Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 105
  1. #81  
    How about this, only people perceived as being under educated should be allowed to vote. So far, according to a lot in here, the intelligent ones have made quite the mess of things. Perhaps its time for a new rule, if you got past grade 3 you can not vote.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    How about this, only people perceived as being under educated should be allowed to vote. So far, according to a lot in here, the intelligent ones have made quite the mess of things. Perhaps its time for a new rule, if you got past grade 3 you can not vote.

    Talk about a red state bonanza.....
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry...too many republicans here for that. If you stay here a while, you'll see there are too many people that are only worried about themselves. Try somewhere else.
    Meh, progressivism is one of the most selfish ideologies out there.

    Ask any democrat what they think of opening our borders to immigration and you will quickly realize all that nonsense about the social good is just double speak for "take from people who have more money than me." They are unilaterally opposed to any kind of open immigration because it would rapidly bankrupt the already dying welfare state. It would add more hands to the pot they love to pull from (all in the name of helping others ), and lessen their own share.

    To progressives letting people help themselves is "selfish" while taking from others at the barrel of a gun is the epitome of moral superiority A truly confused set of people.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    Meh, progressivism is one of the most selfish ideologies out there.

    Ask any democrat what they think of opening our borders to immigration and you will quickly realize all that nonsense about the social good is just double speak for "take from people who have more money than me." They are unilaterally opposed to any kind of open immigration because it would rapidly bankrupt the already dying welfare state. It would add more hands to the pot they love to pull from (all in the name of helping others ), and lessen their own share.

    To progressives letting people help themselves is "selfish" while taking from others at the barrel of a gun is the epitome of moral superiority A truly confused set of people.
    Hah. I see you live in Bizarro World, where conservatives care about someone other than their own family and income. Where "letting people help themselves" translates into "denying health care and a living wage to a significant percentage of our citizens". Where increasing our basic tax rates to those comparable to the rest of the developed world is translated into "taking from others at the barrel of a gun". Right, you're not selfish at all.

    We are the only country in the developed world that don't provide for their needy in any kind of substantial way, and you are proud of that. Yep...alternative universe. Nice of you to determine what my stand is on open borders, too. Thanks for that.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    Meh, progressivism is one of the most selfish ideologies out there.
    Yes, progressives are for a single payer healthcare system and are willing to pay more taxes, themselves, so that EVERYONE will be covered. Selfish indeed...

    Ask any democrat what they think of opening our borders to immigration and you will quickly realize all that nonsense about the social good is just double speak for "take from people who have more money than me." They are unilaterally opposed to any kind of open immigration because it would rapidly bankrupt the already dying welfare state. It would add more hands to the pot they love to pull from (all in the name of helping others ), and lessen their own share.
    Who said libs are against immigration? They are usually for it. I think we just need to enforce the immigration laws that are already in place.

    To progressives letting people help themselves is "selfish" while taking from others at the barrel of a gun is the epitome of moral superiority A truly confused set of people.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hah. I see you live in Bizarro World, where conservatives care about someone other than their own family and income. Where "letting people help themselves" translates into "denying health care and a living wage to a significant percentage of our citizens". Where increasing our basic tax rates to those comparable to the rest of the developed world is translated into "taking from others at the barrel of a gun". Right, you're not selfish at all.

    We are the only country in the developed world that don't provide for their needy in any kind of substantial way, and you are proud of that. Yep...alternative universe. Nice of you to determine what my stand is on open borders, too. Thanks for that.
    Health care is not a commodity that falls out of the sky. It is run and provided by people. It's interesting that you constantly use the language of "denying" health care, like someone already had it and those evil insurance salesmen took it away. By forcing someone to provide for someone else you are "denying" them the right to use their own labor and capital as they see fit. You are denying them the basic freedom to own their own life.

    Taxes are enforced with guns and throwing people in cages. You are blinded to think it is anything but an ultimately violent process.

