Ogre Forums

I think tau should educate us on the "true" meaning of "personal liberty", "democracy", "socialism", "personal rights", "capitalism", "evolution", "global warming/climate changing". Obviously he understands it while the entire US population doesn't. Please don't generalize us with your outrageous and unbacked statements.

So what ? UFO is popular among a lot of people ... should we start doing something about UFOs ?

Thus this is an example of how critique of the American health care system is common among Americans.

That's why I guess Hillary Clinton and her attempt at implementing nationalized health-care system back in 1995 resulted in republicans sweeping just about everything that was there for them to sweep.

warmi wrote:So what ? UFO is popular among a lot of people ... should we start doing something about UFOs ?

warmi wrote:If you can't respond with something serious .. don't.

Jabberwocky:

Yep, a lot of people believe in UFO just as many believe that 9/11 was an inside job ..

This is the same sort of people who get off on M.Moore movies.

Very relevant.

xavier wrote:

Kencho wrote:As I assume you'll answer "the great american way!!"

*sigh* again the European arrogance that makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion about this.

I still haven't got an answer to the original question:

What about a socialist system provides the incentive to better oneself?

You've misunderstood me (why does english use the same word for both the singular and plural 2nd person?). It's not the european arrogance. Rather a sarcastic comment on warmi's arrogance

About your question, I think Jabberwocky answered it pretty well. Just the self-realisation motivation should be enough, but solidarity is definitely a plus in this case

johnpus wrote:Capitalism is an engine of money. What makes it so effective is that it harnesses the natural greed of humanity, and turns it into something that's generally productive. When a little socialism can dip into the pot (taxes) and help out the least fortunate, it can work out really well.

That's The Statement. IMHO, no better way to describe the best realisable form of government

What arrogance ?

I mean, just because I dare to disagree with what seems to be a common opinion about gun-infested, health-care lacking USA expressed by many Europeans ... I am somehow being arrogant ?

warmi wrote:Jabberwocky:

Yep, a lot of people believe in UFO just as many believe that 9/11 was an inside job ..

This is the same sort of people who get off on M.Moore movies.

Very relevant.

Yeah, and if my point was "lots of Americans believe in UFOs", then this would be totally relevant.

But, what I said was "lots of Americans think health care is an issue". So my point still stands. Why do you keep trying to change this into an argument of what you think of Michael Moore, or Americans who agree with his movies?

If you want to argue with me, please argue against what I am actually saying.

Check out that thing about Hillary Cliton couple of posts above ...

Should be relevant enough.

warmi wrote:Check out that thing about Hillary Cliton couple of posts above ...

Should be relevant enough.

ok, let me try to figure out your point here.

"A popular American politician once tried to pass a nationalized health care system and failed.
Therefore it is not true that many Americans think there is a problem with American health care."

Is that it?
If so, I can't say I agree with your logic in any way whatsoever.

Here's the same argument:
"A popular American politician once tried to pass stricter gun control laws, but failed.
Therefore it is not true that many Americans are concerned about gun control."

This is as obviously untrue as the statement above.

Honestly, nothing you're saying here is making any sense.

Makes perfect sense ...

There is a difference between an opinion being considered popular and being truly popular.

The people had a chance to express their opinion on this subject and they did.

If you want to by picky then be my quest.

Your original argument was irrelevant because even if a significant number of Americans do think that the current system is fucked up it doesn't change the fact that my original remark about Europeans being uniformed is still true …

warmi wrote:Makes perfect sense ...

There is a difference between an opinion being considered popular and being truly popular.

There is also a difference between an albino rabbit and purple mittens.

Unfortunately, neither statements refute the claim that "many Americans believe there is a problem with health care."

And just because the majority of Americans didn't vote for Nationalized health care doesn't mean they think the current system is hunky dory.

Anyway, I kinda feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, so I'm out for a bit.

Kencho wrote:(why does english use the same word for both the singular and plural 2nd person?)

A whole 'nother thread. And a lengthy one at that.

many Americans believe there is a problem with health care

But why should I even attempt to refute it ?

After all I wasn't claiming that Americans are not uniformed.
I wasn't arguing with an American and thus I had no need to bring this up.

Your rebuttal to my post was limited to suggesting that the same can be said about many Americans.
Yeah sure.. I will grant you that but does this make my original remark somehow incorrect ?

Jabberwocky wrote: Unfortunately, neither statements refute the claim that "many Americans believe there is a problem with health care."

The problem is, what's the problem? No one can define that. Everyone has a different thing they don't like about their particular situation, but there is no one overriding set of issues that can be identified as "the problem".

And I most certainly do not want the same government that "fixed" the mess in New Orleans in charge of my health care. Do you?

I honestly believe that the best compromise is the system in which I am enrolled here in California -- Kaiser Permanente. They own the facilities (hospitals, doctors' offices, etc), the drug distribution, they employ all of the doctors and health-care professionals, and they do it at a rather low cost per month IMO (I could afford it myself -- luckily my employer handles it for me). It's like a mini-socialized-health-care-system, but it's a capitalist enterprise and it works rather well...much better than independent providers and insurers battling over what is covered or not. And *light-years* beyond what the federal (or even state) governments could do (not even discussing 'could do well' -- talking just 'could do' at all).

xavier wrote: The problem is, what's the problem? No one can define that. Everyone has a different thing they don't like about their particular situation, but there is no one overriding set of issues that can be identified as "the problem".

