you look at other modern countries with universal healthcare. you give me one good reason why we can't or should not have that
Because comparing countries is like comparing apples and battleships. Different diets, cultures, exercise habits, genetic predispositions, etc, etc,.
Kuwait for instance struggles with a similar population as the US: aging and fret with heart disease and obesity-driven disease. It could potentially be a far better country to compare healthcare against than "modern [European] countries with universal healthcare" -- you don't know, I don't know.
Or how bout the fact that overloading medical resources might not necessarily be a good thing? Ask Thailand about that. The "30-bhat scheme" didn't do them a whole hell of alot of good.
You know why no one's polled about the death panels in the bill?
There aren't any.
lol, oh so naive. Wait until the bill comes due. If you think the government is just going to blanket allow any and all healthcare without any restriction or limitation when taxpayers are footing the bill, you're nuts.
So I'm sick and tired of this death panel crap, because we have them NOW and you don't give shit about them.
Who says we don't? We want actual reform in our healthcare system, not this Obamacare shit that just cements us into the existing shitty system with a handout to the crooked insurance companies.
Does offering a tax deduction for your mortgage "force" you to buy a house?
Does offering a deduction for charitable giving "force" you to give?
I could go of for quite a long time here. Our tax code is huge and nearly every single bit of it serves to encourage or discourage some behavior. All this does is discourage people from not carrying insurance.
Those are tax reductions, not fines/fees/penalties. There's a slight yet distinct difference. And frankly, I'm not a fan of the deduction concept either. The government should be in the business of defending the nation and protecting freedoms, not directing the behavior of its citizens.
Of course, if you step back and look at the big picture, you'll see that while you are currently subsidising people over 35 even though you are in really good health, chances are you will, yourself, live to be over 35, when you will end up being the one subsidised.
By what deluded view of the world do you think that everyone over 35 leads a life of similar healthiness? Drug users? Chain smokers? Binge drinkers? Food gluttons? Soda drinkers? If you in ANY way believe that a skinny sub-35 year old on average is going to incur the same costs in old age as some unhealthy fatass, you really need to check out the top 5 health expenses in the US and the corresponding links to obesity. A hint: heart disease is one of them.
Stop complaining and enjoy the buffet.
Spoken like another clueless liberal that believes money, doctors, and drugs grow on trees...as if the only reason people die is because we let them and not because resources are limited. My mother waited 3 months for brain surgery to remove a tumor. Do you think the doctors were twiddling their thumbs in the meantime???
Even though it has provisions like how you can't be dropped or denied for a pre-existing condition. How in the world could someone be against that? I could see a CEO of a health care company not liking it, but the rest of us? How?
For the same reason I'd be against a bill handing out a billion dollar tax credit to anybody who wants it. Because money doesn't grow on trees. Because a "free lunch" is rarely ever "free". And because law should be about much more than "whatever benefits me most".
Otherwise, it's pretty much like car insurance, so was the game already over decades ago?
The federal government has never forced Americans (or been allowed to do so) to purchase car insurance. States aren't required to adhere to the limitations of the Constitution. Why the hell does everyone always gloss over this?
Why not? Is climate science fundamentally opposed to oil use? If so, why do you think that is?
People in a given industry are either prone to (or indoctrinated towards) a particular way of thought. This is why people without the computer science field also just happen to tend to be predisposed towards strong opinions in favor of "digital liberties"/piracy/internet freedoms.
If the facts of climate science did not support AGW so strongly, there would be no reason for oil friendly individuals to avoid climate science. Actually, they could make a great name for themselves by demonstrating that AGW were false. But this doesn't happen because AGW is a fact.
GW is a fact. Percentage related to man remains in debate. But most importantly, what to do remains hotly debated. Climate scientists haven't done a great job with precision, quantities, or timing -- as such, we have no idea what effect any given change in mankind's behavior will have over what time period. They have theories and speculation, but that is it. The only fact is that the Earth appears to be warming.
What agenda do you think climate scientists are working for? If climate scientists were catering to the powerful, wouldn't they be publishing data and models that the oil industries like?
It may look impressive when you look at the dollar figures, not so much when you look at what they actually buy. Your public services spending is surprisingly inefficient. Especially the stuff that is spent on healthcare (largely because, being aimed at poor, it goes for palliative rather than preventive - so you end up spending more long term).