    We are also the only country in the world the creates 90% of drugs and have tens of thousands travel here from "developed" countries for operations their government are years away from offering.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Yes, progressives are for a single payer healthcare system and are willing to pay more taxes, themselves, so that EVERYONE will be covered. Selfish indeed...



    Who said libs are against immigration? They are usually for it. I think we just need to enforce the immigration laws that are already in place.



    How would universal health care work out with unlimited immigration?
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    Health care is not a commodity that falls out of the sky. It is run and provided by people. It's interesting that you constantly use the language of "denying" health care, like someone already had it and those evil insurance salesmen took it away. By forcing someone to provide for someone else you are "denying" them the right to use their own labor and capital as they see fit. You are denying them the basic freedom to own their own life.

    Taxes are enforced with guns and throwing people in cages. You are blinded to think it is anything but an ultimately violent process.

    We are also the only country in the world the creates 90% of drugs and have tens of thousands travel here from "developed" countries for operations their government are years away from offering.
    Please. Don't post things that you don't know anything about. Of the top 8 pharmaceutical companies in the world, only two are US companies. At the most, the US is responsible for about 40% of sales. The R and D in international companies is greater than for the US companies when they are combined. We do NOT "create 90% of drugs", and more people travel to other countries (at least 750,000 per year) to get treatments that are more reasonably priced because of our ridiculous system. Yes, we're pretty good at highly advanced high tech procedures that benefit relatively few people. Too bad we do so poorly at providing prenatal care for our pregnant women. Oh, and the 30 to 45 million people, 70% or so who are working people, who don't have insurance and can't get adequate care.

    And with regard to your first part of your post, some of us don't consider health care to be a commodity. Some of us feel it should be a right. And thankfully we are going in that direction. Maybe at some point we will catch up with the rest of the "selfish" world. Really, you need to rethink your terminology, before you provoke even more laughter.

    And while you're at it, why don't you review the extensive threads about health care reform and the health care system. I'm sure you'll be able to educate yourself...most likely.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And with regard to your first part of your post, some of us don't consider health care to be a commodity. Some of us feel it should be a right. And thankfully we are going in that direction. Maybe at some point we will catch up with the rest of the "selfish" world. Really, you need to rethink your terminology, before you provoke even more laughter.
    Two places I'd like a little clarification:

    *Are we talking about Health Care or Health Insurance? Because those are two very different things.

    *How is something a "right" if others have to sacrifice for it?
    Why does this site declare "Pre" not to be a word? Please explain.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by Urock View Post
    Two places I'd like a little clarification:

    *Are we talking about Health Care or Health Insurance? Because those are two very different things.

    *How is something a "right" if others have to sacrifice for it?
    1. I don't really care how it is obtained. I think every citizen in this country should be able to receive reasonable health care, and not run the risk of bankruptcy and losing their homes just because they became ill. If it is determined that private insurers can provide that, fine with me, call for health insurance reform. Of course, my personal opinion is that they are unable to do that, and that in the long run we will get a single payor system, ideally with multiple tiers of service or with access to higher-level care if someone is willing to pay for it.

    2. Something is a right if the country (however you want to define that, by representative government, for example) determines that everyone is entitled to it. An example is the right to an education, or to Social Security, neither of which are provided for by the constitution. Our society determined these benefits of living in our country were worth providing. In the case of Social Security, despite the right wing feeling that it is a bad thing, it really represents a service that the individual has already paid for, and this includes Medicare as well.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Please. Don't post things that you don't know anything about. Of the top 8 pharmaceutical companies in the world, only two are US companies. At the most, the US is responsible for about 40% of sales. The R and D in international companies is greater than for the US companies when they are combined. We do NOT "create 90% of drugs", and more people travel to other countries (at least 750,000 per year) to get treatments that are more reasonably priced because of our ridiculous system. Yes, we're pretty good at highly advanced high tech procedures that benefit relatively few people. Too bad we do so poorly at providing prenatal care for our pregnant women. Oh, and the 30 to 45 million people, 70% or so who are working people, who don't have insurance and can't get adequate care.

