It’s an American TV show starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer. It has been the highest or one of the highest rated sitcoms for several years now. It’s no Doogie Houser, MD, though.*
It’s an American TV show starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer. It has been the most or one of the highest rated sitcoms for several years now. It’s Doogie Houser, MD, though.
First I have to say to the person who said how medicare was a great thing for his grandmother because it allow her not to burden her family... so it okay to burden the rest of us....
Next I know the company Dynovox and their system use to be based on macs at one time but due to some falling out, probably mostly on apple side Dynovox was forced to move to PCs. Yes their product does more than speech synthesis and support people who have other handicaps so it highly specialized products. However, it does not mean every person who has a speech problem should be force to use something that cost more than that need.
Remember people we are all paying for this, and we should not allow them to use our money this way, I do not care if it is an issuance company or the government. If they are taking money from you, whether in premiums or a tax you should have say so how that money is spent.
In this case a person is tell them the $8000 solution does not work how about the this less expensive solution, and they say no you can not have the cheaper better solution because the only approved solution is the more expensive one...
It is like those electric wheel chair commercials where the company says they will approve you and fill all the paperwork with medicare to get them reimbursed. These companies make their money off getting people very expense wheelchair which cost us all money.
Not only did I not know that either, I still have no idea how it's relevant.
It?s only relevant to the comparison that Rnp1 was making. Charlie Sheen, the top billing actor on the aforementioned show, requested a meeting with Obama over his feelings that the 9/11 tragedy was somehow covered up the US government. Rnp1 was making a comment about how the US at large is more interested in a silly situation comedy show than in politics. The connection is obviously Charlie Sheen.
It’s only relevant to the comparison that Rnp1 was making. Charlie Sheen, the top billing actor on the aforementioned show, requested a meeting with Obama over his feelings that the 9/11 tragedy was somehow covered up the US government. Rnp1 was making a comment about how the US at large is more interested in a silly situation comedy show than in politics. The connection is obviously Charlie Sheen.
Then maybe if he's worried about people who are more interested in silly situation comedy actors, he should look in a mirror. In reality, any serious debate over healthcare is being deliberately drowned out by the forces who don't want to see anything of substance happen, not I suspect by the people who think that Charlie Sheen is an intellectual.
Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.
What is a socialist country? Republicans are brilliant at taking words like liberal and socialist and green and turning them into something that everyone is supposed to be afraid of. All this talk of socialism reminds me of when Richard Nixon ran against Helen Gahagan Douglas and put out campaign literature about her on pink paper. Get it? She was a pinko!!. This is no different.
The post office is socialist
The military is socialist.
The interstate highway system is socialist.
The Federal Communications Commission is socialist.
Public libraries are socialist.
The national parks are socialist.
Medicare and Medicaid are socialist.
Social Security is socialist.
Get over it. If you eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we become a third world country. You'll have millions of people begging in the streets.
Should we eliminate all these things and replace them with McDonald's just because you're afraid of a word?
The cost of private health care insurance is rising at more than 15% per year. All these people who are defending the status quo (which they'll probably get) will be screaming again in five years when they have to drop their health care because they can no longer possibly afford it. The New York Times ran an article the other day showing the price of private health care for a family of four. I was totally shocked -- it was far more expensive than even I though it was. IIRC, average health insurance for a family of four was over $13,000 a year. And as we all know, there's plenty that the average plan doesn't cover.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that's in the current bills, but the status quo simply doesn't work. That's burying our heads in the sand. The Republicans tried to scare people with talk of "death panels", but how do they think the current system works? If you can't afford health care, you don't get treated and if you don't get treated, you die. There's no "death panel" because one isn't necessary.
Have you ever even spent time in a so-called "socialist" country? Most have far higher standards of living than the U.S. does and their people are happier.
What the question comes down to is whether everyone has the right to affordable health care or whether you believe that only those who can afford it have the right to health care.
There are no perfect solutions. Every solution has a fault.
It's amazing to me that no one questions the price of killing (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) which have cost us $912 billion, but try and do something to better our health and everyone freaks out.
Get over it. If you eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we become a third world country. You'll have millions of people begging in the streets.
What? All that stands between us and Third World Status is the governments social programs?!?
I have no idea what this means. I have to suppose that it's an effort to bury an important issue under a heap of ideological rhetoric. Sorry, but I think you are too late. It's already been done.
SADLY there are still 1/3 rd of the worlds kids go to sleepy bye hungry at night . This loss of protein at young formative years dooms too many these kids to a dull minded or weak bodied life.
Or both . this happens all across the whole world except for maybe north europe cuba and west russia .
Full heath care for all citizens of the milky way and before any country build's one more land mine we make sure all children go to sleep with a full stomach and awaken with a heavy full book bag filled with the tools to grow there beautiful minds.
Is this too much too ask ??
Sadly tens of millions of children will die in central Africa in the next 36 yrs from aids and famine drought related causes.The lands center of africa cannot support so many people and global.warming will hasten this terrible future. And unless they stop having 5 babies a piece this is un stoppable /.
As for social programs being the only thing standing between us and Third World status, there'd be no truth to this if wages for working class people hadn't been declining steadily over the last four decades. Maybe some are unclear on the concept of Third World countries -- you know, places with lots of poor people with little opportunity, a small group of very rich people, and almost nobody in the middle. We used to call that Brazilification. What do we call it now?
I wonder how much better off we'd be without those socialist concepts like Social Security, Medicare, and public universities. I wonder.
You won't have to wonder long. All those programs are going broke. The word Bankruptcy is crossing our national lips. We need reform, true. We'd like to have every American have a wonderful health care package from cradle to grave. I'd personally like it if every American had a nice home and an HD TV and a Mac.
We have to balance our desires and wishes with financial reality. Dissension is not a bad thing. Liberals play the race card often, but it's not about skin color. It's about Green. Obama has not been honest about how we are going to pay for his vision of health care. On Sunday, he wasn't even clear about the definition of a tax.
You won't have to wonder long. All those programs are going broke. The word Bankruptcy is crossing our national lips. We need reform, true. We'd like to have every American have a wonderful health care package from cradle to grave. I'd personally like it if every American had a nice home and an HD TV and a Mac.
We have to balance our desires and wishes with financial reality. Dissension is not a bad thing. Liberals play the race card often, but it's not about skin color. It's about Green. Obama has not been honest about how we are going to pay for his vision of health care. On Sunday, he wasn't even clear about the definition of a tax.
Not good.
Of course the USA needs to be realistic. That's why most "developed" countries operate on the tenet of the government providing a "safety net". If you ask them to subsidise your HDTV, most will say F* You, except for maybe Australia where they have been providing handouts to stimulate the economy... but this is an exceptional circumstance with regards to the global financial meltdown. Though countries do sometimes provide additional tax refunds in cash (eg. Bush's early this decade... which I can't remember what I spent it on when I was working in the US at that time...) so Australia is nowhere unique in providing "stimulus" funds.
I think what defines a "developed" country includes what systems and care is in place to take care, rehabilitate, and support those in the worst situations of their lives - drug/alcohol dependency, disabled, chronically ill, desperately out of a job... and not even able to pay for basic medical care.
Remove the existence of this "safety net" from a country and I would start to call it 3rd world. Big freeways, buildings and corporations does not make a 1st world country if poverty, homelessness, despair and hopelessness are rampant.
It's very interesting that you mention homes and housing. Yes, it would be nice if every American had a basic dwelling, wouldn't it? Like most other countries that provide reasonable public housing. Them first world countries.
...Maybe some are unclear on the concept of Third World countries -- you know, places with lots of poor people with little opportunity, a small group of very rich people, and almost nobody in the middle. We used to call that Brazilification. What do we call it now?...
...It's amazing to me that no one questions the price of killing (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) which have cost us $912 billion, but try and do something to better our health and everyone freaks out.
It is amazing. Isn't this stuff bankrupting the USA? And it's all going to guns, arms, private contractors, infrastructure companies, foreign companies, foreign countries...
But it is true, for the American people, the government budget and plan has to be clear. Obama was elected on hope an vision. Now to the details. ... I'm sure withdrawing gradually from wars and involvement in military actions which do not clearly increase national security saves quite a few hundred billion dollars.
Peace is good for business and saves government spending, AFAIK. Well, good for everything except maybe the oil business. The world understands if the US needs to take care of itself and pull out of hopeless fighting grounds which lack true international support.
What is a socialist country? Republicans are brilliant at taking words like liberal and socialist and green and turning them into something that everyone is supposed to be afraid of.
People of all political stripes do this. If you think Republicans are the only ones than you're clearly deluding yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
The post office is socialist
The military is socialist.
The interstate highway system is socialist.
The Federal Communications Commission is socialist.
Public libraries are socialist.
The national parks are socialist.
Medicare and Medicaid are socialist.
Social Security is socialist.
Taken straight out of Obama's speech last week. How original (give credit for this where credit is do). The question is not whether the government performs certain services (it has to, that is the function of government), but whether the government compels people to use these services. Is the government forcing me to use the post office, serve in the military, only use public libraries, etc. No.
It is also interesting that most of the organizations on your list are classic examples of government inefficiency.
Yet you expect government run healthcare to be any different. I'm not against reform. But having the government be in the healthcare business (and forcing people to participate or finining them for failing to do so) is not a good idea. Even Obama has acknowledged this at one point or another.
You'll probably find that the insurance company is either owns or has a large stake in the companies that provide the over priced equipment. A bit like the pharmaceutical giants that own the very insurance companies that sell you healthcare that prescribes drugs at vastly inflated prices!
Point taken, but I think we could also call it Americanization. The dominant economic political theory in the country over the last 30 years has been trickle-down: If you encourage the rich to become very, very rich, eventually some of that wealth will trickle down to the middle class. So we grew the class of the super-rich, but the middle class has continued to be hammered. Not that the theory has changed to accommodate reality. Lots of people still believe in it. Actually that's the polite way to put it. More probably they simply do not care -- things are the way they ought to have always been.
Taken in the context of healthcare, the issue comes into sharp relief. As an example, I am a small businessperson. My insurance premiums are now 20% of my gross income. Yes, you read that right. And growing at an alarming rate. Add to that, I am uninsurable -- I only have the staggeringly expensive health insurance policy I have now because I bought it before I had my health issues. By law they can't cancel me so long as I pay, but they can raise my rates steadily so eventually I won't be able to pay. Nice system -- I wonder who thought of it?
Knowing what I know now, would I have left my government job 20 years ago to go into business? Almost certainly not. And this is good for the U.S. economy and our quality of life? Not either. But again, I see that a large segment of people will do lip-service to the realities that middle class Americans face, but by their actions, clearly indicate that in reality, they simply do not care.
I think you just put people on the defensive when you started off by suggesting that functional universal healthcare requires socialism. That's a big jump that will always rub supporters the wrong way.
I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. How do we know equality is moral? Some people would say that taking money off someone who earned it (to create the equality) is immoral.
And how do we know what is and is not a proper function of government? It's a grey area and I don't think either side is *obviously* wrong.
I think it goes something like ..."of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE .... not .... of ME for ME .... no?
Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?
Thanks!
Hmm maybe they've taking a clue from the way they ran the economy into the ground? Hmm?
Comments
what is two half and half men??
It’s an American TV show starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer. It has been the highest or one of the highest rated sitcoms for several years now. It’s no Doogie Houser, MD, though.*
It’s an American TV show starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer. It has been the most or one of the highest rated sitcoms for several years now. It’s Doogie Houser, MD, though.
Not only did I not know that either, I still have no idea how it's relevant.
Next I know the company Dynovox and their system use to be based on macs at one time but due to some falling out, probably mostly on apple side Dynovox was forced to move to PCs. Yes their product does more than speech synthesis and support people who have other handicaps so it highly specialized products. However, it does not mean every person who has a speech problem should be force to use something that cost more than that need.
Remember people we are all paying for this, and we should not allow them to use our money this way, I do not care if it is an issuance company or the government. If they are taking money from you, whether in premiums or a tax you should have say so how that money is spent.
In this case a person is tell them the $8000 solution does not work how about the this less expensive solution, and they say no you can not have the cheaper better solution because the only approved solution is the more expensive one...
It is like those electric wheel chair commercials where the company says they will approve you and fill all the paperwork with medicare to get them reimbursed. These companies make their money off getting people very expense wheelchair which cost us all money.
Not only did I not know that either, I still have no idea how it's relevant.
It?s only relevant to the comparison that Rnp1 was making. Charlie Sheen, the top billing actor on the aforementioned show, requested a meeting with Obama over his feelings that the 9/11 tragedy was somehow covered up the US government. Rnp1 was making a comment about how the US at large is more interested in a silly situation comedy show than in politics. The connection is obviously Charlie Sheen.
It’s only relevant to the comparison that Rnp1 was making. Charlie Sheen, the top billing actor on the aforementioned show, requested a meeting with Obama over his feelings that the 9/11 tragedy was somehow covered up the US government. Rnp1 was making a comment about how the US at large is more interested in a silly situation comedy show than in politics. The connection is obviously Charlie Sheen.
Then maybe if he's worried about people who are more interested in silly situation comedy actors, he should look in a mirror. In reality, any serious debate over healthcare is being deliberately drowned out by the forces who don't want to see anything of substance happen, not I suspect by the people who think that Charlie Sheen is an intellectual.
Healthcare might be great in socialist countries, but if that is the price to pay for universal healthcare than I say no thanks.
What is a socialist country? Republicans are brilliant at taking words like liberal and socialist and green and turning them into something that everyone is supposed to be afraid of. All this talk of socialism reminds me of when Richard Nixon ran against Helen Gahagan Douglas and put out campaign literature about her on pink paper. Get it? She was a pinko!!. This is no different.
The post office is socialist
The military is socialist.
The interstate highway system is socialist.
The Federal Communications Commission is socialist.
Public libraries are socialist.
The national parks are socialist.
Medicare and Medicaid are socialist.
Social Security is socialist.
Get over it. If you eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we become a third world country. You'll have millions of people begging in the streets.
Should we eliminate all these things and replace them with McDonald's just because you're afraid of a word?
The cost of private health care insurance is rising at more than 15% per year. All these people who are defending the status quo (which they'll probably get) will be screaming again in five years when they have to drop their health care because they can no longer possibly afford it. The New York Times ran an article the other day showing the price of private health care for a family of four. I was totally shocked -- it was far more expensive than even I though it was. IIRC, average health insurance for a family of four was over $13,000 a year. And as we all know, there's plenty that the average plan doesn't cover.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that's in the current bills, but the status quo simply doesn't work. That's burying our heads in the sand. The Republicans tried to scare people with talk of "death panels", but how do they think the current system works? If you can't afford health care, you don't get treated and if you don't get treated, you die. There's no "death panel" because one isn't necessary.
Have you ever even spent time in a so-called "socialist" country? Most have far higher standards of living than the U.S. does and their people are happier.
What the question comes down to is whether everyone has the right to affordable health care or whether you believe that only those who can afford it have the right to health care.
There are no perfect solutions. Every solution has a fault.
It's amazing to me that no one questions the price of killing (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) which have cost us $912 billion, but try and do something to better our health and everyone freaks out.
Get over it. If you eliminate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we become a third world country. You'll have millions of people begging in the streets.
What? All that stands between us and Third World Status is the governments social programs?!?
I never knew that!
I have no idea what this means. I have to suppose that it's an effort to bury an important issue under a heap of ideological rhetoric. Sorry, but I think you are too late. It's already been done.
SADLY there are still 1/3 rd of the worlds kids go to sleepy bye hungry at night . This loss of protein at young formative years dooms too many these kids to a dull minded or weak bodied life.
Or both . this happens all across the whole world except for maybe north europe cuba and west russia .
Full heath care for all citizens of the milky way and before any country build's one more land mine we make sure all children go to sleep with a full stomach and awaken with a heavy full book bag filled with the tools to grow there beautiful minds.
Is this too much too ask ??
Sadly tens of millions of children will die in central Africa in the next 36 yrs from aids and famine drought related causes.The lands center of africa cannot support so many people and global.warming will hasten this terrible future. And unless they stop having 5 babies a piece this is un stoppable /.
what issue was buried i forgot??
peace 9
what issue was buried i forgot??
Of course you forgot. That was the plan.
As for social programs being the only thing standing between us and Third World status, there'd be no truth to this if wages for working class people hadn't been declining steadily over the last four decades. Maybe some are unclear on the concept of Third World countries -- you know, places with lots of poor people with little opportunity, a small group of very rich people, and almost nobody in the middle. We used to call that Brazilification. What do we call it now?
I wonder how much better off we'd be without those socialist concepts like Social Security, Medicare, and public universities. I wonder.
We have to balance our desires and wishes with financial reality. Dissension is not a bad thing. Liberals play the race card often, but it's not about skin color. It's about Green. Obama has not been honest about how we are going to pay for his vision of health care. On Sunday, he wasn't even clear about the definition of a tax.
Not good.
You won't have to wonder long. All those programs are going broke. The word Bankruptcy is crossing our national lips. We need reform, true. We'd like to have every American have a wonderful health care package from cradle to grave. I'd personally like it if every American had a nice home and an HD TV and a Mac.
We have to balance our desires and wishes with financial reality. Dissension is not a bad thing. Liberals play the race card often, but it's not about skin color. It's about Green. Obama has not been honest about how we are going to pay for his vision of health care. On Sunday, he wasn't even clear about the definition of a tax.
Not good.
Of course the USA needs to be realistic. That's why most "developed" countries operate on the tenet of the government providing a "safety net". If you ask them to subsidise your HDTV, most will say F* You, except for maybe Australia where they have been providing handouts to stimulate the economy... but this is an exceptional circumstance with regards to the global financial meltdown. Though countries do sometimes provide additional tax refunds in cash (eg. Bush's early this decade... which I can't remember what I spent it on when I was working in the US at that time...) so Australia is nowhere unique in providing "stimulus" funds.
I think what defines a "developed" country includes what systems and care is in place to take care, rehabilitate, and support those in the worst situations of their lives - drug/alcohol dependency, disabled, chronically ill, desperately out of a job... and not even able to pay for basic medical care.
Remove the existence of this "safety net" from a country and I would start to call it 3rd world. Big freeways, buildings and corporations does not make a 1st world country if poverty, homelessness, despair and hopelessness are rampant.
It's very interesting that you mention homes and housing. Yes, it would be nice if every American had a basic dwelling, wouldn't it? Like most other countries that provide reasonable public housing. Them first world countries.
...Maybe some are unclear on the concept of Third World countries -- you know, places with lots of poor people with little opportunity, a small group of very rich people, and almost nobody in the middle. We used to call that Brazilification. What do we call it now?...
It's called globalisation now
...It's amazing to me that no one questions the price of killing (like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) which have cost us $912 billion, but try and do something to better our health and everyone freaks out.
It is amazing. Isn't this stuff bankrupting the USA? And it's all going to guns, arms, private contractors, infrastructure companies, foreign companies, foreign countries...
But it is true, for the American people, the government budget and plan has to be clear. Obama was elected on hope an vision. Now to the details.
Peace is good for business and saves government spending, AFAIK. Well, good for everything except maybe the oil business. The world understands if the US needs to take care of itself and pull out of hopeless fighting grounds which lack true international support.
What is a socialist country? Republicans are brilliant at taking words like liberal and socialist and green and turning them into something that everyone is supposed to be afraid of.
People of all political stripes do this. If you think Republicans are the only ones than you're clearly deluding yourself.
The post office is socialist
The military is socialist.
The interstate highway system is socialist.
The Federal Communications Commission is socialist.
Public libraries are socialist.
The national parks are socialist.
Medicare and Medicaid are socialist.
Social Security is socialist.
Taken straight out of Obama's speech last week. How original (give credit for this where credit is do). The question is not whether the government performs certain services (it has to, that is the function of government), but whether the government compels people to use these services. Is the government forcing me to use the post office, serve in the military, only use public libraries, etc. No.
It is also interesting that most of the organizations on your list are classic examples of government inefficiency.
Post office: (operates at a billion dollar loss on a yearly basis).
SEC: (not on your list, but it can't regulate itself out of a paper bag, Madoff was handed to them and they did nothing).
Medicare/Medicaid: operate on deficits, going bankrupt in our lifetimes, and would rather pay for an $8000 PC rather than a $150 application.
Social security: most experts expect it to go bankrupt unless something is done.
Yet you expect government run healthcare to be any different. I'm not against reform. But having the government be in the healthcare business (and forcing people to participate or finining them for failing to do so) is not a good idea. Even Obama has acknowledged this at one point or another.
It's called globalisation now
Point taken, but I think we could also call it Americanization. The dominant economic political theory in the country over the last 30 years has been trickle-down: If you encourage the rich to become very, very rich, eventually some of that wealth will trickle down to the middle class. So we grew the class of the super-rich, but the middle class has continued to be hammered. Not that the theory has changed to accommodate reality. Lots of people still believe in it. Actually that's the polite way to put it. More probably they simply do not care -- things are the way they ought to have always been.
Taken in the context of healthcare, the issue comes into sharp relief. As an example, I am a small businessperson. My insurance premiums are now 20% of my gross income. Yes, you read that right. And growing at an alarming rate. Add to that, I am uninsurable -- I only have the staggeringly expensive health insurance policy I have now because I bought it before I had my health issues. By law they can't cancel me so long as I pay, but they can raise my rates steadily so eventually I won't be able to pay. Nice system -- I wonder who thought of it?
Knowing what I know now, would I have left my government job 20 years ago to go into business? Almost certainly not. And this is good for the U.S. economy and our quality of life? Not either. But again, I see that a large segment of people will do lip-service to the realities that middle class Americans face, but by their actions, clearly indicate that in reality, they simply do not care.
I think you just put people on the defensive when you started off by suggesting that functional universal healthcare requires socialism. That's a big jump that will always rub supporters the wrong way.
You have a valid/good point. I acknowledge that. But that is still my opinion nonetheless.
I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. How do we know equality is moral? Some people would say that taking money off someone who earned it (to create the equality) is immoral.
And how do we know what is and is not a proper function of government? It's a grey area and I don't think either side is *obviously* wrong.
I think it goes something like ..."of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE .... not .... of ME for ME .... no?
Before making broad-reaching statements, could the Americans in the forums who have convinced themselves that "the government will run health care into the ground" research health care systems in other countries before commenting further?
Thanks!
Hmm maybe they've taking a clue from the way they ran the economy into the ground? Hmm?