|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 23, 2010 19:55:44 GMT
Rush Limbaugh - who had spent months whipping the loonies into a fever - had said he'd move to Costa Rica if the HR passed. I want to know when. Hopefully soon? naaaaa . . . just a bag of airIs Rush Limbaugh sure? He is aware that Costa Rica has universal health insurance - Christian Scientist Monitor describes the health service in Costa Rica as "one of the longest standing socialised health care systems on the planet." www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0311/Why-Rush-Limbaugh-would-go-to-Costa-Rica-if-Obama-s-healthcare-plan-passes(Although, to be fair, it does suggest that Mr Limbaugh would probably be looking at hte parallel, private system.) My take on all this is that I know nothing about the nuts and bolts of American healthcare. I don't know if you get to see a doctor more quickly than I do, get operations quicker, have better hospital food, or what. But I do know two things. Firstly, the healthcare in the US costs more per head by a large margin than the UK. Yet your life expectancy is lower (and other key health indicators suggest that the US system is not making you any healthier than we are) than in the UK (and, indeed, in Costa Rica.) Secondly, the Republicans and those that I think of us Republicans (such as the teaparty mob) are telling outright lies about the NHS in the UK and, on the messageboards, their supporters have failed to explain to me (here or elswhere) why healthcare in the US is more expensive than in the UK, yet health is not much better. So I'm forming the opinion that the likes of Jumbo are probably right when they say that it's to do with corporations lining their pockets. And I can't see why anyone - Republican or not - would be supporting that.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 23, 2010 20:03:08 GMT
Pumpkinette, I kind of get where you're coming from with the 'freedom' thing.
But you can't compare buying health cover (however you do it, whether by primary taxation as in the UK, or by insurance premium as in the USA) to buying a car.
Indeed you have a choice as to whether to buy a car or not.
But if you have an accident in that car and are knocked unconscious and close to death, the paramedics attending won't know if you have insurance or not. They could spend a lot of money getting you back to life, only to find you hadn't paid for that help. With mandatory insurance that won't matter.
If you expect any kind of emergency care from the state when you need it, then you aren't really free to refuse to pay your dues to the state, be it by paying tax or by following the law and having health insurance.
And unless things are very different in the USA, you don't have a choice to not take out car insurance. Driving without insurance is a criminal offence here. Is it not there?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 20:47:41 GMT
Rush Limbaugh - who had spent months whipping the loonies into a fever - had said he'd move to Costa Rica if the HR passed. I want to know when. Hopefully soon? naaaaa . . . just a bag of airIs Rush Limbaugh sure? He is aware that Costa Rica has universal health insurance - Christian Scientist Monitor describes the health service in Costa Rica as "one of the longest standing socialised health care systems on the planet." www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0311/Why-Rush-Limbaugh-would-go-to-Costa-Rica-if-Obama-s-healthcare-plan-passes(Although, to be fair, it does suggest that Mr Limbaugh would probably be looking at hte parallel, private system.) My take on all this is that I know nothing about the nuts and bolts of American healthcare. I don't know if you get to see a doctor more quickly than I do, get operations quicker, have better hospital food, or what. But I do know two things. Firstly, the healthcare in the US costs more per head by a large margin than the UK. Yet your life expectancy is lower (and other key health indicators suggest that the US system is not making you any healthier than we are) than in the UK (and, indeed, in Costa Rica.) Secondly, the Republicans and those that I think of us Republicans (such as the teaparty mob) are telling outright lies about the NHS in the UK and, on the messageboards, their supporters have failed to explain to me (here or elswhere) why healthcare in the US is more expensive than in the UK, yet health is not much better. So I'm forming the opinion that the likes of Jumbo are probably right when they say that it's to do with corporations lining their pockets. And I can't see why anyone - Republican or not - would be supporting that. my dear girl, i should take umbrage, but i won't, because, as you know, i never do. "the likes" of me? huh uh. there ain't any "likes of" me. i am one of a kind, and as several ladies have told me in the past, the last of a dying breed. when you use the term "likes of", it applies to lunatics such as rush, ann coulter, sean hannity, glenn beck, and the assorted nutjobs who are truly dedicated to continuing to allow cigna and that bunch to cause as many people to die as possible. das has repeated, over and over again, the mantra of the republican party, which has been for sixty years, that corporate profits are more important than human life. EVERY republican in congress spewed it as well as the above named lunatics. the republicans have fought every program designed to help people better themselves. as long as the disparity between rich and poor continues to grow, republicans are jubilant. you need to do very little research. you have the benefit of having das here, and the other believers in greed who profess their disdain for anything considered humanity, on the other boards that you frequent, telling you that this is exactly what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 23, 2010 20:55:30 GMT