    And with regard to your first part of your post, some of us don't consider health care to be a commodity. Some of us feel it should be a right. And thankfully we are going in that direction. Maybe at some point we will catch up with the rest of the "selfish" world. Really, you need to rethink your terminology, before you provoke even more laughter.

    And while you're at it, why don't you review the extensive threads about health care reform and the health care system. I'm sure you'll be able to educate yourself...most likely.
    You confused sales and development. We pay a lot because of absurd patent laws, not because we don't have a magical government fairy redistributing society into perfection. And because we pay for 40% of sales on perhaps 20% of those drugs, 90% of drugs on earth are developed here.

    How incredible is it that we live in a country where people are allowed to come and go to other countries to get treatment. Try doing that in Cuba.

    Advanced high tech procedures are the next decades everyday life saving cures. Interesting that progressives never care to recognize that rich people paying 5 million for an operation that has a 50% success rate gets us one step closer to making that operation affordable for the rest of us at a 90% success rate.

    Of the 30-40 million people you cite, 9 million make more than 75,000 a year and another 8.5 million make more than 50,000 a year. 7 million already qualify for Medicaid. What is also lost in your number is the fact that the study only represents the number of people who lost health care "at any time in the past year" which given our absurd tax system that forces people to get insurance from employers guarantees people will lose insurance when moving between jobs. Of course, Obamacare makes this problem even worse by fining employers who don't offer insurance of the type, price, and quantity the government deems necessary.
    Last edited by NathanS; 04/13/2010 at 11:44 PM.
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    1. I don't really care how it is obtained. I think every citizen in this country should be able to receive reasonable health care, and not run the risk of bankruptcy and losing their homes just because they became ill. If it is determined that private insurers can provide that, fine with me, call for health insurance reform. Of course, my personal opinion is that they are unable to do that, and that in the long run we will get a single payor system, ideally with multiple tiers of service or with access to higher-level care if someone is willing to pay for it.

    2. Something is a right if the country (however you want to define that, by representative government, for example) determines that everyone is entitled to it. An example is the right to an education, or to Social Security, neither of which are provided for by the constitution. Our society determined these benefits of living in our country were worth providing. In the case of Social Security, despite the right wing feeling that it is a bad thing, it really represents a service that the individual has already paid for, and this includes Medicare as well.
    1. You completely avoided my question. But your answer for the first directs me towards your answer of my second question.

    2. So does that mean that slavery was a "right" in the early years of America? How can something, even something with the national government's blessing, be considered a right if it denies something to someone else? (And don't tell me the majority of America did not want slavery; the north merely found it economically unfeasible during the infant years of the Republic. It wasn't until near the end of the first half of of the 1800's that abolitionism became popular.)
    Why does this site declare "Pre" not to be a word? Please explain.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by Urock View Post
    1. You completely avoided my question. But your answer for the first directs me towards your answer of my second question.

    2. So does that mean that slavery was a "right" in the early years of America? How can something, even something with the national government's blessing, be considered a right if it denies something to someone else? (And don't tell me the majority of America did not want slavery; the north merely found it economically unfeasible during the infant years of the Republic. It wasn't until near the end of the first half of of the 1800's that abolitionism became popular.)
    your stand on comparing slavery to health care is ummmm different, many here point to the deceleration of independence and the constitution. It does say some place in those two documents that all men are created equal... but yet women and anyone not white was not equal.. but hey those documents are held up to be perfect in every way.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Urock View Post
    1. You completely avoided my question. But your answer for the first directs me towards your answer of my second question.

    2. So does that mean that slavery was a "right" in the early years of America? How can something, even something with the national government's blessing, be considered a right if it denies something to someone else? (And don't tell me the majority of America did not want slavery; the north merely found it economically unfeasible during the infant years of the Republic. It wasn't until near the end of the first half of of the 1800's that abolitionism became popular.)
    I avoided your question because the outcome is what is important to me, not the process. A singular position, I am sure, but that's the way it is. Was slavery a right in the early years of America? How do you think the founding fathers that owned slaves would answer that? Before suffrage or the voting rights bills, was voting a right for every citizen? Wasn't something denied to blacks and women? Is education of every citizen a right? What people are entitled to is determined by the society. The society has determined that people over the age of 65 have a right to health care, that those with incomes under a certain floor have a similar right. Frankly, I don't understand your point at all. Try again.
  15.    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    ... It does say some place in those two documents that all men are created equal... but yet women and anyone not white was not equal.. but hey those documents are held up to be perfect in every way.
    Thank you.
    I mentioned this in another thread here last week and i got blasted for it.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    You confused sales and development. We pay a lot because of absurd patent laws, not because we don't have a magical government fairy redistributing society into perfection. And because we pay for 40% of sales on perhaps 20% of those drugs, 90% of drugs on earth are developed here.

    How incredible is it that we live in a country where people are allowed to come and go to other countries to get treatment. Try doing that in Cuba.

    Advanced high tech procedures are the next decades everyday life saving cures. Interesting that progressives never care to recognize that rich people paying 5 million for an operation that has a 50% success rate gets us one step closer to making that operation affordable for the rest of us at a 90% success rate.

    Of the 30-40 million people you cite, 9 million make more than 75,000 a year and another 8.5 million make more than 50,000 a year. 7 million already qualify for Medicaid. What is also lost in your number is the fact that the study only represents the number of people who lost health care "at any time in the past year" which given our absurd tax system that forces people to get insurance from employers guarantees people will lose insurance when moving between jobs. Of course, Obamacare makes this problem even worse by fining employers who don't offer insurance of the type, price, and quantity the government deems necessary.
    Please by all means provide a reference that shows we develop 90% of drugs in this country.

    The cost of a heart transplant and follow-up was in the $50-100,000 range in the late '80s. It's now around $650-700,000. One of the very few "high tech" procedures that costs considerably less now is cataract surgery, and the only reason it costs less is because Medicare dramatically decreased their reimbursement. Diagnostic procedures cost less in some cases because of the increased availability of MRI's, but we end up paying more overall because the procedures are inappropriately used. So I disagree with your characterization. I don't know how much time you spend in hospitals, but "rich people paying $5 million for a procedure" doesn't actually happen. Rich people have insurance, unless they come from other countries, and there are hardly enough of those people to advance medical science.

    I would not argue with your characterization of the limitations of the insurance system. It makes much more sense to do away with it entirely with universal single payor coverage, and offer enhanced insurance products for those that want to pay for them themselves.


    How incredible that we live in a country in which visitors from other countries who become sick while here have to pay massive amounts of money for their care, whereas if we get sick in other countries our care is provided essentially free. Cuba is a state that denies travel, so yes, it is one of the few countries that doesn't have a large number of citizens going overseas. However, a fair number come to Cuba for treatment.

    Cuba attracts about 20,000[75] paying health tourists, generating revenues of around $40 million a year for the Cuban economy. Cuba has been serving health tourists from around the world for more than 20 years. The country operates a special division of hospitals specifically for the treatment of foreigners and diplomats. Foreign patients travel to Cuba for a wide range of treatments including eye-surgery, neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinsons disease, cosmetic surgery, addictions treatment, retinitis pigmentosa and orthopaedics. Most patients are from Latin America, Europe and Canada, and a growing number of Americans also are coming. Cuba also successfully exports many medical products, such as vaccines.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Please by all means provide a reference that shows we develop 90% of drugs in this country.