Well, that I'll agree with -- but sadly the Dems are are even worse than the Republicans in that respect. Whereas the Republicans promise to reform things and then fail to do so, the Dems want to ignore the inefficiencies in the existing programs and tack on brand new expensive programs (i.e. spend more money). At least there's an upper limit on Mandatory spending under the Repubs (since wars don't last forever, like social security and its ilk do).
23.4% of GDP isn't "much socialism'?
It's at the very minimum damn close to the average, which is way more than I'd expect in a country supposedly touted for its "Free Market/Capitalistic" society.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with workers telling their bosses they want better work conditions.
Yes, there is. Because it makes the Randians fume in rage
Not quite, having the government tell businesses to give workers better working conditions make Randians fume in rage. Having workers determine their own value is simply a factor of the free market. If they end up pricing themselves out of the market (i.e. by believing they're worth more than they really are), they'll end up losing anyway by having the employer tell them to fuck off in response to the ultimatum. The point is that both employer and worker have the freedom to make their own choices. Now what's wrong with that?
The biggest difference in terms of mechanics is the shift in emphasis towards modularity instead of multi-classing. In 3.5 if you have a character concept that doesn't fit easily into a pre-existing class, you have to do some crazy multi-classing to get it worked in. Paizo's "archetypes" approach makes that kind of thing a lot easier, because it lets you swap out class features in a standard base class in order to get something different. Not more -- just different.
Technically, to be fair, they did have that in 3.5. It was called "substitution levels". Though I will grant they weren't as common or extensive as prestige classes.
Look, it's very simple. IIRC the #1 reason why people go bankrupt in the US is because of healthcare. This doesn't happen in other countries, and their level of healthcare not only doesn't suffer, but is oftentimes better. What's not to like?
Because you have no idea what the cause of high healthcare costs in the US is. For all you or anyone else knows, a European system adopted here would in fact cost even more than we're already spending. That's the point. Medicare is a great example. Other countries out there have similar programs. Yet ours is performing horribly and theirs are not. Or how about gun laws? Where some countries are crazy restrictive on guns and others are fairly relaxed and both have similar levels of violent crime? You can't just pick one data point/factor and ignore any other possible correlation/causes.
He is a nutjob, since he believes that the world could go on the gold standard for fractional reserve banking, and even be able to find enough gold to do it.
You only believe he's a nutjob because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration of his view. He acknowledges problem with a "gold standard" as well and actually wants to introduce a "hard money" parallel currency that could be used as legal tender (competing with fiat dollars). It's a reasonable view. In fact, the fact people don't view purely fiat currencies as "nutjob" boggles my mind.
I think the main point here is that everyone needs healthcare of some kind, statistically speaking, throughout their life. Some people need more than others, often through no fault of their own.
And do you have actual statistics on how often it is their fault? The top 5 healthcare expenses in the US (such as heart disease) for instance have very strong ties to obesity. What about drug users? Smokers? People who use tanning beds and avoid sunscreen? Etc, etc, etc. I would argue the vast majority of healthcare issues are caused by lifestyle choices. And the "not their fault" (genetic conditions and truly bad luck) are the exception. Going into this argument with that frame of mind leaves a few options:
A) let the taxpayers pay for the people making bad life choices while letting them continue their bad life styles
B) let the taxpayers pay for the people making bad life choices while passing heavy legislation to curb bad behavior
C) let the people live their own goddamned lives and pay for their own mistakes
Between the options available, I prefer C, especially in this country where no one is willing to be accountable for their own actions. Option B invites a huge government crackdown on freedom, and Option A is a financial clusterfuck and a huge "fuck you" to all the healthy/responsible people out there.
What you are essentially saying is "I don't give a shit if you die, I want my [pool | car | foreign holiday]."
Ah yes, because all of us use any income boosts on frivolous things. Personally, I'd like to support my parents in their old age who are in their 50-60s, failed to responsibly save when growing up, and now cannot retire because of it. Every fucking dollar you take from me that has to go to some other jackass that made poor life decisions is one you take from me that I could be using to take care of my own family. So get off the "you're all greedy assholes who just want another ferrari" preachy talking point.
Of the G8 nations, you pay nearly twice the cost per head of the next nation, for pretty similar outcomes. This extra cost is pretty obviously because of the nature of your health insurance industry.
"Obviously"? Why, how scientific of you. I'm sure lifestyle has absolutely nothing to do with it. Or the fact we spend ungodly amounts of money giving terminal patients a few more weeks to live when Europeans tend to let them go earlier. But it feels more right just to criminalize the industry rather than take responsibility for our own actions after all.
It seems insane to leave your health in the hands of a corporation who profit the most from denying you as much healthcare as possible. The extra bureaucracy the insurance industry engages in for their campaign to deny their customers treatment undoubtedly increases costs.
I find it insane to leave those decisions in anyone's hands but the patients/family. Shifting from a corporate death panel to a government death panel doesn't exactly fix the problem.
If you want a cheaper healthcare system, you only have to look to countries with socialised healthcare.
Why? Because that's the only counter example? Because no one else has a system implemented like the US? So naturally the only available alternative must be correct and all others wrong? It's mighty convenient for your argument that there isn't a single additional private healthcare system out there to provide a second data point for the opposite side of the argument, isn't it?
It really boils down to insulin. When insulin levels are high, you store fat. When insulin levels are low, you burn fat.
Umm, so what you said was that "calories matter", namely the "calories out" side of the equation. I've never understood people who claim that the laws of physics somehow don't apply and then go on to ignore the second half of the "calories in, calories out" equation. If carbs reduce your metabolic burn rate, that's one thing. But it doesn't somehow mean that a simple caloric calculation doesn't still determine your end weight.
Which is effectively nullifying those marriages already performed.
No it isn't. In the state they were performed, the marriage is recognized -- it is never nullified. As a state issue, why should one state be able to force another state to recognize the marriage? At that point, it becomes a federal issue.
Do you even think beyond your bigoted little world in your mom's basement?
I believe same-sex marriages should be legalized and afforded all the benefits that come from said union. Put the tunnel vision away and recognize that not everyone fits a stereotype that lets you conveniently segment society into "those with me" and "those against me".
Romney and his ilk are a huge part of why the problem exists in the first place. Romney's ilk's creed is in fact "more for me, fuck society."
So, by the same logic, wouldn't greedy people on the other side only thinking for themselves be a problem as well? Wouldn't it make more sense to design law with actual purpose, rather than "whatever puts a few more dollars in my pocket, sensible or no"?
I'm sorry, but a law specifically designed to overrule state laws cannot, by definition, be correct from a states' rights standpoint.
Overrule state law? The entire point of the law is to ensure that no state is forced to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. That is protecting state law. Did you even read the damn thing, or do your liberal blogs start and stop at Section 3?
And while he talks about "freedom" and "liberty," in reality he is primarily a states' rights supporter. The "freedom" you'd get is freedom from the federal government, but never mind that the states would have free rein to screw you over. If states want to codify various kinds of oppression and discrimination, well, that's their right. He just wants to turn the US into 50 small countries, instead of a union of 50 states.
??? What the hell do you think freedom is if not state's rights? Anarchy? It's a pretty simple equation...the closer government is to the local level, the "more free" you are. And the reason for that is that local municipalities are far more likely to represent your interests than non-local. And yes, this does mean the "freedom" to do alot of stupid shit a bunch of people in another state may not agree with. But that is what "freedom" means.
So how do you square this with his vehement defence of the Defence of Marriage Act?
Pretty simple actually. The vast majority of that bill is correct from a state's rights standpoint. Section 3 (already ruled unconstitutional) is the only sketchy territory and Ron Paul has never "vehemently" supported Section 3. In fact, his stance on Section 3 remains largely unknown. Decent article here covers it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/ron-paul-homophobic_b_1171695.html
Slashdot Mirror
Because comparing countries is like comparing apples and battleships. Different diets, cultures, exercise habits, genetic predispositions, etc, etc,.
Kuwait for instance struggles with a similar population as the US: aging and fret with heart disease and obesity-driven disease. It could potentially be a far better country to compare healthcare against than "modern [European] countries with universal healthcare" -- you don't know, I don't know.
Or how bout the fact that overloading medical resources might not necessarily be a good thing? Ask Thailand about that. The "30-bhat scheme" didn't do them a whole hell of alot of good.
lol, oh so naive. Wait until the bill comes due. If you think the government is just going to blanket allow any and all healthcare without any restriction or limitation when taxpayers are footing the bill, you're nuts.
Who says we don't? We want actual reform in our healthcare system, not this Obamacare shit that just cements us into the existing shitty system with a handout to the crooked insurance companies.
Those are tax reductions, not fines/fees/penalties. There's a slight yet distinct difference. And frankly, I'm not a fan of the deduction concept either. The government should be in the business of defending the nation and protecting freedoms, not directing the behavior of its citizens.
Guess again: http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/features/heart-disease-medical-costs
"In fact, most people recover after their first heart attack."
"In fact, of all the money spent in the U.S. on health care, 17% goes toward treating cardiovascular disease"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124121545.htm
By what deluded view of the world do you think that everyone over 35 leads a life of similar healthiness? Drug users? Chain smokers? Binge drinkers? Food gluttons? Soda drinkers? If you in ANY way believe that a skinny sub-35 year old on average is going to incur the same costs in old age as some unhealthy fatass, you really need to check out the top 5 health expenses in the US and the corresponding links to obesity. A hint: heart disease is one of them.
Spoken like another clueless liberal that believes money, doctors, and drugs grow on trees...as if the only reason people die is because we let them and not because resources are limited. My mother waited 3 months for brain surgery to remove a tumor. Do you think the doctors were twiddling their thumbs in the meantime???
For the same reason I'd be against a bill handing out a billion dollar tax credit to anybody who wants it. Because money doesn't grow on trees. Because a "free lunch" is rarely ever "free". And because law should be about much more than "whatever benefits me most".
The federal government has never forced Americans (or been allowed to do so) to purchase car insurance. States aren't required to adhere to the limitations of the Constitution. Why the hell does everyone always gloss over this?
People in a given industry are either prone to (or indoctrinated towards) a particular way of thought. This is why people without the computer science field also just happen to tend to be predisposed towards strong opinions in favor of "digital liberties"/piracy/internet freedoms.
GW is a fact. Percentage related to man remains in debate. But most importantly, what to do remains hotly debated. Climate scientists haven't done a great job with precision, quantities, or timing -- as such, we have no idea what effect any given change in mankind's behavior will have over what time period. They have theories and speculation, but that is it. The only fact is that the Earth appears to be warming.
Bias plays a role as well. Oil-friendly individuals don't exactly pursue careers in climate science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization#Renewable_energy_industry
Renewable energy investment increased 51 billion dollars in one year. Hint, someone got richer there.
Well, that I'll agree with -- but sadly the Dems are are even worse than the Republicans in that respect. Whereas the Republicans promise to reform things and then fail to do so, the Dems want to ignore the inefficiencies in the existing programs and tack on brand new expensive programs (i.e. spend more money). At least there's an upper limit on Mandatory spending under the Repubs (since wars don't last forever, like social security and its ilk do).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_net_soc_exp_of_gdp-economy-net-social-expenditure-gdp
23.4% of GDP isn't "much socialism'? It's at the very minimum damn close to the average, which is way more than I'd expect in a country supposedly touted for its "Free Market/Capitalistic" society.
Sounds like the government. Lets just make him a Democrat Senator and call it a day.
Ah, argument by anecdotal evidence. Obesity is actually a major health affector, way more than genetics. And I've seen the studies.
Technically, you don't. The at-fault offender's insurance company pays for both.
Not quite, having the government tell businesses to give workers better working conditions make Randians fume in rage. Having workers determine their own value is simply a factor of the free market. If they end up pricing themselves out of the market (i.e. by believing they're worth more than they really are), they'll end up losing anyway by having the employer tell them to fuck off in response to the ultimatum. The point is that both employer and worker have the freedom to make their own choices. Now what's wrong with that?
Technically, to be fair, they did have that in 3.5. It was called "substitution levels". Though I will grant they weren't as common or extensive as prestige classes.
Because you have no idea what the cause of high healthcare costs in the US is. For all you or anyone else knows, a European system adopted here would in fact cost even more than we're already spending. That's the point. Medicare is a great example. Other countries out there have similar programs. Yet ours is performing horribly and theirs are not. Or how about gun laws? Where some countries are crazy restrictive on guns and others are fairly relaxed and both have similar levels of violent crime? You can't just pick one data point/factor and ignore any other possible correlation/causes.
You only believe he's a nutjob because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration of his view. He acknowledges problem with a "gold standard" as well and actually wants to introduce a "hard money" parallel currency that could be used as legal tender (competing with fiat dollars). It's a reasonable view. In fact, the fact people don't view purely fiat currencies as "nutjob" boggles my mind.
And do you have actual statistics on how often it is their fault? The top 5 healthcare expenses in the US (such as heart disease) for instance have very strong ties to obesity. What about drug users? Smokers? People who use tanning beds and avoid sunscreen? Etc, etc, etc. I would argue the vast majority of healthcare issues are caused by lifestyle choices. And the "not their fault" (genetic conditions and truly bad luck) are the exception. Going into this argument with that frame of mind leaves a few options:
A) let the taxpayers pay for the people making bad life choices while letting them continue their bad life styles
B) let the taxpayers pay for the people making bad life choices while passing heavy legislation to curb bad behavior
C) let the people live their own goddamned lives and pay for their own mistakes
Between the options available, I prefer C, especially in this country where no one is willing to be accountable for their own actions. Option B invites a huge government crackdown on freedom, and Option A is a financial clusterfuck and a huge "fuck you" to all the healthy/responsible people out there.
Ah yes, because all of us use any income boosts on frivolous things. Personally, I'd like to support my parents in their old age who are in their 50-60s, failed to responsibly save when growing up, and now cannot retire because of it. Every fucking dollar you take from me that has to go to some other jackass that made poor life decisions is one you take from me that I could be using to take care of my own family. So get off the "you're all greedy assholes who just want another ferrari" preachy talking point.
"Obviously"? Why, how scientific of you. I'm sure lifestyle has absolutely nothing to do with it. Or the fact we spend ungodly amounts of money giving terminal patients a few more weeks to live when Europeans tend to let them go earlier. But it feels more right just to criminalize the industry rather than take responsibility for our own actions after all.
I find it insane to leave those decisions in anyone's hands but the patients/family. Shifting from a corporate death panel to a government death panel doesn't exactly fix the problem.
Why? Because that's the only counter example? Because no one else has a system implemented like the US? So naturally the only available alternative must be correct and all others wrong? It's mighty convenient for your argument that there isn't a single additional private healthcare system out there to provide a second data point for the opposite side of the argument, isn't it?
Umm, so what you said was that "calories matter", namely the "calories out" side of the equation. I've never understood people who claim that the laws of physics somehow don't apply and then go on to ignore the second half of the "calories in, calories out" equation. If carbs reduce your metabolic burn rate, that's one thing. But it doesn't somehow mean that a simple caloric calculation doesn't still determine your end weight.
No it isn't. In the state they were performed, the marriage is recognized -- it is never nullified. As a state issue, why should one state be able to force another state to recognize the marriage? At that point, it becomes a federal issue.
I believe same-sex marriages should be legalized and afforded all the benefits that come from said union. Put the tunnel vision away and recognize that not everyone fits a stereotype that lets you conveniently segment society into "those with me" and "those against me".
So, by the same logic, wouldn't greedy people on the other side only thinking for themselves be a problem as well? Wouldn't it make more sense to design law with actual purpose, rather than "whatever puts a few more dollars in my pocket, sensible or no"?
Overrule state law? The entire point of the law is to ensure that no state is forced to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. That is protecting state law. Did you even read the damn thing, or do your liberal blogs start and stop at Section 3?
??? What the hell do you think freedom is if not state's rights? Anarchy? It's a pretty simple equation...the closer government is to the local level, the "more free" you are. And the reason for that is that local municipalities are far more likely to represent your interests than non-local. And yes, this does mean the "freedom" to do alot of stupid shit a bunch of people in another state may not agree with. But that is what "freedom" means.
Pretty simple actually. The vast majority of that bill is correct from a state's rights standpoint. Section 3 (already ruled unconstitutional) is the only sketchy territory and Ron Paul has never "vehemently" supported Section 3. In fact, his stance on Section 3 remains largely unknown. Decent article here covers it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-groshoff/ron-paul-homophobic_b_1171695.html