[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not avoiding anything. You may not appreciate the replies, but that doesn't mean I'm avoiding the issues. You've redirected somewhat to a question that begs the obvious by the way. Are costs accessible on any of the above items like the car or the house? Are the costs on all of these somehow not artificially inflated? What about the multiple iPods, iPhones, iMacs, high-speed internet, several hundred channels of cable, BMW SUV lease, 3 times the square footage of living space than the average European, and eating out twice a week? Are these costs accessible to all?

*Answer; No. This is how the middle class have decided to spend their money in America. The average cost of medical bills to be paid by one filing for bankruptcy in the US is $11,000.00 besson. The average person spends more than $5,000.00 per year just on their car loan. This means they are spending over $400.00 per month just on paying their car loan. What I'm telling you is this is absolutely unnecessary. We can pretend this is not so and demand the government pick up our health care tab, but they don't need to nor are they resourced adequately to care more for us than we do. We simply need to care as much for our health as we claim to. Most of the family plans I found for you were under $400.00 per month and those were individual plans to be paid by the self-employed. I pay approximately $86.74 per month for full health care coverage of myself, my wife, and two dependents. (which by the way is very near the difference between the US portion of 12% income tax for health care provision and 22% of Canada's portion to health care) This includes eye care, dental and life insurance on all four. I am employed by a corporation. I have no college education and I started out on WIC, Foodstamps, and Medicaid with one child at age 19. I had coverage then and I have coverage now. When you say health coverage is not accessible, you're not being honest with yourself or this forum. I know better. I know you all would rather I just shut up and buy into your notion that people who want health insurance can't get it and that we need a gigantic government bureaucracy to make it all better, but this simply is not so. To save a few people who've determined that their lifestyle was more important than their health from filing bankruptcy, you will damn the entire country to filing bankruptcy on your behalf. Bad idea.

Again, we're not talking about the poor. The poor are eligible for WIC, Foodstamps, and health care both maintenance care and emergency care w/ card. I know because I've lived it. Again, why would you insist you have a better grasp on the big picture when by your own measurement earlier, lacked vision?

Please do not avoid the following question; there are millions who meet the income requirements to attain government health care in the US yet remain unenrolled. Why?

So you are basically saying that health care should be treated differently than public education, police, military, etc... It should be a luxury to have that people pay for, and if you can't afford it, you aren't trying hard enough.

ebuddy, the bottom line is that your claim is ridiculous. If I'm not part of a large company that can offer health insurance benefits as a supplement to my salary, I'm screwed. You found some insurance for $200/month. Great... what about the deductible? What does this actually cover - catastrophic stuff, or is it fully comprehensive?

Here is annual health insurance costs for Indiana in 2003:



This is from:

Health Insurance Costs and Coverage

The average employer and employee is paying $3500/year for insurance (in 2003), and this is not taking into account deductibles. Are you naive enough to think that a $200/month insurance package is comprehensive, and that $3500 is being paid on average for no reason?

The average family pays $2300 plus deductible, and this is *with* the employer chipping in most of this ($7000). Do you really expect a family to be able to afford $10,000 year in health care costs plus deductible, keeping in mind that these numbers are from 2003 and at group rates?

ebuddy, the bottom line is that millions cannot afford health insurance.

Here are some more numbers from 2003 - percentage of population without health insurance:



Are you trying to imply that these millions of Americans are just too lazy to go looking, and that they all can easily afford their own insurance?

Unless you can explain to me how a family could be able to justify forking over upwards of $10,000/year plus the deductible on a limited income, you are completely full of it.

So, why is it that that a Canadian family would spend as little as $600/year for the same comprehensive coverage? Even taking the high end into account of $900 per tax payer (the minimum is $300), that is $1800 vs. $10,000...

Does this compute?

[Dakarʒ]

PA recently passed a bill to cover all children regardless of income. This would have been nice had it been enacted when I was still a teen.