    The cost of a heart transplant and follow-up was in the $50-100,000 range in the late '80s. It's now around $650-700,000. One of the very few "high tech" procedures that costs considerably less now is cataract surgery, and the only reason it costs less is because Medicare dramatically decreased their reimbursement. Diagnostic procedures cost less in some cases because of the increased availability of MRI's, but we end up paying more overall because the procedures are inappropriately used. So I disagree with your characterization. I don't know how much time you spend in hospitals, but "rich people paying $5 million for a procedure" doesn't actually happen. Rich people have insurance, unless they come from other countries, and there are hardly enough of those people to advance medical science.

    I would not argue with your characterization of the limitations of the insurance system. It makes much more sense to do away with it entirely with universal single payor coverage, and offer enhanced insurance products for those that want to pay for them themselves.


    How incredible that we live in a country in which visitors from other countries who become sick while here have to pay massive amounts of money for their care, whereas if we get sick in other countries our care is provided essentially free. Cuba is a state that denies travel, so yes, it is one of the few countries that doesn't have a large number of citizens going overseas. However, a fair number come to Cuba for treatment.
    The US buys approximately half the world drugs, and pays roughly double what socialized countries like Canada and the UK do. Mathematically we provide 66% of total revenues. For the sake of math simplicity we can assume Americans bought 50 pills at 2$ a pill, while socialized states got the other 50 pills at $1. Total revenues would be $150. The rate of profit at drug companies is somewhere between 6 and 15%. Assuming a 10% profit calculation, the total cost was $135, or $1.35 a pill. Americans not only were responsible for all profits, we subsidized socialized systems to the tune of 35 cents a pill. It's not hard to see why most drug trials and innovations take place in the United States.

    This is largely due to our flawed patent system, not evil insurance empires that want nothing but to grind the bones of the poor to fertilize their diamond gardens. Obamacare changes none of this. Indeed Obama has been soliciting money by the drug industry since this process started: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/he...y/09lobby.html

    I think you have a pretty long way to go if you are making the case that medical innovations haven't improved price or efficacy of procedures in 30 years. The US has a 10% higher 5-year survival rate for cancer compared to Europe. I don't know why this is so often forgotten by Progressives. I guess it doesn't conform to their world view that Europe is a Utopian paradise.

    I can get my arm set and get a splint in most socialized countries, but those procedures are trivial in most places in the United States. Wouldn't thousands flee to Canada if they offered truly free treatment to foreigners? There are no doctors left. People wait years for MRIs or travel here when their life depends on it. The system has perhaps another 10 years before it caves in on itself. Hell, Europe should be pushing for the US to stay privatized so we can continue to fund innovations their government could never conceive of.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    The US buys approximately half the world drugs, and pays roughly double what socialized countries like Canada and the UK do. Mathematically we provide 66% of total revenues. For the sake of math simplicity we can assume Americans bought 50 pills at 2$ a pill, while socialized states got the other 50 pills at $1. Total revenues would be $150. The rate of profit at drug companies is somewhere between 6 and 15%. Assuming a 10% profit calculation, the total cost was $135, or $1.35 a pill. Americans not only were responsible for all profits, we subsidized socialized systems to the tune of 35 cents a pill. It's not hard to see why most drug trials and innovations take place in the United States.

    This is largely due to our flawed patent system, not evil insurance empires that want nothing but to grind the bones of the poor to fertilize their diamond gardens. Obamacare changes none of this. Indeed Obama has been soliciting money by the drug industry since this process started: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/he...y/09lobby.html

    I think you have a pretty long way to go if you are making the case that medical innovations haven't improved price or efficacy of procedures in 30 years. The US has a 10% higher 5-year survival rate for cancer compared to Europe. I don't know why this is so often forgotten by Progressives. I guess it doesn't conform to their world view that Europe is a Utopian paradise.

    I can get my arm set and get a splint in most socialized countries, but those procedures are trivial in most places in the United States. Wouldn't thousands flee to Canada if they offered truly free treatment to foreigners? There are no doctors left. People wait years for MRIs or travel here when their life depends on it. The system has perhaps another 10 years before it caves in on itself. Hell, Europe should be pushing for the US to stay privatized so we can continue to fund innovations their government could never conceive of.
    hmmm, Canada has no doctors left, we wait years and years for MRIs... hmmm I guess, the person I saw yesterday wasnt my doctor, nor did i get a CAT scan and MRI last month... heck I had to wait a whole, what was it week. Are there issues in our system, yes. Do you subsidize our perscriptions, NO, we dont accept what the drug companies charge just because they say it costs that much. If an American company supplying a certain drug is too damn expensive, then we go to another company, usually one of the European ones. As to much of your great medical inovations, start looking at just who invented or discovered what. You may find many of the great medical discoveries were not made by Americans. gotta love this sort of thing.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS View Post
    The US buys approximately half the world drugs, and pays roughly double what socialized countries like Canada and the UK do. Mathematically we provide 66% of total revenues. For the sake of math simplicity we can assume Americans bought 50 pills at 2$ a pill, while socialized states got the other 50 pills at $1. Total revenues would be $150. The rate of profit at drug companies is somewhere between 6 and 15%. Assuming a 10% profit calculation, the total cost was $135, or $1.35 a pill. Americans not only were responsible for all profits, we subsidized socialized systems to the tune of 35 cents a pill. It's not hard to see why most drug trials and innovations take place in the United States.

    This is largely due to our flawed patent system, not evil insurance empires that want nothing but to grind the bones of the poor to fertilize their diamond gardens. Obamacare changes none of this. Indeed Obama has been soliciting money by the drug industry since this process started: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/he...y/09lobby.html

    I think you have a pretty long way to go if you are making the case that medical innovations haven't improved price or efficacy of procedures in 30 years. The US has a 10% higher 5-year survival rate for cancer compared to Europe. I don't know why this is so often forgotten by Progressives. I guess it doesn't conform to their world view that Europe is a Utopian paradise.

    I can get my arm set and get a splint in most socialized countries, but those procedures are trivial in most places in the United States. Wouldn't thousands flee to Canada if they offered truly free treatment to foreigners? There are no doctors left. People wait years for MRIs or travel here when their life depends on it. The system has perhaps another 10 years before it caves in on itself. Hell, Europe should be pushing for the US to stay privatized so we can continue to fund innovations their government could never conceive of.
    Excuse me for being specific, but "most drug trials and innovations taking place in the US" is not the same thing as "90% of drugs are developed in this country". Roche and Glaxo-Smith-Kline would beg to differ. Additionally spending more for drugs than other countries also doesn't mean that we develop more drugs here. We use a lot of drugs, we spend more than any other single country for drugs, so there is a huge market. Don't confuse getting drugs approved for sale here and developing them here. They are very different.

    Improvement in cancer survival rates is not "forgotten by progressives". We get more preventive cancer screening than some other countries, but ONLY because Medicare started paying for screening services, which forced the hand of private insurers. We do get more colonoscopy and mammography than many other countries, but assigning the totality of the improvement to drugs and procedures is incorrect. Europe uses the same chemotherapeutic agents we do, and the most advanced radiation therapy devices are made in Germany.

    And lastly, according to many Canadians who have weighed in on their health care system in this forum, they do not "wait years for an MRI". One Canadian is living here while his wife is doing a residency in St. Louis and he feels there is very little difference in the quality of care provided. That is totally anecdotal, but there's much hard data about the satisfaction of Canadians with their health care system that are not congruent with your comments.
  20. #100  
    I’ve often thought you shouldn’t be allowed to vote for a particular party or person, but rather fill out a questionnaire with a simple list of issues that the candidates disagree (but no mention of which candidate is on which side). Whichever candidate matches your answers the best is the one that gets your vote. That way all votes would be “educated” to some degree and it wouldn’t be so much of a popularity contest. I can’t stand those people who vote straight ticket and walk away.
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions