally the same, then how come moral theories differ for philosophers and time periods and individuals?

The issue is that sheep won't get pissed off, they only get pissed off if their own circumstances are terrible, and thus a drastic decline in their welfare must happen... the likes of which is not likely to happen short of near societal destruction. To be honest though, I do not think must of fairness in such a matter.

I don't want the government to be in my way, nor do I want it to get in the way of anybody else.

Weird, I guess my last post didn't get...posted.

I think we need a good Centrist healthcare system. Actually, I think the best solutions to everything would be found through Centrism. Singapore's healthcare system looks like a pretty good idea to me.

Making a little reply, haven't read latest posts that well, sorry if what I say misses something, *tired:P*

Speaking about morality, that is actually a moral position, which it seems you give a fair amount of value, it differs from other views but still a common moral position I would asume.

Last edited by greenblue on 18 Aug 2008, 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

When I was in gun school, I had a lot of classmates who where current or former military, and had government administered health care. Not one of them had anything good to say about it, other than it was free (to them). Waiting and poor service were just the tip of the iceberg, one of my friends in school was misdiagnosed with a sever form of diabetes (he had a lesser type), given expired insulin, and was generally jacked around by the VA. Others I knew also had horror stories of delayed surgeries, misdiagnosed maladies and expired medicine, among other things. This is what government health care looks like.

Considering the inherent inefficiency of bureaucracy, the private company will always be able to provide more bang for the buck than the government one. To take our school system as an example, we keep throwing money at the problem to no avail. A big part of the problem is the high cost of bureaucracy, with more than $.50 of every $1.00 spent on education never reaching the students. A privatized model using vouchers would be far more efficient, and parents would have more choice over what sort of education their children received. Accountability would be provided by the market, with bad schools simply not attracting students, or "customers". Many state provided services could be provided in a similar manner, for a fraction of the current cost.

Finally, as far as I'm concerned, no one has any "right" to anything that doesn't belong to them, another's labor being included. The services of a doctor are not a right, nor are the fruits of the farmer's labor. If people are not fairly compensated for their work, no one will do the work, and those that are forced to will do it in as slipshod a manner as possible, not exactly the type one wants operating on them. The only things someone has a "right" to are the freedoms to do as they wish so long as there is no impact on others. Everything else is a commodity.

Note to AG, keep up the good work, I would have lost my temper long ago in your position, and cut loose with some real (as opposed to imaginary) ad hominems in the face of such obstinate foolishness.

But the government is not just there to stop you from getting in trouble.

This is contrary to what your government thinks and is contrary to the opinion of most of the civilised world. Most of the world signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This is law which states that people have the right to life, freedom from oppression, health-care, education and many other elementary freedoms. Most civilised, decent people would not dispute this. There are those who are utterly paranoid about the government and will do anything to curb this perceived threat. I am not one of these people.

Do you have the right to bear arms? I have a right not to be shot at by people who "bear" arms. In my country people do not have the right to bear arms unless the are part of the military or a special police squad. Others who have guns must have licenses and a legitimate use for those guns. We have very few accidents involving guns. I feel safe from guns in my country. I bet you don't feel safe in the US.

I feel sorry for those who must endure the gun nuts and libertarian dogmatics who have no regard or sympathy for the individual and who persist in seeing a world of profit and loss. It is tragic.

A doctor takes an oath to cure the sick, and help prevent or treat suffering so if a doctor does not do that then they are not a doctor. The Hippocratic Oath says that a doctor shall do what is best for the patient no what is best for his wallet. So really this system of health insurance is very messed up if it causes doctors to have to refuse medical care. Like I have said in the past privatization is not a good idea the wealthy obtain more while the poor must eat from the floor and fight for the crumbs left by the pigs. Also their is a problem here that I see and I must address universal curriculums for schools makes it harder on people especially when they are going off to college. What if they move?? What if they want to learn something but cannot because their parents believe one thing and they do not??? What happens when people can't afford to go what happens to the economy the few cannot support the many you know. While it seems like a good idea in theory its like communism only good on paper.

What about life don't people have a right to their life??? Insurance companies prevent doctors from helping them so then is it not true that the insurance companies are guilty of mass murder in an indirect manner?? Also is it not wrong that doctor's work for the insurance companies using their medical knowledge to save the company millions of dollar the insurance companies by denying claims?? Is it not true that insurance companies pay doctors more if they deny more claims??? Is it not true that a price tag has been place on the human body, mind and soul because of insurance companies?? Is it not true that people in Canada, France, the UK and many others live longer than us yet they have universal health care??? Is it not true that even though Cuba is far poorer than the US they are still able to treat everyone under universal health care??

Please answer these questions Yes or No thank you.

I would also like to note that wanting a better world is not foolishness it is the responsible thing to do. With out us fools we would all be dead.

By the way I don't feel safe in the US the rights to bear arms is crazy. In my school the kids carried knives even though it was illegal those with the authority to do something did not.

If a majority of the world thought the world was flat, would that make it so? Your argument is circular and without merit. I also really don't care what the UN thinks, and if I had my way the US would have nothing to do with the UN, it's a colossal waste of time, money and lives.

Just like the very loaded language of the OP's poll, you are trying to cast your opinion as a given by using language like "civilized" and "decent" in regards to it, implying that anyone who holds a different opinion must be uncivilized and indecent. You then co-opt the word freedom, when what you are talking about are entitlements. Everyone has the right to be able to have the things you refer to, they do not have the right to have them at the expense of others without those people's consent.

I'm not paranoid about the government either, I just happen to think it's incompetent and inefficient, and many of it's functions could better be fulfilled by private entities. I'm guessing you're trying to smear me as some sort of backwoods militia type due to my avatar, a hypothesis that is supported by your unsolicited comments on gun control that I will address momentarily. I would advise you to come up with a better plan of attack, I know pedantic language and I'm not afraid to use it...



Uh oh, someone opened a can of worms that was best left unopened in my presence... I'll try for the whole brevity thing here, since I don't want to hijack the thread, but that was really a poor choice of comparison. I'm guessing that based on my avatar you thought you could pigeon hole me as some sort of fringe radical, or something to that affect.

To get down to brass tacks, first it's an irrelevant comparison, the right to bear arms is a freedom, providing subsidized health care is a service of a welfare state. That's like comparing freedom of speech to affirmative action, there is no correlation whatsoever.

In your country, is shooting at British Paras considered "legitimate use"? Fat lot of good all that gun control did, good thing you guys had bomb control... oh wait. You have few accidents involving guns because you don't have any, that should be a pretty obvious deduction. You wouldn't have any auto fatalities either if you got rid of all your cars, think of all the lives you could save!

I feel very safe in my country, I've got the guns, remember? I provide my own safety, I'm not dependent on anyone else to protect me. How many Europeans can say the same?



What's tragic is the erosion of individual rights that's taking place in the rest of the world. In the US, no one has to "endure" anyone, we have the freedom to form our own opinions, and the freedoms to associate (or not) with whom we please. I'm sort of afraid of what you have in mind when you think of a place where people can't hold dissenting views, our current Olympic hosts are among the first to come to mind.

So is this about personal freedom? Really? You have the freedom to arm yourself to the teeth to defend yourself against others? What are the police for then?

What happens when one person's freedom conflicts with another person's? Who has their "freedoms" and who doesn't?

I have the freedom not to bear arms and not be intimidated by private citizens who do choose to choose to bear arms? Whose freedom is respected?

Sociopathic ideologies and extreme selfishness will get you nowhere. The goal of all civilised societies should be the greatest good for the greatest number of people and this is only achievable when the government is responsible for most of the good. Private industry doesn't care for individuals, it caters to the wealthy only.

As for your obvious ignorance about Ireland and politics here, I do not even think that merits a response such is the complete lack of any understanding displayed. Neither I nor anyone I know was involved in bombing, murder or any kind of terrorist activity. Such people are considered criminals in this country and are condemned by anyone with any morality.

The US is one of the most oppressed countries in the world, we don't have censors but we are manipulated to believe that our voice does not count.

I would also like to address your view that getting medical care is not a right it is. From what I see if a government was transporting a nuclear bomb 6 miles above the earth and it blew for whatever reason then the people who get radiation sickness are out of luck if they can't afford a doctor. People don't get sick on purpose, they don't get run over on purpose, they don't drowned on purpose and they don't get struck by lightning on purpose. So logically their is NO REASON to deny health care sickness spreads mainly because people are not educated about sickness and how it spreads but also because they are not treated.


I think it was Spock who first said "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few", I think that in the case of health care this does apply.

Also what about the right to give birth in your own home, right now they want to dissolve this right so that you can only give birth to "your child" as not the government's child in a hospital. In the US you have pay to have a kid in a hospital.