You right wingers love to point out that we are a constitutional republic, but that does not negate anything I said. Technically, I am right, hehehe, you even admit it. But look up the commerce clause.
Yes, the insurance companies do say that. If hold the only source of food, and I say, "suck my dick or starve to death," what will you do? Enter into a dick-sucking-for-food contract? If I hold medicine that will cure you, and I demand an outrageous price for it, what will you do? Economic coercion is real, especially when property rights are backed up with government guns.
You call my use of the word freedom 'misuse?' I'd say, protecting the rights of the wealthy to oppress the poor is even more of a misuse of the word.
The record shows that the free market is incapable of providing good reasonably priced health care solutions. Sorry that the facts have such a liberal bias, but the rest of the first world has awesome socialized health care that works, for less per capita than ours.
Your lies about the UK are, in fact, lies. My mom just died over there this Christmas. Because she couldn't get good health care here. Sarah Palin admitted to sneaking into Canada for health care.
Uh, none of the services you mentioned are actually bankrupt. And medicare, for instance, puts most of the money into actual health care instead of the pockets of paper pushing time wasting insurance leaches.
I'm sorry, but the imbalance of information and power inherent in any doctor patient relationship means the free market can not arrive at an equitable price for the service. You can't 'shop around' for health care. If you were seriously il;l, what would 'shopping around' mean? And how would you even know when you'd gotten a good deal.
The placebo effect is very real, but "Feeling better" is not "surviving incurable cancer." In fact, most real treatments for cancer will leave you feeling significantly worse, often for weeks after a treatment.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
There's a lot of places in the country where it's really hard to find an OBGYN because they've left states where the malpractice insurance was too expensive. I've also heard of doctors quitting general practice because of malpractice insurance premiums costing more than their entire revenue.
Not to be a wikidick, but [citation needed]. Even in states with restrictive requirements, there are physicians mutuals that are physician run and much cheaper than commercial insurance providers. Have been since the 70s.
Blah blah blah, what utter bullshit. Commerce clause, look it up.
Obamacare is not going before the SCOTUS. It is entirely constitutional. Some attorney generals are even refusing to press forward with their governor's bullshit lawsuits because they know they will lose. And the polls show that the Republicans will not pick up a majority next election. People are sick and tired of the party of 'no.' The Republicans are a sad, tired regional party of deep south racists who just don't want medical care for brown skinned people. "Government hands off my medicare!" Fucking morons.
I get modded troll all the time. Sometimes, rightly so. But it never impacts my karma or ability to post at +2, so why should I get upset? Heck, I love getting troll mods. An undeserved troll mod is basically an admission by the moderator that they are unwilling to be swayed to your position but unable to refute it. It's basically saying, "I like believing what I believe and you are trying to make me believe something different. Despite the fact that I can not refute what you say, I am going to disbelieve it because I don't like it." It's an admission that they are slightly insane and not very smart.
I've heard this argument before and the counter argument to it as well: this flawed first step is necessary in order to get the ball rolling. And, you know, it does do a few good things. Not everything in the HCR bill is a corporate giveaway. Some things are quite necessary, like requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, this is not the universal coverage the majority of Americans wanted. Hopefully, the bad parts can be fixed while the good parts are retained.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
As a democracy, we get to define what we mean by freedom. We vote on which freedoms we will protect and which we won't. It's pretty difficult to have liberty and pursue happiness without life.
I, for instance, don't think anyone should have the freedom to oppress others, by any means including economic. If I came to you and said, "your money or your life," that would obviously be oppression. But when an insurance company says to a poor person, "your money or your life," that is oppression too.
Nobody should have power over others. That is tyranny, not freedom. In some places freedom of speech is not upheld. In some places it is. In some places, the freedom to live a healthy life is protected. In other places, like America, it isn't really. But we just voted to protect the right to health care, and so it is a right, created as we create any right: by agreeing as a society to protect it.
I can't help everyone everywhere in the world. But I can help people here in America. I'm not concerned by my meager consumerism. I can own a car, a cell phone, and go on vacation without feeling guilty. You do not get to define my morality in black and white terms and say, 'You can't stand up for universal health care without hypocrisy unless you are an ascetic.' That is patently ridiculous.
This isn't charity, either. It's an externality, a public good. Universal health care is good for everyone, even those who do not need it personally. An unhealthy population is a less productive population. Our current health care system eats up a huge percentage of our economic output, it is hugely less efficient than states that have universal care. We pay twice as much, per capita, for our health care as the next most expensive country. And we get health outcomes that are only marginally better than most third world countries outcomes.
So, we will all benefit from a more efficient public health care system. Which means we should all pay for it, with our taxes. Just like we do for roads (even if we don't drive) and fire departments (even if we aren't on fire) and schools (even if we have are adults with no children) Some types of goods and services simply can not be provided efficiently by the free market, while other types can not be efficiently provided by a command economy. We should be smart enough, and free enough of economic dogma, to recognize which are which and use the system that is most efficient.
They can make back pain marginally better. That's not bogus at all. They can not, however, fix much of anything else, which was Singh's complaint against them, because they claim they can fix everything from gout to cancer.
Yes, there is such a thing as a free lunch. Sure, technically, someone has to pay for it. But it's free to the guy who doesn't have to pay for it. Right now, that guy is the insurance industry. They are eating the lunch you and I paid for. I'd rather eat it myself, and maybe share some with the less fortunate, than give it to some wealthy fat cat.
How so? Obama is a corporatist, sorry if that's the part that offends you, but he does want to give you health care. He kinda made a big deal about it, you may have heard it in the news recently.
Personally, I think he sold out to Big Medicine, and what we ended up getting will require a lot of fixing. We need a single payer system that guarantees free health care to all, like every other civilized country on Earth. It's a moral issue: we're Americans and we shouldn't let Americans die like rabid dogs in the street. That's third world bananna republic bullshit.
Works better if your audience at least have heard the names you're using before.
I weep for our country. History, doomed to repeat it, and so forth. Fuck. You don't know who Francisco Franco was? Really? Seriously? You've never heard of Juan or Eva Peron? They made a Broadway musical about her. Madonna was in it, fer chrissake.
So, in your world view, corporate special interests and 'narrow minded' groups like the EFF, which works to protect the rights of citizens, are lumped into the same group, and we, the citizens, will be best served by a compromise between those who would remove all our rights for a buck, and those who would protect them without asking for anything from us?
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.
Yes, that is unnecessarily extreme. Why is everything in politics like this these days? Aren't there shades of wrongness? I mean really, we have a choice between politicians who have authorized the killing of millions of people? How about, 'we can essentially pick between Franco and Peron?' Both pretty bad, and fascist corporatists like many of today's politicians, but, you know, they didn't murder millions of people.
Rational politics requires rational citizens. Throwing around names like Hitler and Pol Pot does nothing to increase the rationality of voters. It does not motivate people to go out and vote or work for change. After all, what can one guy do against Hitler? Comparing our politicians to Hitler or Pol Pot is more than unnecessarily extreme. It is divisive and encourage irrationality, fear, and hopelessness. It also lumps all politicians in all races together into the 'utter monster' category, thus blurring the real distinctions that do exist. I mean, you can choose between the corporatist that wants to give you health care, or the corporatist that wants to regulate who you fuck. That's actually a pretty big distinction.
Not all politicians are evil monsters. And amongst the evil monsters, there are levels of evil. It is possible to pick the lesser of two evils if you don't lump all politicians together into the same evil madman stew.
AAAHhhhhhhhaaargh! Curse ye, I am foiled! I shall return to The Basement until my powers grow. You've not heard the last of me! *POOF* Cough, cough damn it, the package said these smoke bombs were non toxic.
In a stone-age society it is an advantage to realize that the people from the other tribe aren't your friends because they really aren't: they want to kill you and take your food and women. Peace is a luxury of advanced societies.
While you are correct, they do call themselves neo-cons now, don't they? There's nothing liberal about what they do, either, and the liberals were pretty quick to see through their shit and give them the boot, so they all jumped ship to the Republican party where their rhetoric found more fertile ground.
In the end, fascist pigs are fascist pigs no matter what name they want us to call them.
Hehe, anything that annoys the crap out of people is a good thing in my book. People are just too comfortable.
Oh by the way, your favorite band sucks balls, all the people on your side of the political spectrum are idiots, and generally people from your hometown are less well endowed than average.
Obama is a corporatist. I knew it from the start. He is much more corporate than even Bill Clinton, who at least acknowledged after the fact that NAFTA was a huge screw-up. John Stewart interviewed Obama's law school adviser on election night, and said adviser admitted that Reagan was Obama's favorite president. Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He's barely a liberal at all.
It is not readily absorbed through the skin, which is why it was only used as a topical anesthetic of the mucus membranes such as the mouth, eyes, and ears. It is also not powerful enough that the trace amounts in money could have any effect.
Nope, that isn't what I said, but I wasn't really clear about it so I'll try to explain. Active participation in a conspiracy requires more thought. IF what you are conspiring towards is bad for others, conspiring actively is more likely to bring this to your attention. If you are not actively conspiring with others, the evil you are doing is easier to sweep under the rug of your subconscious. Is that clearer?
Slashdot Mirror
Migraines tend to diminish in intensity with old age. And I said that chiro works for back pain. But it still won't cure gout or cancer.
You right wingers love to point out that we are a constitutional republic, but that does not negate anything I said. Technically, I am right, hehehe, you even admit it. But look up the commerce clause.
Yes, the insurance companies do say that. If hold the only source of food, and I say, "suck my dick or starve to death," what will you do? Enter into a dick-sucking-for-food contract? If I hold medicine that will cure you, and I demand an outrageous price for it, what will you do? Economic coercion is real, especially when property rights are backed up with government guns.
You call my use of the word freedom 'misuse?' I'd say, protecting the rights of the wealthy to oppress the poor is even more of a misuse of the word.
The record shows that the free market is incapable of providing good reasonably priced health care solutions. Sorry that the facts have such a liberal bias, but the rest of the first world has awesome socialized health care that works, for less per capita than ours.
Your lies about the UK are, in fact, lies. My mom just died over there this Christmas. Because she couldn't get good health care here. Sarah Palin admitted to sneaking into Canada for health care.
Uh, none of the services you mentioned are actually bankrupt. And medicare, for instance, puts most of the money into actual health care instead of the pockets of paper pushing time wasting insurance leaches.
I'm sorry, but the imbalance of information and power inherent in any doctor patient relationship means the free market can not arrive at an equitable price for the service. You can't 'shop around' for health care. If you were seriously il;l, what would 'shopping around' mean? And how would you even know when you'd gotten a good deal.
The placebo effect is very real, but "Feeling better" is not "surviving incurable cancer." In fact, most real treatments for cancer will leave you feeling significantly worse, often for weeks after a treatment.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
There's a lot of places in the country where it's really hard to find an OBGYN because they've left states where the malpractice insurance was too expensive. I've also heard of doctors quitting general practice because of malpractice insurance premiums costing more than their entire revenue.
Not to be a wikidick, but [citation needed]. Even in states with restrictive requirements, there are physicians mutuals that are physician run and much cheaper than commercial insurance providers. Have been since the 70s.
Blah blah blah, what utter bullshit. Commerce clause, look it up.
Obamacare is not going before the SCOTUS. It is entirely constitutional. Some attorney generals are even refusing to press forward with their governor's bullshit lawsuits because they know they will lose. And the polls show that the Republicans will not pick up a majority next election. People are sick and tired of the party of 'no.' The Republicans are a sad, tired regional party of deep south racists who just don't want medical care for brown skinned people. "Government hands off my medicare!" Fucking morons.
See you at the polls, loser!
I get modded troll all the time. Sometimes, rightly so. But it never impacts my karma or ability to post at +2, so why should I get upset? Heck, I love getting troll mods. An undeserved troll mod is basically an admission by the moderator that they are unwilling to be swayed to your position but unable to refute it. It's basically saying, "I like believing what I believe and you are trying to make me believe something different. Despite the fact that I can not refute what you say, I am going to disbelieve it because I don't like it." It's an admission that they are slightly insane and not very smart.
I've heard this argument before and the counter argument to it as well: this flawed first step is necessary in order to get the ball rolling. And, you know, it does do a few good things. Not everything in the HCR bill is a corporate giveaway. Some things are quite necessary, like requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, this is not the universal coverage the majority of Americans wanted. Hopefully, the bad parts can be fixed while the good parts are retained.
No doctors are going to leave the country or into other professions because of this bill, that is really over the top hyperbole. Really, where did you even get that ridiculous hypothesis?
As a democracy, we get to define what we mean by freedom. We vote on which freedoms we will protect and which we won't. It's pretty difficult to have liberty and pursue happiness without life.
I, for instance, don't think anyone should have the freedom to oppress others, by any means including economic. If I came to you and said, "your money or your life," that would obviously be oppression. But when an insurance company says to a poor person, "your money or your life," that is oppression too.
Nobody should have power over others. That is tyranny, not freedom. In some places freedom of speech is not upheld. In some places it is. In some places, the freedom to live a healthy life is protected. In other places, like America, it isn't really. But we just voted to protect the right to health care, and so it is a right, created as we create any right: by agreeing as a society to protect it.
I can't help everyone everywhere in the world. But I can help people here in America. I'm not concerned by my meager consumerism. I can own a car, a cell phone, and go on vacation without feeling guilty. You do not get to define my morality in black and white terms and say, 'You can't stand up for universal health care without hypocrisy unless you are an ascetic.' That is patently ridiculous.
This isn't charity, either. It's an externality, a public good. Universal health care is good for everyone, even those who do not need it personally. An unhealthy population is a less productive population. Our current health care system eats up a huge percentage of our economic output, it is hugely less efficient than states that have universal care. We pay twice as much, per capita, for our health care as the next most expensive country. And we get health outcomes that are only marginally better than most third world countries outcomes.
So, we will all benefit from a more efficient public health care system. Which means we should all pay for it, with our taxes. Just like we do for roads (even if we don't drive) and fire departments (even if we aren't on fire) and schools (even if we have are adults with no children) Some types of goods and services simply can not be provided efficiently by the free market, while other types can not be efficiently provided by a command economy. We should be smart enough, and free enough of economic dogma, to recognize which are which and use the system that is most efficient.
They can make back pain marginally better. That's not bogus at all. They can not, however, fix much of anything else, which was Singh's complaint against them, because they claim they can fix everything from gout to cancer.
Yes, there is such a thing as a free lunch. Sure, technically, someone has to pay for it. But it's free to the guy who doesn't have to pay for it. Right now, that guy is the insurance industry. They are eating the lunch you and I paid for. I'd rather eat it myself, and maybe share some with the less fortunate, than give it to some wealthy fat cat.
How so? Obama is a corporatist, sorry if that's the part that offends you, but he does want to give you health care. He kinda made a big deal about it, you may have heard it in the news recently.
Personally, I think he sold out to Big Medicine, and what we ended up getting will require a lot of fixing. We need a single payer system that guarantees free health care to all, like every other civilized country on Earth. It's a moral issue: we're Americans and we shouldn't let Americans die like rabid dogs in the street. That's third world bananna republic bullshit.
Works better if your audience at least have heard the names you're using before.
I weep for our country. History, doomed to repeat it, and so forth. Fuck. You don't know who Francisco Franco was? Really? Seriously? You've never heard of Juan or Eva Peron? They made a Broadway musical about her. Madonna was in it, fer chrissake.
So, in your world view, corporate special interests and 'narrow minded' groups like the EFF, which works to protect the rights of citizens, are lumped into the same group, and we, the citizens, will be best served by a compromise between those who would remove all our rights for a buck, and those who would protect them without asking for anything from us?
That we citizen elect the politicians.
Yes, but we don't select them.
To be unnecessarily extreme, we can essentially pick between Hitler and Pol Pot. While it's a tough choice, it's not a choice I want to make.
Yes, that is unnecessarily extreme. Why is everything in politics like this these days? Aren't there shades of wrongness? I mean really, we have a choice between politicians who have authorized the killing of millions of people? How about, 'we can essentially pick between Franco and Peron?' Both pretty bad, and fascist corporatists like many of today's politicians, but, you know, they didn't murder millions of people.
Rational politics requires rational citizens. Throwing around names like Hitler and Pol Pot does nothing to increase the rationality of voters. It does not motivate people to go out and vote or work for change. After all, what can one guy do against Hitler? Comparing our politicians to Hitler or Pol Pot is more than unnecessarily extreme. It is divisive and encourage irrationality, fear, and hopelessness. It also lumps all politicians in all races together into the 'utter monster' category, thus blurring the real distinctions that do exist. I mean, you can choose between the corporatist that wants to give you health care, or the corporatist that wants to regulate who you fuck. That's actually a pretty big distinction.
Not all politicians are evil monsters. And amongst the evil monsters, there are levels of evil. It is possible to pick the lesser of two evils if you don't lump all politicians together into the same evil madman stew.
AAAHhhhhhhhaaargh! Curse ye, I am foiled! I shall return to The Basement until my powers grow. You've not heard the last of me! *POOF* Cough, cough damn it, the package said these smoke bombs were non toxic.
I can help you keep idle off the front page, but it's going to cost you something... precious: your Slashdot user ID. Mwahahahaha!
for sufficient definitions of "unconscionable contract".
Or for sufficient definitions of 'joke.'
In a stone-age society it is an advantage to realize that the people from the other tribe aren't your friends because they really aren't: they want to kill you and take your food and women. Peace is a luxury of advanced societies.
Most likely this is untrue. People from the other tribe are your friends unless times are tight, like a famine. Then they don't want to kill you necessarily, but they do want to steal your women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare
While you are correct, they do call themselves neo-cons now, don't they? There's nothing liberal about what they do, either, and the liberals were pretty quick to see through their shit and give them the boot, so they all jumped ship to the Republican party where their rhetoric found more fertile ground.
In the end, fascist pigs are fascist pigs no matter what name they want us to call them.
Yes, if you have an open cut it could be absorbed that way, too.
Did I say ears? Damn it. I meant nose. Well, that's what too much, ah, never mind. Forget I said that.
Hehe, anything that annoys the crap out of people is a good thing in my book. People are just too comfortable.
Oh by the way, your favorite band sucks balls, all the people on your side of the political spectrum are idiots, and generally people from your hometown are less well endowed than average.
Obama is a corporatist. I knew it from the start. He is much more corporate than even Bill Clinton, who at least acknowledged after the fact that NAFTA was a huge screw-up. John Stewart interviewed Obama's law school adviser on election night, and said adviser admitted that Reagan was Obama's favorite president. Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He's barely a liberal at all.
It is not readily absorbed through the skin, which is why it was only used as a topical anesthetic of the mucus membranes such as the mouth, eyes, and ears. It is also not powerful enough that the trace amounts in money could have any effect.
Nope, that isn't what I said, but I wasn't really clear about it so I'll try to explain. Active participation in a conspiracy requires more thought. IF what you are conspiring towards is bad for others, conspiring actively is more likely to bring this to your attention. If you are not actively conspiring with others, the evil you are doing is easier to sweep under the rug of your subconscious. Is that clearer?