rhys 0 #51 July 27, 2008 You can still choose to have insurance and use private hospitals you know... That is your choice."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #52 July 27, 2008 Quote Quote OK, dude. ONE MORE TIME (then I have to ignore you and work on my caselist... regardless of what is posted next) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-New Zealand residents Health services are funded for New Zealand residents. People who are not permanent residents can be charged for their healthcare. Nobody can be refused emergency care because they cannot pay, although they may be sent a bill later. Treatment after an accident is free or heavily subsidised for all people whether or not they are New Zealand residents. If you have been granted refugee status, you have the same rights as New Zealand residents. If you have been granted a temporary permit while your application for refugee status is processed and you intend to remain in New Zealand for two years or more, you have the same rights as New Zealand residents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You Ignore the word Free there, heavily subsidised means you may have to pay for some (subsidised) pain killers once you leave the hospital. You will not be charged for any treatment made in the hospital. I have first hand experience with this, do you? How do you suggest that is bad. "Nobody can be refused emergency care because they cannot pay, although they may be sent a bill later." Sounds kinda like you may be paying out of pocket for health care to me. "Treatment after an accident is free OR heavily subsidised...." That's an important OR. Sounds likely that patients will be paying out of pocket for health care to some degree or other. Don't see anything in there about having to pay something for pain killers only. Where do you read that? linz edited to add: if I were to get injured in New Zealand, I would certainly pay for the healthcare that I received. I would not expect y'all to pick up my tab. If I were unable to pay....well, then how the hell did I get to NZ anyway???? -- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #53 July 27, 2008 Quote Public education is free K-12 here in the USA - courtesy of state governments. I do NOT want to government to do for U.S. health care what it's done for our education system. Socializing health care won't exactly cure budge woes, BTW. I would simply disagree that K-12 is free. I own a home and pay in excess of $6,000 a year in school taxes. But I do agree with you statement that the Government would in deed screw up the Health Care system much like they have done with our schools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #54 July 27, 2008 > edited to add: if I were to get injured in New Zealand, I would certainly pay for the healthcare that I received. I would not expect y'all to pick up my tab. If I were unable to pay....well, then how the hell did I get to NZ anyway? I just wanted to add, If I entered the US illegally and was to be injured say in the state of Texas I would exspect not only to receive medical treatment with three meals a day, but a nice comfy bed and TV absolutly free. Well at least free to me, not to the tax payers of Texas. Hell in San Fran I would'nt exspect to be turned over to ICE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #55 July 27, 2008 Quote > edited to add: if I were to get injured in New Zealand, I would certainly pay for the healthcare that I received. I would not expect y'all to pick up my tab. If I were unable to pay....well, then how the hell did I get to NZ anyway? I just wanted to add, If I entered the US illegally and was to be injured say in the state of Texas I would exspect not only to receive medical treatment with three meals a day, but a nice comfy bed and TV absolutly free. Well at least free to me, not to the tax payers of Texas. Hell in San Fran I would'nt exspect to be turned over to ICE. Well, you'd get your way. You'd get good healthcare and probably never pay a penny, even for your meals and satellite tv. If I were you (or anyone in that situation), I'd prefer not to be such a drain and accept a little responsibility for myself. That being said, I'm making quite a lot of money right now as a physician. Funny thing is, though, that the biggest part of my income comes from a government-subsidized program that I'm the medical director for. I get paid by taxpayers to do next to nothing. That's government efficiency. The rest of my income comes from the private sector/private insurance. I work REALLY long, hard hours for that. I have no doubt that my income, if broken down into an hourly wage, would compete with that of most folks with a B.S. In one field or another. Meanwhile, I'm grateful for those taxpayer dollars that are allowing me to sunbathe in the buff this afternoon with Toby Keith coming clear over my outdoor Klipsch speakers.... Thank you federal health programs. :) Linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #56 July 27, 2008 QuoteAh...the command condition/rank structure you cite debunks your point. How so? Do you really think all four vocations would provide the same income (or the cook would make the most, if bonuses are considered) in a capitalist economy? The military is a socialist structure, or, more accurately, as Labrys pointed out, a communist structure. QuoteI understand what you're saying, but in a socialist system look at the federal minimum wage or certain union environments as a means of comparison. The minimum wage is indeed an indication of a mixed economy. Union environments are much less so. How much less depends on the state. QuoteThat's not an absolute. There are economic and political models for socialism each with subjective views of pros and cons. Yes, that is an absolute. Regardless of what political parties may refer to themselves as, socialism, communism and capitalism are all economic types, not government types.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #57 July 27, 2008 Quote"Nobody can be refused emergency care because they cannot pay, although they may be sent a bill later." Sounds kinda like you may be paying out of pocket for health care to me. "Treatment after an accident is free OR heavily subsidised...." That's an important OR. Sounds likely that patients will be paying out of pocket for health care to some degree or other. Don't see anything in there about having to pay something for pain killers only. Where do you read that? linz edited to add: if I were to get injured in New Zealand, I would certainly pay for the healthcare that I received. I would not expect y'all to pick up my tab. If I were unable to pay....well, then how the hell did I get to NZ anyway???? I didn't read that, i know that because i have been through thas system a few times. if you wanted to pay for your emergency services, you would probably be able to, but you would get some funny looks when you suggested that you pay. I reaaly doubt that you would fork out for what it would cost for a rod in your fimur or similar if you had that done... it wouldn't be cheap. Anyway this conversation has been turned around, NZ has socialised healthcare and it works very well for most cases. Our military is limited to what we need (peacekeeping corps etc.) and we don't have bums on the street. I am wondering how those that oppose socialised healthcare, feel about the govornment spending frivilously your tax dollars into private companies such as lockheed martin etc. These companies already have Billions if not Trillions of your hard earned money while you pay through your teeth to have your broken arm fixed?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #58 July 28, 2008 QuoteQuote Then you have Administrators with no real medical background or understanding deciding what patients need. That's already happening with managed care as it is. On the flip side of that, asking your doctor / nurse about what treatment you need runs you into the same issues as asking your mechanic what kind of work needs to be done on your car. Doctors & nurses face incentives to recommend care above and beyond what is appropriate because it means more pay & prestige for them. Case in point, extreme measures for the terminally ill are famously overprescribed in the US resulting in significant expense at little patient benefit. Rising incidence of C-sections instead of vaginal delivery, etc. In terms of optimizing cost/benefit we're better off not putting decisions in the hands of doctors. WTH?!?!? What possible incentive do nurses have to recommend more care????????----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 49 #59 July 28, 2008 Quote ...with Toby Keith coming clear over my outdoor Klipsch speakers.... This Toby chap sounds like a very fit and healthy lad! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #60 July 29, 2008 Quote Not at all. Government pretty much fucks up everything it does Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #61 July 29, 2008 Quote Quote Not at all. Government pretty much fucks up everything it does Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again? Perhaps he meant the military in general.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #62 July 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Not at all. Government pretty much fucks up everything it does Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again? Perhaps he meant the military in general. Funny, isn't it? US govt. spends as much as all other nations combined on the military, but the righties don't make a peep about that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #63 July 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Not at all. Government pretty much fucks up everything it does Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again? Perhaps he meant the military in general. Funny, isn't it? US govt. spends as much as all other nations combined on the military, but the righties don't make a peep about that. I am a conservitive but i think i can answer you question. That is why we are the supper power. I know you leftys dont like war or confrontations, but that is the only reason you leftys can speak your hate speach freely. I dont care for the gov. at all. They do not represent the average citizen. They represent special interast groups. We have to cover our own ass in the US, so yes our military has to be big. Before you say the only reply you ever say to me Kallend. I know i cant spell and dont give a shit. If you cant reply with facts about the topic then no need to respond. Everbody knows you know how to spell You are so cool!Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 July 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI think the biggest hinderence to the USofA being converted to socialised health is the cost, Well, that and the loss of income by insurance companies and firm opposition by those in the medical profession who fear loss of profit and status. They have most of the pie and they want to keep it. Because, of course, Comrade Doktor should be willing to accept what the Duma decides to give them?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 July 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Not at all. Government pretty much fucks up everything it does Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again? Perhaps he meant the military in general. Funny, isn't it? US govt. spends as much as all other nations combined on the military, but the righties don't make a peep about that. That's because the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #66 July 30, 2008 QuoteThat's because the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. Who said anything about having the best military? We have the most expensive military. All that money doesn't seem to help us win the unpopular/needless wars we start.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #67 July 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteThat's because the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. Who said anything about having the best military? We have the most expensive military. All that money doesn't seem to help us win the unpopular/needless wars we start. Once again, you mistake military budget with combat operations appropriations.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #68 July 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteWho said anything about having the best military? We have the most expensive military. All that money doesn't seem to help us win the unpopular/needless wars we start. Once again, you mistake military budget with combat operations appropriations. If you only fund combat operations, the prominence of the US military as the world’s best – by far – will not last. (E.g., we all remember what percentage of the Soviet GDP was spent on the military in 1989, yes? Funding combat operations does not necessarily create the 'best'.) The nexus between technology and military is not just a speculation but a reality that has often determined the outcome of war and been critical variable in international security: technological research and miltray advantage are intricately tied. Dominance in both conventional and sophisticated military operations by the US has been enabled by technological advantage in precision; speed; stealth; and tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) as compared to adversaries. (See, e.g., Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study on 21St Century Technology Vectors, February 2007; EA Cohen, “A Revolution in Warfare,” Foreign Affairs, 75, March/April 1996, p. 41; COL TX Hammes, USMC (ret) The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century, (Zenith Press; New Ed edition, 2006)). Equally innovative and more revolutionary capabilities will be required in order to ensure dominance and security in the 21st century—when adversaries span from peer competitor nation-states to disperse insurgencies and lone-wolf non-state actors. During the Cold War, technological superiority was the strategic differentiator for the United States. Scientific and technological innovation have been the backbone of American economic, military, and political power since the advent of the industrial revolution. Federal support for research and development was invigorated by the arguments and evidence put forth in Vannevar Bush’s now-famous report to the President in July 1945. (Vannevar Bush. “Science: The Endless Frontier,” (United States Government Printing Office, Washington: July 1945). At that time, the revolutionary power and security implications of research-driven development of the atomic bomb was palpable to American policy makers, the civilian leadership in the Department of War, and the armed forces. Advances in federally-sponsored technology made the US and its armed forces the most technologically advanced in the world. When the adversary is a non-state actor or insurgency, those strategic differentiators are not as conclusive. (And it's not just US in the 21st Century to experience that.) Having the best military and the best defense in the world is a lot more than funding combat operations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #69 July 30, 2008 QuoteOnce again, you mistake military budget with combat operations appropriations. No mistake. Just pointing out that highest funding != highest quality.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #70 July 30, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Not at all. Government pretty much fucks up everything it does Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again? Perhaps he meant the military in general. Funny, isn't it? US govt. spends as much as all other nations combined on the military, but the righties don't make a peep about that. That's because the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. Are you expecting all the other nations of the world to gang up on us, then? Otherwise we only need to outspend #2 and its allies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #71 July 30, 2008 Quote I am a conservitive but i think i can answer you question. That is why we are the supper power. So what. While that may have meant something when we were out-spending the Soviets into cold-war defeat, the landscape is different now and we're outspending an impotent #2 (they want to sell us stuff) to the tune of $4,000 per tax paying family annually. Instead of bragging rights I'd prefer that in a retirement account. Quote I know you leftys dont like war or confrontations, but that is the only reason you leftys can speak your hate speach freely. Canada and countries of Europe are no less free due to a foreign invader in spite of radically lower military spending during modern times. In spite of having a similar land mass to defend the Canadians are making do with 1/30th of what we bleed each year. For most metrics of freedom (speech outside designated free speech zones, types of firearms we can own like machine guns, sex with prostitutes, soft drugs, open markets, name your metric) there's some place spending a fraction of our budget and having more freedom. OTOH, the next two countries rounding out the podium are China and Russia so maybe more military spending means less freedom. I don't have a moral problem with people who kill other people who've decided to use force against them. Scum that don't want that sort of attention can keep to themselves. While some of the rest of the world gets their panties in a knot when the dirty work isn't done on behalf of a government, nearly every one's all for a good ass kicking when that's what it takes to keeping their city streets free from terrorists. We band together when necessary. We came together against Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini. Forty countries sent troops to Afghanistan. Insisting on doing it alone is just an expensive matter of pride when you don't have ulterior motives. Compare the three million million dollars (that puts it in perspective) spent each year by the US government to the paltry sums controlled by industry giants and the ulterior motives are obvious. Microsoft only clears sixty thousand million before they pay their suppliers and share holders. Exxon-Mobile only moves 404 thousand million. They're babies compared to the US government in terms of the money they can spend and resulting power they can exercise. That's what the defense budget is about - guys getting their rocks off in a way they couldn't sitting on the board or acting as CEO in the Global 100. Rather than having to send out dividends, the guys running the Global 1 get the share holders to pay! Quote I dont care for the gov. at all. They do not represent the average citizen. They represent special interast groups. We have to cover our own ass in the US, so yes our military has to be big. Hogwash. The few countries who still refuse to realize war is bad for business (the McDonald's theory of diplomacy is interesting) have piss-assed little military forces the rest of us can crush with impunity when they push us. Big standing armies are only useful for maintaining an empire (all of which have fallen) and controlling your own people. Conservatism means the Monroe Doctrine and Federalist Papers, not getting in-line behind guys who look like fiscal bed-wetting liberals when compared to Clinton. Ahh, those were the good old days for a Conservative. Wellfare reform AND a balanced budget (according to accepted accounting practices)! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #72 July 30, 2008 Quote [reply That's because the most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military. Are you expecting all the other nations of the world to gang up on us, then? Otherwise we only need to outspend #2 and its allies. yeach 'cause eveyone knows the reason why Afganistan and iraq, and vietnam last so long is because of their weapons spending bugetYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
