dark4181 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 The USSR was not socialism, it was a dictatorship. United SOCIALIST Soviet Republic ... I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_cope Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Medicare works pretty well...that is before the Bush Dynasty got to it. Government can work if we work toward a common goal, its easier to be "efficient" when you're the one making all the decisions, if we had a dictator in office maybe the government would be more efficient... Government is good as long as the people keep it in check, the government is there to serve the people, the people are not there to serve the government. If it becomes unjust its our obligation to overthrow it. Ok you just contradicted yourself a bit too much for me to really say much more than that. But I'll try. First off, that's half-assed. Politicians are a part of the government, get used to them, and when big portions of your life are dependent upon the guy in charge NOT screwing you over... well things will get ugly. I think that really you're just providing an example as to why it's a bad idea to give the government a bigger role in our lives. Sure socialist health care might work for the first four years, maybe even eight, but sooner or later the ______(insert politician's name) dynasty will swoop in and screw things up. And the consequences just get bigger, the more control the government has. You said it yourself, the government isn't efficient. Which means any time you put money into it, less comes out. Sometimes a lot less. Why does it make any sense then to move from an efficient system to an in-efficient system? Beyond healthcare, ANYTHING, why would you do that? It just means the end product or service costs more. There is no free lunch. The people can only keep the government in check if they govern themselves first. When you are reliant upon something you can no longer keep it in check. And that's what "big government" wants. Just keep nipping those pesky freedoms off, after all, why should you have to do something when the government will do it FOR you? Why? Because pretty soon you won't be able to do anything for yourself, and then it will be a dictatorship. The Government is here to secure our rights. Nothing more. It is supposed to be Of the people, by the people, and for the people. But it's been transitioning for a long time into an "of the few, by the few, for themselves" system. We need to take back our government, and make it work FOR us. And "for us" does NOT mean hand-outs, it means ensuring our liberties. Right down to the small stuff, like ensuring I can choose whichever damn health plan I want, or what color shirt I'm going to wear tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Ok you just contradicted yourself a bit too much for me to really say much more than that. But I'll try. First off, that's half-assed. Politicians are a part of the government, get used to them, and when big portions of your life are dependent upon the guy in charge NOT screwing you over... well things will get ugly. I think that really you're just providing an example as to why it's a bad idea to give the government a bigger role in our lives. Sure socialist health care might work for the first four years, maybe even eight, but sooner or later the ______(insert politician's name) dynasty will swoop in and screw things up. And the consequences just get bigger, the more control the government has. You said it yourself, the government isn't efficient. Which means any time you put money into it, less comes out. Sometimes a lot less. Why does it make any sense then to move from an efficient system to an in-efficient system? Beyond healthcare, ANYTHING, why would you do that? It just means the end product or service costs more. There is no free lunch. The people can only keep the government in check if they govern themselves first. When you are reliant upon something you can no longer keep it in check. And that's what "big government" wants. Just keep nipping those pesky freedoms off, after all, why should you have to do something when the government will do it FOR you? Why? Because pretty soon you won't be able to do anything for yourself, and then it will be a dictatorship. The Government is here to secure our rights. Nothing more. It is supposed to be Of the people, by the people, and for the people. But it's been transitioning for a long time into an "of the few, by the few, for themselves" system. We need to take back our government, and make it work FOR us. And "for us" does NOT mean hand-outs, it means ensuring our liberties. Right down to the small stuff, like ensuring I can choose whichever damn health plan I want, or what color shirt I'm going to wear tomorrow. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 SSSSSSSSSarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Neither. Both voted in FAVOR of partial-birth abortions. Take a good look everyone, this is what it looks like when a person has been doped into believing propaganda. Now you know why these tactics have been used since World War I, because good people fall for them hook, line and sinker. The FACT is that so-called 'partial birth abortions' are entirely a public relations fabrication and have no medical meaning! Just ask the Supreme Court There are several types of procedures; one is called dilation and extraction which is used very late in pregnancy and involves dilating the cervix so the fetus comes into the {censored} feet first. This is the stuff of the anti-choice movement's famous cartoons pretending that a ''baby'' right out of a Good Housekeeping ad is killed on the verge of live birth. In reality, the fetus involved is often already brain-dead or otherwise hopelessly flawed, and the procedure protects the woman's health, including her ability to have children in the future. The procedure may also be used to remove a fetus that is already deceased, but they don't tell you that part in the anti-choice brochures. You should also know that the procedure is very, very rarely used. In-fact it's way less than 1%... not even 1/4th of 1%... even less than 1/8th of 1%, around only 0.14% - but they make it sound like it's a common proceedure. There are also some very good legitimate reasons for this form of abortion, one is called Hydrocephalus, but the anti-choice movement doesn't want you to learn about it either Hydrocephalus is when a fetus has abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the cavities of the brain. The fetuses head may expand to a abnormally large radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. Eventually the pregnant woman would die without this procedure. Not only that but because of the abnormally large amount of fluid accumulating in the fetuses skull, compression of the brain by the accumulating fluid eventually causes irreversible brain damage, and other life threatening complications. The the anti-choice movement doesn't want you to learn about any of those facts either. As the hydrocephalus progresses, torpor (a non-physiological state) sets in. Around 90% of fetuses with spina bifida usually end up with Hydrocephalus. So as you can see when this procedure is used it is NOT used on a normal fetus. The fetus usually already has irreversible brain damage or is already dead. That's a LOT different than the cartoons used by the anti-choice movement where they try to trick you into thinking that the fetus was right out of a Good Housekeeping ad. The fact is that the so-called term of 'partial birth abortion' is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association, nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The term is pure propaganda used to scare non-medical people into whipping up visions of torture on perfect fetuses, and nothing could be further from the truth! not the government requiring you to BUY health coverage from a private company, what kind universal healthcare plan is that? I agree. Clinton is funded by the big health care industry, and her plan would make it mandatory for people to pay lots of money to the health care industry. It would be the same as the car insurance industry that mandates that you have to buy car insurance, only Clintons plan would force people to buy health insurance, making the health care industry rich!! Many other countries have governmental health care that works flawlessly, and we should be looking into having a system like one of those. Edwards was the only one to have such a plan, but now he's out of the race. Obamas plan is to lower the cost of health care so that everyone can afford it. Obviously the health care industry doesn't want that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Clinton is funded by the big health care industry, and her plan would make it mandatory for people to pay lots of money to the health care industry. It would be the same as the car insurance industry that mandates that you have to buy car insurance, only Clintons plan would force people to buy health insurance, making the health care industry rich!! Fortunately I can't imagine anything like that happening in any European country: it would cause a revolution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I've heard the 'the government can't do anything right, I don't want them running my health care' many times, but unfortunately its a statement that can only be supported by anecdotal evidence. Health care in government hands has been very successful in many countries (the U.K. for example). Look at Obama's plan, it's not 'completely' socialized either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Λύκος Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Neither. Won't be voting for Micky Cane either, abstaining from voting in the Presidential election (will vote in local ones). Would vote Libertarian, but my state has no write-in options, and doesn't have the LP on the ballot. I agree. Clinton is funded by the big health care industry, and her plan would make it mandatory for people to pay lots of money to the health care industry. It would be the same as the car insurance industry that mandates that you have to buy car insurance, only Clintons plan would force people to buy health insurance, making the health care industry rich!! Yeah, I don't agree with government-funded healthcare, but this idea that Hillary is supporting is maddeningly insane. Car insurance is already BS - I don't drive like an idiot, if someone else hits me, it's their fault and they're to blame. If the government doesn't trust that I can avoid hitting someone, they shouldn't have given me a {censored} license to begin with. Government sponsorship of corporations is just revolting. Any politician who wants to give money to corps. in any way, shape, or form, should be impeached and imprisoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Fortunately I can't imagine anything like that happening in any European country: it would cause a revolution! Around 70% of people here are pretty ignorant. That's how they got doped into electing bush for a second time, when they already knew he was a moron and no good to begin with Here's another perfect example; each state is supposed to vote for who they want the Democratic candidate to be, however, like with anything else in life there are rules that the states have to follow. A state can't just randomly vote whenever it wants to. So what happens? Florida (famous for electing bush the first time) says "we don't feel that we have to follow the rules" (yes, the govenor literally said that) and so they then try to hold their election sooner than they are scheduled for. The govenor is a republican so what does he care? The democratic party said that because Florida broke the rules that now their votes can't count. Now everyone in Florida is upset and wondering why a republican govenor was allowed to break the democratic rules, efffectivly hurting the democratic process in that state. The republican governor says that he's not going to pay for another election. The Democratic party said "Hey look, you knew about the rules ahead of time, and you still broke them. We're not paying for your mistake". Meanwhile the people in Florida are being shafted by what the republican governor did. To this day no one knows what will happen. Will Florida be allowed to re-vote? Who knows? Will Florida pay for their own mistake? Who knows? This now hurts both Clinton and Obama because they both need those delegates, but they can't get them until Florida legally votes. Now this is all bad enough right? Wrong! Michigan sees what happens with Florida and decides to try to pull the same stunt Now we have two states whose delegates don't count. Bottom line: if these elected bozos don't have any common sense, then they have no business being in office. The last time people in this country revolted against anything was in the late 60's when women burned their bras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 The last time people in this country revolted against anything was in the late 60's when women burned their bras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheSavage Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 