Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

[Roger Hicks]

I don't want "government-controlled health care insurers". I want single payer. I want to pay my taxes and go to the doctor who gets a piece of my taxes.

Dear Bill,

Like the rest of the civilized world, or at least, the rich bits.

I can understand Bill M.'s intellectual objections to the existing bills, even if I think he's wrong. But I can't even understand digitalintrigue's absolutist assertions, which are completely divorced from the real world of a mixed economy.

Whio else has read Riis's How The Other Half Lives? And of those who have, who can see the parallels between both the slum landlords and the slum dwellers in the late 19th century, and health care providers and anyone wo is less than (a) very rich or (b) working for an employer who pays their health insirance, in the early 21st?
Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul T.]

Public schools? Just a guess.

No, I wager he's not from a public school.

How little you understand other cultures. I presume you like it that way.

 

[wgerrard]

...i will not be ABLE to legally go live in a cabin in Alaska without purchasing health insurance.

Bill, if you go live in a cabin in Alaska, you will have to abide by the regulations surrounding land use and construction. You'll need to pay Alaskan taxes. You'll need to give the state your address so you can get your cut of the oil windfall. Would do those things offend you?

 

[Paul T.]

Whio else has read Riis's How The Other Half Lives? And of those who have, who can see the parallels between both the slum landlords and the slum dwellers in the late 19th century, and health care providers and anyone wo is less than (a) very rich or (b) working for an employer who pays their health insirance, in the early 21st?
Cheers,

R.

A fair point; he's living through the 1930s. As Roger will know, even the right in Britain, who bemoaned the loss of an empire, supported the creation of a national health system.

It's good capitalism, after all - less expensive than the US system, with better health outcomes. Although bettered, as all my French friends and relative tell me, by their system.

 

[ferider]

Whio else has read Riis's How The Other Half Lives? And of those who have, who can see the parallels between both the slum landlords and the slum dwellers in the late 19th century, and health care providers and anyone wo is less than (a) very rich or (b) working for an employer who pays their health insirance, in the early 21st?
Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

a nice emotional argument. But it ignores the fact that current US health care is too expensive when compared with the rest of the world (http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2009/en/index.html), and approval of the existing bills will worsen that.

Roland.

PS: so is the public school system, BTW.

 

[splitimageview]

I can understand Bill M.'s intellectual objections to the existing bills, even if I think he's wrong. But I can't even understand digitalintrigue's absolutist assertions, which are completely divorced from the real world of a mixed economy.

My assertions are simply that government, specifically, the US government, has an utterly miserable track record with regards to managing any of these kinds of programs. No one has disputed that fact, as it is not divorced from any reality and has little or nothing do with 'mixed economies.'

 

[wgerrard]

Mandatory purchase of health care? That requires an amendment at the very least, it's a much bigger deal than banning booze.

You're arguing about mandatory insurance, when I want the linkage between insurance and health care to vanish. I don't want the purchase of insurance, mandated or otherwise, to be a prerequisite for access to health care.

Arguing that the present legislation doesn't encompass that is beside the point.

States typically require that drivers have insurance or post bonds to assure financial responsibility. Has that been challenged in court? Life is full of things we are required to do. Few of them are mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Just quoting your own words, Roger.



Thanks Roger, you've proven my point. Government education does not guarantee actual education, anymore than government healthcare guarantees health.

And you've proven mine. NO education guarantees universal actual learning, especially if you set up your own definitions of 'learning', any more than ANY health system guarantees universal health, regardless of how you define 'health'.

You simply have a doctrinaire belief that you are right, and the rest of the world (with compulsory education and, outside the USA, universal health care) is wrong. To quote the late Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Then again, you've already said you don't care about the views of the majority. Which means, presumably, that you don't care about democracy either.

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

Roger, the views of the majority, as I posted earlier, show that Americans are happy with their healthcare.

I am simply stating that we should not continue to create new government programs when the government has proven that it only fails with such programs.

If the government had a track record of running the post office in the black, which it has not done despite having a monopoly, if Social Security were in the black, if Medicare where in the black, just to name three...perhaps I could be convinced otherwise.

 

[splitimageview]

States typically require that drivers have insurance or post bonds to assure financial responsibility. Has that been challenged in court? Life is full of things we are required to do. Few of them are mentioned in the Constitution.

Yes, because a driver's license is not a right. And this brings up a good point...state's rights, powers not granted to the federal government. If ever there were government healthcare, it would arguably be from the state, not the feds.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My assertions are simply that government, specifically, the US government, has an utterly miserable track record with regards to managing any of these kinds of programs. No one has disputed that fact, as it is not divorced from any reality and has little or nothing do with 'mixed economies.'

Well, they won World War Two, both directly and by proxy (Lend-Lease), despite joining in late. That was over the objections of Nazi sympathizers (who were far from unknown) and know-nothings.

I do not regard it as unrealistic to equate the current far right, who are doing their best to sabotage health care, with Nazi sympathizers or at least the know-nothings of the 1930s. (EDIT: I do not wish to tar you with that brush, but this strikes me as the general level of argument).

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

Yes, because a driver's license is not a right. And this brings up a good point...state's rights, powers not granted to the federal government. If ever there were government healthcare, it would arguably be from the state, not the feds.

So, health care is a right, then?

 

[Thardy]

Wich is a movie, as in fiction loosely based on isolated facts.
Or do you find the "son" a real person?

The problem is not the wealthy Canadians being anle to get immediate treatment instead of waiting.
Does everybody, like a person losing his job and no longer able to pay insurance, get treatment in the US?

I live in Europe and what do I now about the situation in the US is based on hearsay so I ask; does a person down on his luck gets good medical care? And how does this work?

In a word , yes. But then the people taking care of them would rather they had insurance, because it would prevent overuse of Emergency Rooms.

Also there are many programs in the US which addresses the issue of the poor person and insurance. There are federal and state programs which try to provide insurance for this group of people. The states which have done this has deemed that it is too expensive to continue an aggressive program providing free care to everyone (who was eligible) in the state, so they asked these people to pay a very small amount of a premium. Many thought the drastically reduced reduced premiums were still too expensive and let the policy lapse.

 

[splitimageview]

It was only a matter of time until 'Nazi' was brought up. Sigh.

There's an app for that, I hear. 🙂

Well, they won World War Two, both directly and by proxy (Lend-Lease), despite joining in late. That was over the objections of Nazi sympathizers (who were far from unknown) and know-nothings.

I do not regard it as unrealistic to equate the current far right, who are doing their best to sabotage health care, with Nazi sympathizers and know-nothings of the 1930s.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

I'd like those arguing from the right to explain how a for-profit system can provide care for all. I'd like to see examples of societies that actually did that.

(Sending people to the emergency room doesn't count. You can't get six months of chemotherapy for free at the emergency room, for starters.)

My mother was turned out of a hospital bed against her doctor's orders by her insurer, and subsequently died. Her doctor was on the phone to her insurer in California while I was in the room. They said they wouldn't pay, a decision rooted in that private for-profit corporations need to make profit.

I want those on the right to explain how anything they have said would change that scenario. And, if you are not interested in seeing it change, please be honest enough to say that.

 

[wgerrard]

I do not regard it as unrealistic to equate the current far right, who are doing their best to sabotage health care, with Nazi sympathizers or at least the know-nothings of the 1930s. (EDIT: I do not wish to tar you with that brush, but this strikes me as the general level of argument).

Cheers,

R.

They certainly share many similarities, Roger. Adoration of the state. Faith in The Leader and a readiness to cede power to that leader. Distrust of Others. Transfer of blame to Others. A conviction that nationhood is defined by genetic and religious components. The belief that "their people" are singled out by God. Etc. But, the right takes great offense if you call them on it.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Wow, what an interesting thread that has lead me to believe that nearly everyone in the US agrees that the health care as it stands now is not working too well. There are two opposed views on how to fix it and the bill that is proposed to so satisfies neither side to any great extent and will make things worse. I can understand Bill's opposition to it. I live in Ontario, Canada and had the opportunity to talk to a Minnesota resident about his health care costs. He told me what his monthly bill for health care for his family was and that just floored me. I suggested that his personal taxes must be much lower than mine but turns out it wasn't really if you at the day you are tax free and working for yourself. We are supposedly paying higher taxes in part because we have a form of national health care. I guess I was mistaken, no what you make on the beer you loose on the peanuts quid pro quo, in Minnesota at least. I don't know how that adds up but I will stay with what I have and oppose the privatization of health care here. The best of luck to all south of the border in finding a workable and equitable system of health care.

Bob

 

[gb hill]

There are plenty of good people who aren't Christians, and plenty of Christians who aren't good. Surely you cannot deny that there are plenty on the far right who seem to think that their Christian faith obliges them to be on the far right, and who constantly push a hardline Christian agenda. Well, not really Christian, because it's based on hate and intolerance, but that's what they say it is.

When they stop associating Christianity and extreme right-wing politics, so will the rest of us. In the UK, in fact, the closest association between religion and Christianity is almost certainly on the left: particularly, Methodism and the Labour Party. In fact, the post-war welfare state was widely lauded as the New Jerusalem.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger I agree with what you are saying but Bill keeps bring up fundamentalist christians & in post 292 before he edited it out made the statement that the Republican party with the religious rights ideas are liken to a cult. Well thats his opinion to say so
but what Bill ignores is that the Republican Party is drifting away from it's identity from the religious right & becoming more moderate, hence John McCain. The republicans still needing the christian vote choose Sarah Pailin as a running mate. After the loss the party pretty much spit on her so now, hence her book 'Going Rouge' she has ignited a firestorm that the left is afraid of so they are in a frenzy to run her down.
As far as the word christian, I don't care for it & anyone who studies the Bible knows it was the pagans @ Antioch that labeled them so. Now we have come to the point that anytime someone sees a person labeled christian do something wrong or commit a sinful act, everyone wants to run them down. Forgetting the fact that when one points a finger at someone there are 3 more pointing back at thyself. For those of you who are so facinated toward my nutty ideas, my beliefs lean strongly toward the writings of John Calvin, CH Spurgeon, & one of the greatest pulpateers of the 20 century Donald Grey Barnhouse. Do one good to study the doctrines of these great men. Now it seems all that America has to offer the masses is the modern day charismatic movement with shylocks suckering the masses with "God wants to make you a millionaire" & "It's always Gods will to heal", thats blasphemy!!

 

[dfoo]

How many stories are there of people waiting for weeks and/or months for care, only to come to the US and be treated immediately?

Check out the movie "The Barbarian Invasions."

Sure stories. Radicals will always seize on some story to make their point. For the vast majority though, that is not the case. In short, that is a crap argument! My mother had bowel cancer two years ago. She got surgery within 2 weeks. It cost her zero. Not one red cent.

Furthermore all this bureaucrat talk is nonsense too. Utter and complete scare mongering and disinteguous nonsense. DOCTORS make medical decisions, not politicians.

 

[dfoo]

...Assuming this is true, what is different about switching to a new set bureaucrats?

FUD. Doctors make medical decisions in Canada.