Pumpkinette, I kind of get where you're coming from with the 'freedom' thing. But you can't compare buying health cover (however you do it, whether by primary taxation as in the UK, or by insurance premium as in the USA) to buying a car. Indeed you have a choice as to whether to buy a car or not. But if you have an accident in that car and are knocked unconscious and close to death, the paramedics attending won't know if you have insurance or not. They could spend a lot of money getting you back to life, only to find you hadn't paid for that help. With mandatory insurance that won't matter. If you expect any kind of emergency care from the state when you need it, then you aren't really free to refuse to pay your dues to the state, be it by paying tax or by following the law and having health insurance. And unless things are very different in the USA, you don't have a choice to not take out car insurance. Driving without insurance is a criminal offence here. Is it not there? i don't know of any state that doesn't require car insurance. in california, which is the worst of most, you cannot register your car without proof of insurance, and, if you have an accident, it is automatic that you are at fault, regardless of the circumstances, and you automatically lose your driver's license for a year, plus a two thousand dollar fine. i have the same objection to mandatory insurance that pumpkinette has, although, if the government had the insurance program, it wouldn't be a problem. i simply detest the government's dictating that a penny out of my pocket go to enrich an insurance company ceo so that he can put gold shower curtains in his bathroom. however, i still have insurance, although i change it as soon as i find a cheaper one. right now, i only pay $40.01 a month, which is still excessive. that's only because the canadian company that i had in california doesn't cover tennessee. with wawanesa, i only paid $24 month.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 23, 2010 21:29:12 GMT
Ouote: "Is that all?"- I notice you don't mention how people will be FINED if they don't join this. ***### that! Talk about evil! There's NO freedom in that! When people buy a car it's THEIR choice to buy 1 and then be fined if they don't have insurance and cause a wreck, etc. THIS gives people NO choice! In other words, LESS FREEDOM! Before I hear any stuff about where I learned this info, I found it on AOL.com on the front page with the latest news on yesterday. I thought I'd point that out before hearing that I probably found the info on FOX (FAUX) or some e-mail. I guess I just don't understand the mindset that would rather carry no health insurance. That's a slippery slope - scary, imo. Also - sure - you can drive without auto insurance if you never have an accident, but the chances of that are just kind of 50-50 since it also includes accidents in which you are not at fault. If that happens and you are not insured, won't you be fined or, worse, lose your license? If The head of a household does not choose to carry health insurance and a dependant falls ill, the result could be tragic. Notice, there is a plan for those who would have trouble paying for a medical policy. Wouldn't that be sufficient to help make it a good idea? I do see what you're saying, but trying to avoid being insured is out of my range of understanding. It doesn't seem to be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 24, 2010 0:14:26 GMT
Stop it with the insurance company nonsense Jumbo. Most all of the big insurers are publicly traded companies with their books open to public view. They're not wallowing in excessive profits. Get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 24, 2010 0:20:47 GMT
What we have here in this country is a scenario where some of the people are pulling the wagon (paying taxes) and some of the people are riding in the wagon (not paying much in taxes if anything). We also have a political party (the Democrats) that has figured out that their are now more riders than pullers. Their key to power is to cater to the riders in order to get their votes. The riders are happy to oblige.
Democracy breaks down when the riders outnumber the pullers and can vote themselves distribution of the national treasury.
A fairer system would be to allow votes based on taxes paid. Rather than one man one vote it might be one vote for each $1000 in taxes paid. If you haven't paid at least $1000 in the year of the election you don't qualify to vote. Corporations should also get to vote on the same basis. Such a system would be both intelligent and considerably more fair than the present hijacking of the country by the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 24, 2010 0:27:56 GMT
Good Lord, das. Thank goodness you're outnumbered!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 24, 2010 1:06:45 GMT
Think about it Beth. Why should deadbeats have an equal say to someone who is paying the freight. I think those who pay the taxes and support the country are the ones who should be calling the shots. A wino from skid row should not be able to cancel out Bill Gates' vote because Acorn bussed him to the polling place and instructed him how to vote. Don't you get it?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 24, 2010 2:26:13 GMT
From where I sit, that's your problem, das . . . a comprehension problem.
You seem to seriously believe everyone who is not in a high income bracket and, especially(God forbid), anyone who has had any kind of misfortune and needs some survival assistance, is a dead beat, a wino on skid row , a welfare cheat or the equivalent. As long as you think that way, discussion is futile. I don't think you're a bad guy. Bits would be the poorer without your input. But, on this point, I think you have a blind side.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 24, 2010 8:21:59 GMT
Its only the same as the UK thought about a hundred years ago isn't it? Suffrage based on income (and gender but that is a side issue here)
We moved on, it was the only fair thing to do.
Some people have yet to catch up, that is all.
After all slavery only ended in the Uk in 1833, and it took the US a few decades to catch up with that too.
Suffrage and care for others has always been a source of tension in relation to economics
I think universal suffrage is a good idea, of course, though even I blink about the mad and the bad
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 24, 2010 10:05:29 GMT
What we have here in this country is a scenario where some of the people are pulling the wagon (paying taxes) and some of the people are riding in the wagon (not paying much in taxes if anything). We also have a political party (the Democrats) that has figured out that their are now more riders than pullers. Their key to power is to cater to the riders in order to get their votes. The riders are happy to oblige. Democracy breaks down when the riders outnumber the pullers and can vote themselves distribution of the national treasury. A fairer system would be to allow votes based on taxes paid. Rather than one man one vote it might be one vote for each $1000 in taxes paid. If you haven't paid at least $1000 in the year of the election you don't qualify to vote. Corporations should also get to vote on the same basis. Such a system would be both intelligent and considerably more fair than the present hijacking of the country by the Democrats. I'm honestly STUNNED that an American should write such a thing. It's the kind of bull that right wing European elitists come out with from time to time, and we ignore them for the decadent scum they are. But for an AMERICAN to write it! AMERICA that is supposed to be the most democratic nation in the world, the country that boasts of its democracy, even fetishises it. Of course there are fools that we all hope stay at home on Voting Day, but that's the price of democracy.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 24, 2010 10:17:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 24, 2010 10:21:02 GMT
charge all workers a national insurence as we do in the uk....[.but even then you get people comming along and using what others have paid for] not too sure democracy comes into the scenario
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 11:03:23 GMT
What we have here in this country is a scenario where some of the people are pulling the wagon (paying taxes) and some of the people are riding in the wagon (not paying much in taxes if anything). We also have a political party (the Democrats) that has figured out that their are now more riders than pullers. Their key to power is to cater to the riders in order to get their votes. The riders are happy to oblige. Democracy breaks down when the riders outnumber the pullers and can vote themselves distribution of the national treasury. A fairer system would be to allow votes based on taxes paid. Rather than one man one vote it might be one vote for each $1000 in taxes paid. If you haven't paid at least $1000 in the year of the election you don't qualify to vote. Corporations should also get to vote on the same basis. Such a system would be both intelligent and considerably more fair than the present hijacking of the country by the Democrats. you have made some abjectly stupid comments, but damm lad, that has to go down as the most imbecillic comment you have ever made on any subject. such a moronic statement TOTALLY discredits you, and anything else that you might say
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 11:16:21 GMT
Stop it with the insurance company nonsense Jumbo. Most all of the big insurers are publicly traded companies with their books open to public view. They're not wallowing in excessive profits. Get a grip. your refusal to accept reality doesn't change the reality lad. what the hell does insurance companies being publicly traded companies have to do with anything whatsoever? it has absolutely NO relevance. of course, aig is a publicly traded company, with their books open to public view. you lose AGAIN. sorry 'bout your luck
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 11:18:21 GMT
Good Lord, das. Thank goodness you're outnumbered! the boy is intelligent. he just ain't rational. as stupid as they are, i haven't even heard rush, sean, or even the coulter broad say something that moronic
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 11:23:22 GMT
Think about it Beth. Why should deadbeats have an equal say to someone who is paying the freight. I think those who pay the taxes and support the country are the ones who should be calling the shots. A wino from skid row should not be able to cancel out Bill Gates' vote because Acorn bussed him to the polling place and instructed him how to vote. Don't you get it? your disdain for the constitution is disgusting lad.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 11:27:29 GMT
From where I sit, that's your problem, das . . . a comprehension problem. You seem to seriously believe everyone who is not in a high income bracket and, especially(God forbid), anyone who has had any kind of misfortune and needs some survival assistance, is a dead beat, a wino on skid row , a welfare cheat or the equivalent. As long as you think that way, discussion is futile. I don't think you're a bad guy. Bits would be the poorer without your input. But, on this point, I think you have a blind side. the boy said on another thread that he is against working people. he's just repeating it here obviously, winos aren't relevant to the discussion, but, when you take such an untenable position as das does, you have to claw at any straw you may see, and he does
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 24, 2010 11:30:37 GMT
What we have here in this country is a scenario where some of the people are pulling the wagon (paying taxes) and some of the people are riding in the wagon (not paying much in taxes if anything). We also have a political party (the Democrats) that has figured out that their are now more riders than pullers. Their key to power is to cater to the riders in order to get their votes. The riders are happy to oblige. Democracy breaks down when the riders outnumber the pullers and can vote themselves distribution of the national treasury. A fairer system would be to allow votes based on taxes paid. Rather than one man one vote it might be one vote for each $1000 in taxes paid. If you haven't paid at least $1000 in the year of the election you don't qualify to vote. Corporations should also get to vote on the same basis. Such a system would be both intelligent and considerably more fair than the present hijacking of the country by the Democrats. I'm honestly STUNNED that an American should write such a thing. It's the kind of bull that right wing European elitists come out with from time to time, and we ignore them for the decadent scum they are. But for an AMERICAN to write it! AMERICA that is supposed to be the most democratic nation in the world, the country that boasts of its democracy, even fetishises it. Of course there are fools that we all hope stay at home on Voting Day, but that's the price of democracy. you have to remember that das is only one individual, and he obviously needs more towels for these dreams of his. even the vast majority of the lunatic fringe which he so adores would write anything like that
|
|