You make Universal Healthcare sound like a bad thing.Maybe you should take your head out of the sand and realise that a universal healthcare system is key to a fair, modern and developed society. And at who's expense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axalon Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 United SOCIALIST Soviet Republic ... I rest my case Democratic People's Republic of Korea, more commonly known as North Korea. Point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I personally don't care about universal heath care, but I definitely DON'T want it the same as the UK's system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I personally don't care about universal heath care, but I definitely DON'T want it the same as the UK's system. I suppose because you have enough money to afford the very best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 No, because I have health care, I can go into any hospital and basically request a doctor that I know, or one that is rated highly or something else. In the UK, you are randomly assigned a doctor, and if you leave the hospital to go home, and you come back, you are randomly assigned another doctor. That means you have to explain everything again and he might be a crappy doctor as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 In the UK, you are randomly assigned a doctor, and if you leave the hospital to go home, and you come back, you are randomly assigned another doctor. That means you have to explain everything again and he might be a crappy doctor as well. Who told you that fairy tale? In my 15 years in the UK I never had an experience like that, I could always choose a doctor, freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 And at who's expense? Well, it would generally make people live longer, support disabled people better and lead to a generally more healthy society, so obviously that would cause huge problems I personally don't care about universal heath care, but I definitely DON'T want it the same as the UK's system. That's because you're a rich snob that thinks everyone that doesn't have as much money as you don't deserve doesn't have any rights. Last time I checked, access to decent healthcare is a basic human right. Why is giving them that healthcare for free a bad idea? Decent healthcare should not be an exclusive right for the rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I didn't say that it was a bad idea, what I meant to say was that I didn't want the doctors randomly assigned as they are in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I can go into any hospital and basically request a doctor that I know, or one that is rated highly or something else. You are sorely misinformed, and I suggest you do a little bit of research before you shoot yourself in the foot. Choosing which doctor you have isn't the point. Doctors don't pay your hospital bill, insurance companies do, and if they want to refuse you they can. There are many, many examples of this. I know of one woman whose insurance company wouldn't pay for her car accident ambulance because they said she needed to call for an approval ahead of time, as if she was to predict her car accident. There was another famous case a few weeks or so ago about a woman with cancer that was denied payment. This is actually common practice in the health care industry and I think Congress is supposed to look into it, but that won't help you if the wrong person gets in office... I like you Numberzz, but please don't think that you are OK just because you can choose which hospital/doctor you want. In the end those things are fairly worthless in the scope of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 what I meant to say was that I didn't want the doctors randomly assigned as they are in the UK. Why are you insisting on this? It is simply not true. Choosing which doctor you have isn't the point. Doctors don't pay your hospital bill, insurance companies do, and if they want to refuse you they can. There are many, many examples of this. I know of one woman whose insurance company wouldn't pay for her car accident ambulance because they said she needed to call for an approval ahead of time, as if she was to predict her car accident. There was another famous case a few weeks or so ago about a woman with cancer that was denied payment. This is actually common practice in the health care industry and I think Congress is supposed to look into it, but that won't help you if the wrong person gets in office... By European standards that is simply appalling. Even in this country (Italy), with its countless problems, something like that is inconceivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 By European standards that is simply appalling. Even in this country (Italy), with its countless problems, something like that is inconceivable. Yeah health care in others countries are good. It's a shame how lobbyist here have Congressional members in their back pocket. I think if Edwards would have stayed in the race a little longer that people would have started to prefer him over the others. His plan was very much like European plans and made a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonTheSavage Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Well, it would generally make people live longer, support disabled people better and lead to a generally more healthy society, so obviously that would cause huge problems Try and take it from me. Now. Explain the difference, between a Democrat and a Republican. In your own words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Try and take it from me. Now. Explain the difference, between a Democrat and a Republican. In your own words. Very good point JonTheSavage, I agree. The American left wing is not left wing by a long shot. No universal healthcare, for a start... the list is endless. America needs a real left wing party, preferably one with heavy handed green policies, to take them into the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CompCrasher86 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Definately Obama. I was raised a Democrat and strongly beleive in them. George Bush has done no justice to the Republican name so it is time to get a democrat in there to clean up after the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 George Bush has done no justice to the Republican name s He hasn't done justice to anything. As far as I'm concerned he's only an American on a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts