Time for a new Political Debate

[Kraj]

However, as you say the pursuit of happiness is more of a philosophy, which raises more questions IMHO than giving any guarantees.

I certianly see what you're saying. Like I said, I don't believe the phrase has any concrete meaning, but I think there is meaning there nonetheless.

Sorry I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Are you saying you think that an Amercian national health model is unsustainable because people wouldn't be prepared to pay for it in taxes?

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. We'll have to accept certain lifestyle changes when it comes to healthcare if we are going to sustain it. Either we give up more money in taxes to pay for it, or we accept lower quality care.

I don't know why this thought never occurred to me before, but to those who argue against government-run health care by saying "that's what insurance is for": insurance companies make a profit, the government does not. Simply by virtue of that, a well-managed governmental system would be far less expensive than a well-managed insurance-based system. We currently have neither.

Do you think a model of both private and public health care is possible?

I honestly don't know enough to say. Part of me thinks that this sort of compromise will be the first step in nationalizing health care. Another part of me says we'll need an all-or-nothing change, otherwise people won't accept the new system.

 

[FoFa]

a well-managed governmental system would be far less expensive than a well-managed insurance-based system.

ROFL
ROFL

a well-managed governmental system

ROFL
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL
ROFL

 

[Kraj]

I'm glad you're amused.

 

[FoFa]

hat has got to be one of them Oxymorons right?
well-managed and governmental in the same sentence?

 

[jsanders]

Kraj,

I have to disagree with your assessment that government control over health care would be more cost effective.

Probably we need to update the law to make them similar to the regulations that controlled AT&T during its monopoly of the countries communications system. That was simply that they had to provide telephone service to all people regardless of the cost, and they were regulated on what they charged.

Even with that system they became the world largest and most profitable company, as well as
builiding and maintaining the best communications system in the World.

 

[Kraj]

I have to disagree with your assessment that government control over health care would be more cost effective.

There's certainly room for disagreement, but I think I make a good point. The government runs many essential services - emergency services, schools, military, etc. I doubt anyone could say they are run efficiently, but at least they're not raking in a profit. If the government is so poor at running everything, why is there no outcry to privatize their services (other than the one that's popular to have an outcry about, social security)? If insurance companies are so much more effecient, why are their costs spiralling out of control?

 

[Rich]

Kraj,

I have to disagree with your assessment that government control over health care would be more cost effective.
.

Have you no idea just how much your private hospital systems rips Americans off every year?
Jesus! don't you even read your own news? your private health care system is as corrupt as the current gvernment, oh shit, no point in giving them control then either

 

[Kraj]

Have you no idea just how much your private hospital systems rips Americans off every year?
Jesus! don't you even read your own news? your private health care system is as corrupt as the current gvernment, oh shit, no point in giving them control then either

Eloquent and informative as always. I wish I had such mastery of intellectual nuance as you. Bravo.

 

[Rich]

Wow. There've been quite a lot of interesting posts today. Let's begin...


I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with comparing the structures of the United States with the European Union.

I'm not, you did and as was pointed out earlier you can't use the two as a comparison, they are nothing like the same

If you said, "I should have said one of the most", then that would make sense. What you actually said was, "I should have said Countries and one the most". So what were you trying to communicate by changing "nations" to "countries"?

Because we see ourselves as one country although we're obviously not, you on the other hand though don't even though you are

I think the point jsanders is trying to communicate is that the social structures of countries with a large variety of incorporated cultures and high degree of variance based, in part, on geographical distances is much more challenging to manage than a small country with a generally homogenized culture. I think it is a valid point.

How can it be valid when you claim to be a united country, you either are or aren't

Actually that's not true. Canada is geographically large, yes, but the vast majority of the population inhabits a very small slice of the country, so the effect of geography is minimal. Nevertheless, Canada is a poor example to support your point of view since they have clear and controversial cultural lines drawn. Consider the fact that Quebec is clamoring for independence from the rest of Canada and you hardly have a foil to jsanders' argument.

Since Quebec is mainly of French stock and doesn't want to be part of a united country it isn't a valid point to foil my argument. You too have vast areas of uninhabited land.
Having said that Canada has made great efforts to make the French feel that Canada is their country too.

I don't think anyone, at any point, has denied that gun violence is a large problem in the U.S. But that has nothing to do with the average citizen. You said nothing to deny that you think the entire population of America are gun-toting backaroos, but total gun crimes are not an indicator of that, nor would gun crimes per capita be. If you could show a majority of households owning guns, or a majority population percentage who've been arrested for some sort of gun crime, then you've have an argument. All you've shown so far is that criminals have access to guns.

I've never said that the entire US were gun toting backaroos, whatever that is, however it's not true that all gun deaths are soley attributable to criminals either and you know it. If all I've shown is that guns are available to criminals then surely that's a valid reason for denying them access to a gun

Because you use that to justify all your bad behavior.

Yes I'm easily led, but then one day we'll all be perfect

And this has anything to do with anything I've said because?

You told me to read your constitution, that's as far as I got.

Agreed on the first part, not on the second. Like I said, I think the real solution is to stop illegal gun trafficing and keep guns out of criminals hands. The majority of people who legally own and regularly use guns in this country are responsible individuals. (Or at least they're not using their guns to commit a crime.)

By the same token I assume the vast majority of car drivers aren't involved in an accident that will put their head through the windscreen yet some states now require you to wear a seatbelt, although oddly enough not on a nationwide basis. Where does your valid argument fit now?

 

[Rich]

Eloquent and informative as always. I wish I had such mastery of intellectual nuance as you. Bravo.

Forget the compliments, is it true or not?

 

[jsanders]

Have you no idea just how much your private hospital systems rips Americans off every year?
Jesus! don't you even read your own news? your private health care system is as corrupt as the current gvernment, oh shit, no point in giving them control then either

Much less than you think; the insurance industry controls hospital billing. If you want to talk about the rip off it’s in the cost of health insurance.

 

[Rich]

Interesting when it is in YOUR post, all of a sudden those stupid graphs of numbers by population and such don't come into play. Liek I say, statistics is the uninformed stressing point made by bad information.

That bad information comes from an American site and oddly enough was compiled by an American, are you all guilty of this trait?

 

[jsanders]

As a nation it’s appalling that we the middle class and up get such good medical care. And the people that work in the Wal-Mart have none.

It another one of those statistical averages that makes it seem like our's isn’t working. When actually Americans pay the highest percentage of GDP for health care than all of the other industrialized nations.

 

[Rich]

Much less than you think; the insurance industry controls hospital billing.

you guys don't even read your own news
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=hospitals+overcharging+&FORM=QBRE

 

[FoFa]

That bad information comes from an American site and oddly enough was compiled by an American, are you all guilty of this trait?

I never said you can't get bad information from a US site, quite on the contrary, I personally feel there is a LOT of bad information on american sites, like CNN, ABC, CBS, DNC, Kraj's , BBCA, etc

 

[jsanders]

you guys don't even read your own news
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=hospitals+overcharging+&FORM=QBRE

It’s relatively small part of a much bigger problem. That’s probably happening because the insurance companies are squeezing them to death. While all the time the same institutional money is going to build a better automobile industry in China.

 

[Rich]

It’s relatively small part of a much bigger problem. That’s probably happening because the insurance companies are squeezing them to death. While all the time the same institutional money is going to build a better automobile industry in China.

That's not a valid reason, drugs are much cheaper in Canada than the US, what's it got to do with China?

 

[Rich]

I never said you can't get bad information from a US site, quite on the contrary, I personally feel there is a LOT of bad information on american sites, like CNN, ABC, CBS, DNC, Kraj's , BBCA, etc

With the exception of BBCA, I wouldn't argue with you

 

[jsanders]

That's not a valid reason, drugs are much cheaper in Canada than the US, what's it got to do with China?

The insurance companies are making huge profits and using them to create jobs in China instead of investing in American medicine.

Here’s another example of your seemingly unlimited misunderstanding of America. If you’re insured the insurance company pays a large percentage of you’re drug cost. So it all boils down to needing a way to force the insurance companies to except people with pre-existing conditions and making it a law that large corporations like Wal-Mart pay for their employee’s health insurance.

 

[Kraj]

Many of your points I'm simply going to ignore, since by now I can tell when any attempts at meaningful continuation of a topic will be completely pointless. Feel free to ressurected them at your discretion, but otherwise I'm going to let them be.

I've never said that the entire US were gun toting backaroos, whatever that is,

That's another way of saying "cowboy", so yes you did. Or, more accurately, I said that's what you think and you agreed.

however it's not true that all gun deaths are soley attributable to criminals either and you know it.

That's quite true and I do know it, but that's not what I said. You quoted homicide statistics exclusively, so you're talking about criminals exclusively. If you want to talk about accidental gun deaths, that's an entirely different topic.

If all I've shown is that guns are available to criminals then surely that's a valid reason for denying them access to a gun

I agree, and measures are taken to prevent that from happening. Whether they are effective or not, again, is another topic. But keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a different matter than keeping them out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. There's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to accomplish the former without the latter.

You told me to read your constitution, that's as far as I got.

Ah, I see. This had nothing to do with why the freedom to pursue happiness was listed in the Declaration of Independence, but at least I can make sense of the comment now...

By the same token I assume the vast majority of car drivers aren't involved in an accident that will put their head through the windscreen yet some states now require you to wear a seatbelt, although oddly enough not on a nationwide basis.

It's interesting how you see a contradiction and I see a parallel. Yes, we require seatbelts; what we don't do is ban automobile use. Just as we try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we try and keep dangerous drivers off the road. Just as we require certain safe practices while operating a vehicle (licenses, safety belts, observance of speed limits, etc.), so do we require certain safe practices for gun ownership (licenses, restrictions on how and where a gun may be carried, background checks, waiting periods, etc.).