1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,083
     
  2. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,083
     
  3. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,083

    Well said pff, I might not add that the constitution does not, in any way, guarantee that you will attain that happiness, but you do have right to pursue it. Political correctness seems to handle that quite well.

    A similar, but rather ridiculous comparison, can be made with the "peanut allergy" and public places. When someone has an affliction that causes them to be adversely affected by another actions, is it proper to take away the offending persons rights for the sake of the sufferer?? Sometimes a persons quest to be in the mainstream is adversely affected by the normal habits and practises of the mainstream, it's called life.
     
  4. deidre79

    deidre79 Supertzar

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,631
    pffawg9999! get over it, not everyone wants to live in your world. Please stay in yours and i will stay in mine. You must go to condescending classes also.:) Thank You
     
  5. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
     
  6. Kimiko

    Kimiko Porn Star

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    43,028
    Exactly so. To pick a more egregious example, what if the voters of, say, Mississippi decided to enact an amendment to the Mississippi Constitution legalizing slavery? Would an African-American adversely affected by this initiative not have the right to appeal the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby thwarting the will of the majority of people of Mississipi?
     
  7. deidre79

    deidre79 Supertzar

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,631
    Thank You, pffawg999 :)
     
  8. deidre79

    deidre79 Supertzar

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,631
    Why is Obama pandering to Hillary?, Secretary of State?, what? Oprah can be secretary of defense, jeremiah can fill the post of homeland security. This three ring circus keeps growing daily. His (Obamas) whole cabinet is going to be nothing but former Clinton advisors. That is proof positive that Obama has no experience and is bringing nothing new to the table. Kimiko, Stumbler, pffawg9999, your vision of the world is not mine. Never will be, take your bleeding sorry asses elsewhere. :) Thank You and have a good day Dkr
     
  9. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    This is not actually true. Millions of Americans are denied healthcare. Our system does respond to emergencies but that does not mean anyone can go to a doctor whenever they are feeling bad or think something might be wrong.

    The emphasis Obama had during his campaign illustrates it quite well. We need a health care system, not a "disease care treatment." The emphasis is on people having access to preventative medicine and health care which is the privilege of the haves but not the have nots.

    And as Obama pointed out treating people after the health issue has reached a crisis point is far more expensive then preventing it or treating it before if becomes an emergency.

    I agree I should not have combined the two elements of bankruptcy and tax dollars for health care.

    What I meant was that healthcare is a major cause of bankruptcy. That has two effects. The direct effect is the healthcare costs do not get paid for which causes increases in health care costs for everyone else. But as more and more people become indigent the government does pick up the tab for that.

    You're contradicting yourself here. In one of your earlier posts you clearly stated there is no difference in the level of care given by for profit hospitals as opposed to non-profit hospitals.

    My position is that when something is profit driven then profits is where the emphasis is placed instead of where it should be in this instance which is delivering health care to people who need it.

    Also as I have said before supply and demand principles cannot really be applied to goods and services that are essential such as oil and healthcare. Most people, especially those without insurance do not have any control or choice where they go for medical treatment.

    Sure they did. But we need to look at the realities here. They are probably willing to make a lot of concessions now that most Americans agree something needs to be done with our health care system. But people will die today because of lack of insurance and even people who have insurance but have their health care dictated by the insurance company.

    This is what I knew in advance. You don't have any answers, no knowledge of the things you talk about and only have simple statements indicative of a simple mind.

    Yeah, and dealing with insurance companies and their employees (which is all that bureaucrats are) is simple and very effective and productive. If you believe that tenguy I doubt that you have ever had or more importantly tried to use insurance in your whole life.

    Absolutely not true tenguy. Millions of Americans are not only turned away from health care, millions of Americans who have health care insurance are routinely denied treatments and surgeries by their insurance providers or they are denied benefits after the fact.

    This is what is absolutely not true tenguy and it won't take me more than a 30 second google search to prove it. Millions of Americans are denied and turned away by health care providers every day.

    People with health care insurance are denied treatments and procedures because of their insurance companies refusal to pay for them.

