dreamdancer 0 #26 March 6, 2009 Quote I work in healthcare so I can rant on this one. let me guess - you're the accountant who sends out the bills with the big smile on his face?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #27 March 6, 2009 There is a reason that people come to the united states for medical care....because its one of if not the best in the world....why? Because its not nationalized. Look at nations with nationalized health care. Its crap! The bill in the supposed "stimulus package" set up a system which medical care is determined for each individual by a goverment board just like in the UK. Well in the UK health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. That sound like a good idea? Why can people not see that its been tried and doesn't work! We didn't get to be the great nation we are through socialism but freedom and capitalism!!!! I want the United States of America not the Federaly Controlled States of Socialism! How is it that people don't know world history enough or even current affairs enough to know what works and what doesn't. Why model ourselves after a failing system! The way things are going we mind as well go live under Chavez! If you don't want freedom...if you don't want the Constitution....Capitalism...etc. then there are plenty of other communist and socialist countries out there for you. Leave and go to them and leave this nation alone! If socialism is so great then go to the socialist countries but don't try to make this one into one! Its unconstitutional! It is against everything this country was founded on and everything this country was designed to prevent in a government! If you think we are going to fail because of our free and capitalist ways....fine! Leave and let us fail but don't go against the founding documents of this country! In fact it is socialism that got us into this economic mess in the first place. The current government claims its the banks fault for giving out too many loans but then turns around and says we have to get the banks to start giving out more loans to get the economy to recover. What? Did they also forget that years ago the banks weren't giving out as many loans so the government stepped in to make the banks give out more loans! The banks tried to forclosure on homes people had defaulted on so the government stepped in and said they could forclose on them because of all these poor helpless people the government told the banks to give loans to because the government would protect the banks with insurance but then when the time comes they don't protect the banks but the people that lied and said they would pay back the money but didn't! Nationalization and socialization is a failure and is what brought us to this point and is sure not going to fix it! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #28 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteOne of the principles of the framers of the constitution was the highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations. I've read the Constitution many times, from Preamble to Amendment XXVII, and there is no mention of a free market economy, nor are there any comparisons of different economic systems in there. Furthermore, there's no mention of the need to keep government regulations to a minimum. Have you ever even read the document? It also doesn't say anything about free healthcare, medicaid, minimum wage, welfare, progessive tax systems, etc. The pursuit of happiness is different than government subsidized handouts in an attempt to make everyone happy. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOne of the principles of the framers of the constitution was the highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations. I've read the Constitution many times, from Preamble to Amendment XXVII, and there is no mention of a free market economy, nor are there any comparisons of different economic systems in there. Furthermore, there's no mention of the need to keep government regulations to a minimum. Have you ever even read the document? It also doesn't say anything about free healthcare, medicaid, minimum wage, welfare, progessive tax systems, etc. The pursuit of happiness is different than government subsidized handouts in an attempt to make everyone happy. That sounds like a "No." "Pursuit of happiness?" In which article is that mentioned?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #30 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuote I work in healthcare so I can rant on this one. let me guess - you're the accountant who sends out the bills with the big smile on his face? Look at the post again- I didn't say that; the person I responded to said it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #31 March 6, 2009 QuoteLook at the post again- I didn't say that; the person I responded to said it. you're right - i misquoted you it's that millertime dude who's the accountant!stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #32 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOne of the principles of the framers of the constitution was the highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations. I've read the Constitution many times, from Preamble to Amendment XXVII, and there is no mention of a free market economy, nor are there any comparisons of different economic systems in there. Furthermore, there's no mention of the need to keep government regulations to a minimum. Have you ever even read the document? It also doesn't say anything about free healthcare, medicaid, minimum wage, welfare, progessive tax systems, etc. The pursuit of happiness is different than government subsidized handouts in an attempt to make everyone happy. Some would point to the clause in the pre-amble about the general welfare of the citizens in counterpoint. I would tell those people to read it as written. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It says "promote" the general welfare. That's very different than to "provide" for the general welfare. The framers were very careful when crafting the Constitution, drawing distinctions through the use of specific words and phrases. It does say "secure the blessings of liberty". You know, like the government not controlling me. Government regulation is as much oppression as any other form, even if it doesn't involve torture rooms or trips to a gulag.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #33 March 6, 2009 QuoteI will reoterate my argument of health care. There are 3 things you look for - policy wise - with health care: 1) High quality; 2) Inexpensive; and 3) Available on demand. You can only get 100% of two of them. You are correct. If you want Mayo level of care, that everyone can afford, available on demand - - ain't gonna happen, a non-starter, by definition utterly impossible. But good quality of care, at a reasonable price, available to all when they need it is very doable. We don't need 100% on any of them; though I'm not sure how what we do need gets turned into a percentage for the things you list. It will require some level of subsidization and redistribution of wealth, but we've moved way past that point anyway. Key points to a solution have been posted elsewhere. Everybody that knows the business knows this, but too many that are in the business are afraid for their little corner of the world. Cost of care must be addressed. Everything else is just delaying any real fix." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #34 March 6, 2009 Quote It says "promote" the general welfare. That's very different than to "provide" for the general welfare. Correct. Promote is a broader term that could include provide, among other methods. Quote It does say "secure the blessings of liberty". You know, like the government not controlling me. Seems to be a discontinuity in your logic there. Securing the blessings of liberty does not imply that the government cannot provide and enforce regulations and laws for citizens. In fact, Article 1 explicitly empowers Congress to provide for the general welfare: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" Considering the FF gave Congress the power to legislate and regulate in Article 1, your assertion seems especially difficult to defend. Quote Government regulation is as much oppression as any other form, even if it doesn't involve torture rooms or trips to a gulag. Uh, yeah, sure. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #35 March 6, 2009 Quote Quote It says "promote" the general welfare. That's very different than to "provide" for the general welfare. Correct. Promote is a broader term that could include provide, among other methods. That won't fly. If the government is to "provide", there would be no need to "promote". The difference between the two terms is pretty obvious. Unless you're one of those that believes the Constitution is a "living document" subject to the definitions of the day.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,454 #36 March 6, 2009 >If the government is to "provide", there would be no need to "promote". The >difference between the two terms is pretty obvious. Right. Which is why the Constitution says Congress will PROVIDE for the general welfare. (Hint - the constitution is more than one sentence long.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #37 March 6, 2009 Quote>If the government is to "provide", there would be no need to "promote". The >difference between the two terms is pretty obvious. Right. Which is why the Constitution says Congress will PROVIDE for the general welfare. (Hint - the constitution is more than one sentence long.) Article 1, sec 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.... Not a word in there about providing for individual welfare. That's where pursuit of happiness comes in. It's not the federal governments job to take care of any individual person - according to the Constituion anyway.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millertime24 8 #38 March 6, 2009 You couldn't be more wrong. Check out my profile under the "occupation" part. Yes I put hands on patients. What the fuck do you do?Muff #5048 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #39 March 6, 2009 QuoteI get that, but if we DIDN'T give away FREE healthcare to every Tom, Dick, and Pedro that showed up in the ER without and way of paying for it then it wouldn't cost nearly what it does today and maybe, just maybe more people COULD actually afford it without any type of government intervention. put your prejudices away and do your job - treating the sick (i don't think the hippocratic oath mentions what colour is the patient or how much insurance they've got)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 March 6, 2009 Quoteif you don't want to have trouble with medical bills then get a national health service asap! So we can have less effective and more rationed care at a higher cost? Thanks, but no thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #41 March 6, 2009 Quote So we can have less effective and more rationed care at a higher cost? Thanks, but no thanks. Haven't we been through this. Americans pay considerably more per capita (for health care) than any other industrialized country and still have lousy general health. What you do have is a greater freedom of capital... and thats ok, but don't say that publicly funded health care is less efficient. That is a lie that you can't make the truth even if you say so a thousand times. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 March 6, 2009 QuoteQuote So we can have less effective and more rationed care at a higher cost? Thanks, but no thanks. Haven't we been through this. Americans pay considerably more per capita (for health care) than any other industrialized country and still have lousy general health. What you do have is a greater freedom of capital... and thats ok, but don't say that publicly funded health care is less efficient. That is a lie that you can't make the truth even if you say so a thousand times. /Martin And you insisting it is doesn't make it true, even if you say it a thousand times. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5108 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=amVFPFBe40Ak&refer=exclusive http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4618 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1503982/Birthplace-of-NHS-finds-deficit-solution-shut-down-a-hospital.html Yup, that's some high efficiency, all right... Can the USA do better that it has? I'm sure it can. Is nationalized healthcare the answer? Nope, I don't think it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,454 #43 March 6, 2009 >Can the USA do better that it has? I'm sure it can. Is nationalized >healthcare the answer? Apparently it is, since we already have it, and it's a system you tout. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #44 March 6, 2009 QuoteIs nationalized healthcare the answer? Nope, I don't think it is. oh yes it is! (have you paid for the ten minute or the half hour arguement) when we misplaced our empire at the end of the last world war we got a shiny national health service to replace it - a bargain! (what are you getting at the end of your empire?)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 March 6, 2009 Quote>Can the USA do better that it has? I'm sure it can. Is nationalized >healthcare the answer? Apparently it is, since we already have it, and it's a system you tout. The topic of Medicare / Medicaid as 'nationalized medicine' is not what is being discussed, Bill, and you well know it. Any other red herrings lurking in your keyboard, or are you done, now?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 March 6, 2009 Quotewhen we misplaced our empire at the end of the last world war we got a shiny national health service to replace it - a bargain! Boy, did you get ripped off.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,454 #47 March 6, 2009 >The topic of Medicare / Medicaid as 'nationalized medicine' is not what is >being discussed, Bill, and you well know it. Right. Why are you bringing it up? I am talking about the ability of any person in the US being able to walk into any ER and get free medical care. That's socialized medicine. It just doesn't work very well now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 March 6, 2009 QuoteI am talking about the ability of any person in the US being able to walk into any ER and get free medical care. That's socialized medicine. It just doesn't work very well now. Abuse of EMS is damn sure NOT 'nationalized health care' - what is it with you and the false arguments lately, Bill?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #49 March 6, 2009 QuoteBoy, did you get ripped off. you haven't said what you're getting now your empire is gone. (is it nothing except socialised banking?)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 March 6, 2009 Aren't you supposed to be chasing the Billy Goats Gruff, or something?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