Totally agreed - it's a complicated problem.

I read Rakkar's blog sometimes, and he had an interesting opinion on health care, particularly for a guy who comes across as more on the republican side.

From Rakkar's blog: In favor of nationalized health care

xavier wrote: And I most certainly do not want the same government that "fixed" the mess in New Orleans in charge of my health care. Do you?

I certainly agree that government doesn't always do things perfect. There is all sorts of blundering and money mismanagement. The interesting part about Rakkar's blog is his argument that having businessmen in charge of your health care isn't so ideal, either.

Unlike a typical business, the insurance company makes money by NOT providing service - turning down sick customers, or denying those who are already sick.

The difference is that Kaiser is not an insurance company -- they are a health care provider (HMO to be specific, IIRC). The difference between the traditional HMO/PPO/insurer and Kaiser, is that Kaiser *owns* everything they use, so costs are controlled without turning down services. Unfortunately, putting that sort of control and responsibility in the hands of an unaccountable public servant/employee is a recipe for disaster.

Personally, I am all for nationalized health care. I've had family members use Kaiser (since you brought it up) at different times for the last couple decades (in the 80's in the 2000s). And, I can't say I'm very impressed with them. But, that is another thread which I don't won't to discuss.

I've also been in the military, so have had Government Provided health care. And while I have never needed it, it was nice knowing that it was there if I ever did.

I've also had dealings with Medical (California's version of Medicare). From my experience, Medical provided health care was very good (you can many of the same medical institutions as with other insurance).

Also used employer provided health care. Fortunately, I rarely (never) in my adult life have needed medical attention for myself (knock on wood). I must say that I am not happy having insurance costs which take almost around 10% of what I earn and not even have to use it myself. Not to mention, when I do have to use it, each appointment still requires a copayment, as well as most medications are costly even with insurance.

I would much rather have what I pay go into a socialized government run institution, that would provide coverage for me, you, and everyone else. Because I don't want to worry about what happens when something does happen and for whatever reason my insurance no longer covers me or my family. Heck, we already have unemployment insurance which covers us when we're not employed through no fault of our own, it would be nice to have insurance when you are not employed too.

To many people have died because (even one person dying is too many, but more than that have died) because insurance companies have a) waited to long to approve life needed care, or b) decided that certain care was not needed (covered).

Personally, I am all for nationalized health care

Sure, as long as there is a way out for people who don;t want to have anything to do with it.

Say, you pay +10% more taxes and get your nationalized care ... .I will skip that and carry on on my own ...

Sounds like a deal ?

warmi wrote:

Personally, I am all for nationalized health care

Sure, as long as there is a way out for people who don;t want to have anything to do with it.

Say, you pay +10% more taxes and get your nationalized care ... .I will skip that and carry on on my own ...

Sounds like a deal ?

Only if I can subtract off my taxes for services I don't use.

pjcast wrote:

warmi wrote:

Personally, I am all for nationalized health care

Sure, as long as there is a way out for people who don;t want to have anything to do with it.

Say, you pay +10% more taxes and get your nationalized care ... .I will skip that and carry on on my own ...

Sounds like a deal ?

Only if I can subtract off my taxes for services I don't use.

Problem is, it doesn't work like that.

xavier wrote:

pjcast wrote:

warmi wrote: Sure, as long as there is a way out for people who don;t want to have anything to do with it.

Say, you pay +10% more taxes and get your nationalized care ... .I will skip that and carry on on my own ...

Sounds like a deal ?

Only if I can subtract off my taxes for services I don't use.

Problem is, it doesn't work like that.

In case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic. That is the point of taxes, to collectively gather funds from all citizens to pay for things for the overall public good of course. Regardless of what features you use. And I am perfectly fine paying taxes for things I do not need or use at the moment. I'm not for the Iraq war, but I still support the war in paying taxes. (not too mention my past serving in the military).

pjcast wrote: In case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic.

Emoticons help for that purpose.

xavier wrote:

pjcast wrote: In case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic.

Emoticons help for that purpose.

Only if I wanted to be funny and sarcastic I was really just annoyed at writing a post and having one line taken out of the entire thing and responded in a less than serious manor - anyone who really believes that you can pick and chose your taxes is either a) not being serious, or b) mis-informed

pjcast wrote:

xavier wrote:

pjcast wrote: In case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic.

Emoticons help for that purpose.

Only if I wanted to be funny and sarcastic I was really just annoyed at writing a post and having one line taken out of the entire thing and responded in a less than serious manor - anyone who really believes that you can pick and chose your taxes is either a) not being serious, or b) mis-informed

Well, the line that was quoted was the line with which you led.

At any rate, I've had lots of dealing with various forms of health insurance around the country, and I've found Kaiser to be the best setup of all of them, and probably the best model for general health care in the United States (which is not going for universal socialized medicine -- beyond Medicare -- anytime soon). What in particular didn't you like, if you recall? No need to get into physical specifics, just something like hospital responsiveness, doctor's bedside manner, etc.

As for Medical...the state is some 14 billion in the red right now. It's something we need to consider, that this great utopian ideal social experiment has been tried and isn't going to work in the United States...so other options have to be tried, and subbing out health care to a more efficient private organization is probably the best option.