    Not every town has free clinics. Not even every county does. Those that do are ridiculously under staffed and underfunded and lack the equipment necessary to deliever proper health care.

    Nope, this is simply not true. People cannot be denied emergency or life saving treatments. But they can be and are denied health care which is not life threatening. They can also walk into one hospital and die being transferred to another hospital because of their inability to pay.

    Tenguy dying in the streets is more metaphorical then literal. But none the less we have people dying in the streets, in their homes, and on emergency room floors due to lack of health care.

    So what's your solution? Because the problems you mention get worse every day and even the doctors and health care providers are screaming for solutions. I don't think Obama's goes far enough. Universal insurance will not really solve the problem. I think we need universal care provided by taxes and eliminate even the concept of insurance.

    But what do you think would work?

    Tenguy you continue to contradict yourself on this issue. In just the post above you decry the problems in our healthcare system and agree that everyone should have access to it. Here you take a very calloused perspective and want to split hairs about where they are dying instead of sticking to the important point that it is deplorable for people in a nation as rich as ours is to suffer and die from lack of health care no matter where they do it.

    But you also walk right into a huge problem that could be addressed with universal health care which is not even hardly touched now. And that is that the drug addicted and mentally ill are also in critical need of health care and treatments which they do not receive now. So they actually end up costing us twice as much because they often end up in jail where it costs more than $25,000 each to keep them there for a year and but at least they get their inadequate medical care for free.

    Here's what Obama proposed during his campaign but I sincerely doubt this is anywhere near finalized and may not be anything close to what the finished product looks like. That is of course due to what Kimiko has defined as the art of politics

    *not_secure_link*www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

    The last I heard (and this was during the presidential debates) Obama's plan does protect everyone in being able to choose their own healthcare insurance. What he is proposing is health care insurance that people could otherwise not afford.

    This is a joke to me. The insurance industry has been interested in nothing but making as much money as they can off the need for health care until the handwriting is on the wall that the Majority of Americans want something to be done and then all of a sudden they get religion and say they are willing to make concessions. Bullshit.

    I doubt there will be many court battles and if they are they will go directly to the supreme court and more than likely be settled in short order. Even if they are found to be unconstitutional if congress and the president is serious about them it would not take long to bring the legislation into constitutional compliance.

    Now as far as I have found today there are only a few exemptions from not being part of the Social Security Program and most of them have to be grandfathered in as Kimiko said prior to 1984.

    Here are the exemptions:

    There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from having to pay Social Security taxes:

    • Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
    • State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
    • Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
    • Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
    • Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
    • Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
    • Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
    • College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
    • Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.
    Before the 1983 changes, three counties in Texas (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the system and now use an Alternate Plan, a private pension plan created and administered by First Financial Benefits, Inc.
    In 1983, the U.S. Congress closed a loophole in the original Social Security Act that allowed municipal governments to opt out of the Social Security system, and also brought all civilian federal employees whose employment began in 1984 or later under the system.


    *not_secure_link*askville.amazon.com/SimilarQuestions.do?req=opt-out-Social-Security-system



    Kimiko already answered the first part of this so let me address the second part.

    Where will the healthcare proposals ultimately be decided? In the court of public opinion. And I think that is the critical element that is being overlooked here. The system as been ineffective and collapsing under its own weight for decades, but even so that has not been a major concern for the majority of Americans. But as more and more Americans become adversly effected by it that has gradually changed and now the majority are concerned and do want to see something done about it.

    That is the critical element that has been missing in the past and also one of the major elements that got Barack Obama elected.

    From what I'm hearing some people are saying a good prediction of what Obama's healthcare proposals will ultimately look like are indicated with his selection of Tom Daschel as Secretary of Health and Human Services. But I must confess I've been too busy just bullshitting lately to research Daschel.

    He probably will but there is no indication that you will be able to understand them.

    I have nothing to add to this.:)

    Hillary was the person who tried to tackle the health care problem when her husband was elected president but no one and especially her was prepared for the firestorm that would immediately erupt from the vested interests such as the insurance industry. That's the first time she was accused of advocating socialized medicine and she was immediately demonized.

    The biggest problem then was there was little public support for tackling the health care crisis then. But there is now and I think that will make all the difference.

    Kimiko I so much enjoy your brilliant and usually thoughtful responses to conservatives. But I love it when you just haul off and kick one of them between the legs.:excited:

    This is not true. Congress has been hammering away at healthcare every session and trying to do something even though Bush would veto it as he did with the bill that would have provided increased healthcare coverage for kids.

    Actually you've pretty much just contradicted yourself on this thread and this issue and only fall back on your support for universal health care when you think it looks good.

    but the fact is even if you do have health care insurance you cannot always get needed health care and if you are poor your chances of dying for lack of healthcare are far greater.

    And I firmly believe that time is now.
     
  10. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,083
     
  11. pffawg9999

    pffawg9999 Porno Junky

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    362
  12. Foeofthelance

    Foeofthelance Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,188
    the great medical game.

    *Jumps in head first.* 'Is that a shark?'

    Any way, all humor aside, yes and no. There are certain aspects of the social healthcare system that are appealing, and certain aspects of it that are problematic of their own. First, you have to understand that there are three major players in the healthcare game: Patients, Insurance Companies, and Pharamceutical/Tech companies. The Government is the referee, and gets to change the rules whenever it wishes. The playing field are the doctors and hospitals around the country.

    The Patients come in three categories. "Normal" patients are general folks. Healthy enough as long as they don't get hit in the head by a falling tree or some other random accident. "Dependents", such as the elderly and young who can't quite deal with everything the world might throw at them, and "Chronics", the mentally ill and people unfortunate to be born with a major problem like muscular dystrophy. Their goal is to get care they need when they need it. "Normal" patients need it much less often, and it is almost an emergancy for them. Health insurance is almost a form of gambling, with them wagering on a regular basis that the world might not like them. "Dependents" might necessarily need a lot of care, but they need it constantly or they might find themselves in trouble. Chronics start off in trouble, and there is little that can be done barring a miracle to get them out of trouble. And yes, it is possible to move between the different groups.

    The Insurance companies basically serve as bookies. They figure the odds on whether or not the world is going to hate you, whether or not it makes sense to keep you around even if you've got a constant risk.

    The Pharmaceutical/Tech companies provide the balls to play the game, but they want to make sure they get paid, especially since those balls are expensive to make. They pour out billions of dollars a year just to prove something won't work and thus can't be marketed. Out of the hundreds of chemicals they try, they're lucky if one ends up proving marketable, even if it doesnt do what they set out to do. They then have to try and make up those costs.

    And so those are the players. It's not entirely about the patients after all. Personally, I think the best way to do it would be this:

    1) Let companies compete nationwide, so that rates drop a bit.

    2) Rather than try to fund everything out the yahoo, offer a tax rebate eqaul to a company's healthcare payments to the company, and the same to any individual who purchases their own. Taxes are meant to pay for the services supplied by the government, and if citizens take the burden upon themselves, they shouldn't have to pay for it twice.

    3) Instead of using Medicaid as a general medical fund for anyone who doesn't want to buy their own insurance, use it to pay for those who can't get insurance, whether its because no one will accept the risk or because they fall below the poverty line, and only those people. Hawaii almost went bankrupt because it allowed people who could afford insurance to mooch off a state program, which also sucked off the resources that were in actual need of others. And that was just trying to cover children, not the entire state population.

    4) Split the cost of consumables with hospitals, especially drugs. Heavy machines are expensive yes, but thereotically should pay for themselves over time. The real money is in the drugs (since the pharmaceuticals need to be able to afford to develop them, as well as an incentive to) and the manhours of the staffs.


    Because there are problems with the social healthcare method. For one thing, the wait times are abominable. Heart patients can end up waiting for months of emergancy surgery that they would get within hours in the states, and even longer waits for "non-critical" surgeries. Since the hospitals are supposed to treat everyone equally, there's little in the way of triage for walk in cases. (Having no experience with the system myself, I can only hope that if a bloody body is hauled in from a car wreck, that gets priority.) Have to double check, but there's also supposed to be a mortality spike at the end of the year of elderly patients, as quotas are met and people are asked to trim fat from budgets. Compare to the capitilistic method, which basically says the longer you can keep someone alive, the longer you can keep getting paid. Mercenary yes, but also effective to a certain degree.

    As Kimiko pointed out, the social method is good at cutting costs; but at what price? Not everyone pays taxes after all; those below the poverty line and those recieving social security and welfare for example. Yet these people are at the same time drawing on the resources that are being provided for others. Ant and grasshopper time. Why should the ants (those who are paying taxes to support the healthcare system) be treated equally as the grasshoppers (those who are simply drawing on it)? If an ant gets passed over for a grasshopper because of blind fairness, then the system loses a source of resource. But if the ant is deliberately put ahead of the grasshopper to maintain the resource, and more ants need help afterwards, how long can you put off the grasshopper for before it becomes too late?

    Its not an unreasonable question. As time passes mankind gets to live longer, but we stay productive for about the same amount of time. Which means with each successive generation there are about the same amount of ants (if you're lucky. If I recall correctly, birth rates in Europe are trending downwards. Less ants.) trying to support not only themselves, but even more grasshoppers, all while trying to survive long enough to become a grasshopper themself.

    So neither system is perfect, and both has some major drawbacks and benefits (the capitilistic gets to support the massive R&D effort that lets breakthroughs happen to let us to live longer and the social makes it easier for everyone to have equal access).

    And yes, at this point I am rambling a little...:excited: But I guess I don't necessarily see why everyone should have "equal" access. I much prefer the triage system, where those who can be saved get it, those who cant be helped are left till maybe they can, and those who dont really are allowed to fend for themselves, even if that means betting they might need it someday.
     
  13. pimp ur mom

    pimp ur mom Xnxx's Latino Pimp

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,238
    What about a multiversal health care???
     
  14. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    First is you're going to make such of fool of yourself tenguy you should at least becareful who you're calling a liar it just adds more glare to you stupidity on this issue.

    Now I'm going to lump some of these together and prove you worng again and quite publicly so.

    In all these statements you contend that people in the US are denied Health Care insurance coverage but are not denied threatment.


    https://news.bio-medicine.org/medic...s-for-uninsured-patients--study-finds-2997-1/





    Highlighting added to make sure you can see it tenguy
    *not_secure_link*www.newsweek.com/id/166854



    *not_secure_link*www.allbusiness.com/health-care/medical-practice-orthopedics/10555840-1.html



    *not_secure_link*www.weblog.nohair.net/archives/000757.html


    comment | posted July 12, 2007 (web only)
    Healthcare vs. the Profit Principle
    Barbara Ehrenreich
    *not_secure_link*www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/ehrenreich

    It's always nice to see the President take a principled stand on something. The man formerly known as "43"--and now perhaps better named "29" for his record-breaking low approval rating--is promising to battle any expansion of government health insurance for children, and not because he hates children or refuses to cough up the funds. No, this is a battle over principle: private healthcare vs. government-provided healthcare. Speaking in Cleveland recently, Bush boldly asserted:
    I strongly object to the government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health care to the public sector. And I think it's wrong and I think it's a mistake. And therefore, I will resist Congress's attempt ... to federalize medicine....In my judgment that would be--it would lead to not better medicine, but worse medicine. It would lead to not more innovation, but less innovation.

    Now you don't have to have seen Sicko to know that if there is one area of human endeavor where private enterprise doesn't work, it's healthcare. Consider the private, profit-making insurance industry, which Bush is so determined to defend. What "innovations" has it produced? The deductible, the co-pay and the pre-existing condition are the only ones that leap to mind. In general, the great accomplishment of the private health insurance industry has been to overturn the very meaning of "insurance," which is risk-sharing: We all put in some money, though only some of us will need to draw on the common pool by using expensive healthcare. And the insurance companies have overturned it by refusing to insure the people who need care the most--those who are already, or are likely to become, sick.

    <<snip>>

    This is not because health insurance executives are meaner than other people, although I do not rule that out. It's just that they're running a business, the purpose of which is not to make people healthy but to make money, and they do very well at that. Once, many years ago, I complained to the left-wing economist Paul Sweezey that America had no real healthcare system. "We have a system, all right," he responded. "It's just a system for doing something else." A system, as he might have put it today, for extracting money from the vulnerable and putting it into the pockets of the rich.

    <<snip>>... Sunday's Los Angeles Times featured a particularly lurid case of medical profiteering in the form of one Dr. Prem Reddy, who owns eight hospitals in Southern California... <<snip>>

    The secret behind his $300 million fortune? For one thing, he rejects the standard hospital practice of signing contracts with insurance companies, because he feels that these contracts unduly limit his reimbursements. (In a battle between Aetna and Reddy, it would be hard to know which side to cheer for.) In addition, he has suspended much-needed services such as chemotherapy, a birthing center and mental- health care as insufficiently profitable. And his hospitals are infamous for refusing to treat uninsured patients, like a patient with kidney failure and a 16-month-old baby with a burn.

    But Dr. Reddy--who is, incidentally a high-powered Republican donor--has a principled reason for his piratical practices. "Patients," the Los Angeles Times reports him as saying, "may simply deserve only the amount of care they can afford." He dismisses as "an entitlement mentality" the idea that everyone should be getting the same high-quality healthcare. This is Bush's vaunted principle of "private medicine" at its nastiest: You don't get what you need, only what you can pay for.




    Again emphasis added so you can see it tenguy


    *not_secure_link*www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3378138


    Now who is not telling the truth here tenguy?


    Double bullshit here tenguy. First, you have not stated your SOLUTION. You haven't said if the federal government isn't fit to manage the problem, how SHOULD WE SOLVE IT.

    And second bullshit you and I differ greatly on what we think is the best solution. I think we should do away with even the concept of health insurance, and the health insurance companies and just pay for everyone's health care out of taxes.

    You can't actually be that stupid to miss my point. My point is that if studies have shown there is not difference between non-profit and for profit hospitals we can eleminate the profit inscentive, and the insurance profits and still have the same level of care.

    Then you know there is no difference between the effectiveness and delivery of services between private insurance company employees and government bureaucrats, thus cancelling your objection to bureaucrats handling health care for Americans.

    One of your classic contradictions tenguy. Challenge me to name the healthcare plans Bush vetoed and then try to make a sensless exception fot the one he did.

    But you are dodging the issue here. Your point was if health care was so important why didn't congress work on it. My point which is verified above is they did and have worked on other healthcare improvements but Bush has said quite clearly he would veto them because:


    And now we go from one of your classic contradictioins to your intvention of an argument I never made. I never once said you stated that healthcare shouldn't be avaialbe to everyone. I said you consistently contradict yourself on this point because the system we have now DOES NOT MAKE HEALTH CARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
     
  15. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Dives in head first. Is that a shark?

    Nope its shallow water. Which means you're going to need the health care system you just so ineffectually described. And your Ant insurance will not help you if you have a broken neck because it will cover only a part of the costs of your treatment and you're going to have to go on disability and the government (tax payers) will end up paying for your health care anyway. That's the first reality.

    Second reality. Millions of Ants go bankrupt every year who did have health insurance but it in no way comes close to paying their medical bills.

    Third reality: Its not grasshoppers suffering (and driving up health care costs in the process) and dying needlessly its human beings which you falsely assume must be all their own fault because they were not good little ants.

    Fourth reality:
    Fifth reality: Pharmaceutical companies are not very far behind oil companies when it comes to making profits and everybody knows oil companies are setting record profits. Conversely countries who have either socialized medicine or universal health care rival the US in the creation of new drugs, treatments and technology.

    Sixth reality: Number 1 healthcare myth

     
  16. pffawg9999

    pffawg9999 Porno Junky

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    362
     
  17. Distant Lover

    Distant Lover Master of Facts

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    62,028
    We can't afford it because we spend so much time fighting wars while cutting taxes for millionaires.

    Also, low income white Republicans enjoy thinking about the problems of the largely non-white people who are worse off than they are. They need someone to feel superior to.
     
  18. tenguy

    tenguy Reasoned voice of XNXX

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    56,083

    This is the only point that you made in your confused, long winded, post, that I will bother to respond to.

    My point in saying that the current US healthcare systems core problems can be traced to several factors, not just one, is to get you and others to redirect your thinking from a total remake of the system to one of fix the problems.

    By stating that healthcare is not available to the un-insured IS a LIE. To say that the present provider network is not capible to deliver healthcare equally IS a LIE. To say that the for profit hospitals treat fewer indigent patients than not for profits, IS a LIE. To say that the problem is one of a financial matter is the TRUTH.

    Fix the financial part and we are a long way to correcting the problem. Provide insurance for those who are unable to afford it, eliminate the precondition clauses and develop a way for the present "health cost" bankrupt citizens to dig their way out.

    As for costs, we pay far too much for care, eliminating the indigent care cost factor will help somewhat, but we need to have local or regional commisions to evaluate the costs locally, not nationally.

    Finally, there are far too many examples of extreme waste in bureaucracy for me to feel comfortable in handing them the keys to such a large part of our economy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 24, 2008
  19. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,324
    Its really bullheaded and frankly stupid of you to skip over all the proof I provided and still maintain you are right.

    Another one of you argument inventions of something that was never said.

    I have certainly never said there is only one core problem with our health care system. There are several. So many in fact that in my opinion it cannot be fixed unless we do away with health insurance and the for profit motivations of delivering health care.

    No its not a lie and I provided proof and documentation of that in the previous posts. Like I said above for you to ignore that is simply being bullheaded and stupid.

    And again one of your classic contradictions. If we analyze what you are saying here you are saying healthcare is available to the uninsured; that the present system is capable of delievering health care equally; that for profit hospitals don't treat fewer indigent patients than non profits. Then you say the problem is financial which proves everything you said before is not true; i.e. a lie by your own admission.

    Once again that is exactly what Barack Obama is saying as well as Kimiko. But once again you state this but fail to say how you think the financial problems SHOULD BE CORRECTED. The only way I see of doing that is for federal government intervention.

    Wouldn't that just multiply the bureaucrats that you have no faith in. And one of the articles I posted directly speaks to the problem of differences in both treatments and costs from place to place in the US.

    I don't see how you can hold that position there and suggest we create literally thousands of local commissions i.e. appointed bureaucrats in the statement above.

    By the way isn't our military, our space program and our nuclear regulatory commission run by bureaucrats. You seem to think they do just fine. Or should we turn management of these things over to the private sector. The same private sector I might add that now must turn to the government and its bureaucrats to bail them out.
     
  20. Foeofthelance

    Foeofthelance Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,188
    Your first reality I already addressed as such. Or did you miss the part where I said the government should be there to take care of the people who can't get health coverage from a private plan?

    Your second reality is just a restatement of one portion of the problem we're trying to figure out a solution to.

    And your third reality is a gross misunderstanding of my point. Its no ones fault that people get old and are no longer capable of actively contributing to society, or that children shouldn't be active in industrial work environments, just as there is no question that as humans they are any less deserving of medical care. My point was that when you only have so many people capable of contributing to your resources, and an ever increasing number of people who are also drawing on those resources without contributing to them, then eventually you have to decide how to split up the resources in a fair and effective manner. That will always remain a reality until the point where we discover the secret to eternal youth or somesuch. Or did they cure old age when I wasn't looking?

    My point was that while there is a problem, neither system seems to be the optimum solution. The capitilist system leaves too many people behind, and the social system is ineffective at using its resources in a time and effective manner because anyone can draw on them at any time for any reason. A better system would find some way of combining the quality of treatment and care from the capitilist system, as well as its ability to fund medical research, with the availability and convenience of the social one. If that means some hybrid system where those who only need emergency care can opt out for private health insurance and doctors while those in need of more constant care can also be assured of it without undue cost, then that would be a good system.