[peeb]

Well said Besson.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's interesting, but, frankly it comes from the extreme fringe of thinking ("If a national single-payer health care system is adopted, most medical progress will be stopped in its tracks" -erm - no.).

Yes, we'd all be getting the quality of care tht medicaid customers get now. Do you even realize how little medicaid and medicare pays back to providers of health care? A tiny fraction of the actual cost. If everyone were covered that way, it would kill progress.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Even the rabid right admit that "There's no getting around it, mandatory health insurance would essentially be a new tax", but, the problem is that it would be a tax paid straight to corporations - the government would be mandating that you pay money to someone you did not elect, there would be no democratic oversight of the spending.

Right. It would be exactly like that "tax" you pay to your car insurance company every month (or six months, however your payment plan is set up.)

Originally Posted by peeb 

The real problem here is that there private insurance providers are MUCH more expensive and less efficient than Medicare / Medicaid. This is in part because they spend an ENORMOUS amount of time and (your) money trying not to give you care.

Uh-huh. Insurance companies know that it is better (and cheaper) to give care immediately rather than try to deny things. Otherwise, they grow into problems that are simply undeniable. Yes, insurance companies exist to make money. So what? If they do their job and provide care, they will remian in business and continue to make money. Your extreme pesimism of business is disheartening. Business are fiscally more responsible than government. By about a billion percent.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nice try, and I would not want to eliminate private providers for those with a fetish for the expensive and ineffective, but no thanks.

Providers or insurance? Either way, private rarely /= expensive. However, governemtn often = waste.

[greenG4]

I thyink at the very least euddy is attmpting to show a large descrepancy in the financial choices of some people. There are obviously some below poverty line that cannot afford quality insurance. However, there are also some who simply choose Cadillac Escalades and Plasma TVs (which they can't really afford) instead of investing in health insurance. Some people simply choose not to have it. They risk it, hoping they won't need it. Then when they do and can't pay, the costs get passed on to the rest of us.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

However, there are also some who simply choose Cadillac Escalades and Plasma TVs (which they can't really afford) instead of investing in health insurance.

What? Did you just make that up?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Yes, we'd all be getting the quality of care tht medicaid customers get now. Do you even realize how little medicaid and medicare pays back to providers of health care? A tiny fraction of the actual cost. If everyone were covered that way, it would kill progress.

Nonsense. Can you back this up in any way?

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Right. It would be exactly like that "tax" you pay to your car insurance company every month (or six months, however your payment plan is set up.)

You're not forced to own a car.

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Uh-huh. Insurance companies know that it is better (and cheaper) to give care immediately rather than try to deny things. Otherwise, they grow into problems that are simply undeniable. Yes, insurance companies exist to make money. So what? If they do their job and provide care, they will remian in business and continue to make money. Your extreme pesimism of business is disheartening. Business are fiscally more responsible than government. By about a billion percent.

Actually that is simply not true. Medicare is MUCH more efficient in terms of administrative costs. Check your facts - it is the private system that is fiscally irresponsible. Medicare and Medicaid is cheap by comparison.

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Providers or insurance? Either way, private rarely /= expensive. However, governemtn often = waste.

You are simply wrong. Provide some data - when you do, you will see that private care in the US is much more expensive, both in absolute costs and administrative costs.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

What? Did you just make that up?

I've seen it many times, especially while living in the South. Interstingly enough, that's where there are higher uninsured statistics. There seems to be a prevalent culture (at least where I was) to have "things" to show off money you really didn't have. Note I am not making a blaket statement here. But it DOES happen. Cue, peeb screaming that I must ahave a statistic to back it up, because personal experience is worthless...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

What? Did you just make that up?

You simply haven't been out in the real world much, if you didn't realize that what he said is true for a lot of people.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

I've seen it many times, especially while living in the South. Interstingly enough, that's where there are higher uninsured statistics. There seems to be a prevalent culture (at least where I was) to have "things" to show off money you really didn't have. Note I am not making a blaket statement here. But it DOES happen. Cue, peeb screaming that I must ahave a statistic to back it up, because personal experience is worthless...

So are these people jobless or what? And yes, I'll take any kind of official source citing an example like this.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You simply haven't been out in the real world much, if you didn't realize that what he said is true for a lot of people.

Save your condescension. I suppose I don't live in the real world since I don't know someone with a plasma or an escalade, either?

[Spliffdaddy]

hey, peeb, maybe you should respond to the other thread where I handed you your ass. You have no credibility in this forum.

[greenG4]

Here you go peeb:

"Medicaid reimbursement is earned on these costs based on monthly depreciation and actual indirect cost x Medicaid percentage of all lines ofclaims billed for MH/DD/SA services x 50%."

http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/mhddsas/...-16-04memo.pdf

Around 50% of actual indirect cost. This is the norm.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

So are these people jobless or what? And yes, I'll take any kind of official source citing an example like this.

Are you kidding? I need to show you statistics that people buy way above their means?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

I thyink at the very least euddy is attmpting to show a large descrepancy in the financial choices of some people. There are obviously some below poverty line that cannot afford quality insurance. However, there are also some who simply choose Cadillac Escalades and Plasma TVs (which they can't really afford) instead of investing in health insurance. Some people simply choose not to have it. They risk it, hoping they won't need it. Then when they do and can't pay, the costs get passed on to the rest of us.

This is true, but we can't do anything under our current system about this without infringing upon personal liberties, and I'm sure a true Republican wouldn't want to do this.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually that is simply not true. Medicare is MUCH more efficient in terms of administrative costs. Check your facts - it is the private system that is fiscally irresponsible. Medicare and Medicaid is cheap by comparison. You are simply wrong. Provide some data - when you do, you will see that private care in the US is much more expensive, both in absolute costs and administrative costs.

I assume your logic is that Medicare and Medicaid spend less money on the same services? Refer to my post a few minutes ago. They pay around half the actual cost of procedures and tests! I wonder why they operate so much "cheaper"?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

hey, peeb, maybe you should respond to the other thread where I handed you your ass. You have no credibility in this forum.

Hey Spliffdaddy, go play in your sandbox, the playground is over thattaway.

[besson3c]

I guess the bottom line is that Republicans in here tend to paint with wide brushes and assume that everybody should be able to do the same things they are able to do, and if they can't, screw them...

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Are you kidding? I need to show you statistics that people buy way above their means?

I don't need stats. Just a legit example.

But I'm asking are these people jobless? Are they fresh from college twenty-somethings? Are they trying to save $20 a week that insurance costs?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

But I'm asking are these people jobless? Are they fresh from college twenty-somethings? Are they trying to save $20 a week that insurance costs?

A specific example would not necessarily answer the questions you pose and I can't find offhand an offical study comparing exxessive spending for the lower class and lack of insurance. Most I saw were young to middle age. But that brings up another point. Many younger people simply choose not to have health inmsurance due to simply feeling that it's a waste of money, since they're so young and healthy.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/ea.../200706_01.pdf

Look at page 6. The lower the age (with the exception of minors) the more like you are to not have health insurance. They just feel it's not needed.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

A specific example would not necessarily answer the questions you pose and I can't find offhand an offical study comparing exxessive spending for the lower class and lack of insurance. Most I saw were young to middle age. But that brings up another point. Many younger people simply choose not to have health inmsurance due to simply feeling that it's a waste of money, since they're so young and healthy.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/ea.../200706_01.pdf

Look at page 6. The lower the age (with the exception of minors) the more like you are to not have health insurance. They just feel it's not needed.

Thanks. I'd nitpick this, put I came to the conclusion that this segment of the population pulling this stunt (maxing credit AND avoiding insurance) has to be fairly insignificant.

In short, sorry about wasting three posts.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess the bottom line is that Republicans in here tend to paint with wide brushes and assume that everybody should be able to do the same things they are able to do, and if they can't, screw them...

No. The bottom line is we want to enable people to take care of themselves, not force others to do it through socialism. And then if they refuse to take care of themselves...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Save your condescension. I suppose I don't live in the real world since I don't know someone with a plasma or an escalade, either?

No, you'd simply be fibbing out of your ass if you tried to say you don't know of anyone with some combination of expensive AV equipment (and expensive service charges to go with it) a flashier than they probably can really afford vehicle, every manner of electronic gadget (phones, iPods, computers, etc.) that they gladly pay for rather than their own health insurance.

Your side if the aisle's blatant ability to always try and deny simple realities is what always ends up lending you zero credibility for honesty in this debate. You (and everyone else) knows damned well that there are many people who spend well beyond their means for things other than healthcare, and yet are counted among the ranks of the "ohhh boo hooo" uninsured.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, you'd simply be fibbing out of your ass if you tried to say you don't know of anyone with some combination of expensive AV equipment (and expensive service charges to go with it) a flashier than they probably can really afford vehicle, every manner of electronic gadget (phones, iPods, computers, etc.) that they gladly pay for rather than their own health insurance.

Give me a break with your baseless accusations.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your side if the aisle's blatant ability to always try and deny simple realities is what always ends up lending you zero credibility for honesty in this debate. You (and everyone else) knows damned well that there are many people who spend well beyond their means for things other than healthcare, and yet are counted among the ranks of the "ohhh boo hooo" uninsured.

Oh good, now let's just lump me in with other people to make things easier.

If anyone's guilty of denying reality, it'd be you. Apparently it's unfathomable to you that I (and other people) don't 'see' and 'know' all the same things you do.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

I assume your logic is that Medicare and Medicaid spend less money on the same services? Refer to my post a few minutes ago. They pay around half the actual cost of procedures and tests! I wonder why they operate so much "cheaper"?

Their administrative costs are also cheaper. Half the 'actual' costs? Half the costs that providers would like, in an ideal world, to bill. Those are different. I got my car for 3/4 of the 'actual' cost. No, wait, 3/4 of the cost the dealer asked for. It's different.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

I assume your logic is that Medicare and Medicaid spend less money on the same services? Refer to my post a few minutes ago. They pay around half the actual cost of procedures and tests! I wonder why they operate so much "cheaper"?

Also, for any given amount of money, their admin percentages are MUCH lower. They spend less on administration. A lot less, so, even given two identical bills, the govt system is cheaper. By a lot.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

No. The bottom line is we want to enable people to take care of themselves, not force others to do it through socialism. And then if they refuse to take care of themselves...

Then what exactly? What are you going to do with the populations with tuberculosis who can't take care of themselves? You really think that society doesn't have a legitimate interest in public health?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
hey, peeb, maybe you should respond to the other thread where I handed you your ass. You have no credibility in this forum.

Hey Spliffdaddy, go play in your sandbox, the playground is over thattaway.

I only saw this because it was quoted, Spliff, but, for your reference, 'vomiting on someones shoes' is not the same as 'handing someone their ass'. You're on my ignore list because you do nothing but spew insults, lies and misinformation. When you're proved wrong, you spew more insults, lies and misinformation. That's why you don't get responses any more. You puke on people's carpet, you don't get invited round any more.

[Zeeb]

I have a theory. I think many who argue against a national system do so because their churches and church friends expect them to hold that opinion. In many cases, these associates of theirs have bailed them out of very hard times. In order to show gratitude for this, they argue against a system that would be much much better for THEM because they want to remain loyal and have attached right wing viewpoints to how they feel about their friends.

Remembering their past struggles seems to make them more emotional in their arguements and when they get frustrated resort to simply insulting the other person who can't see what seems so obvious to them.

All of you who are arguing against a national system and now think you are "safe" because you've purchased or have insurance are actually not safe at all. One unfortunate and expensive bout with cancer and you'll see how much that insurance covers in the long run. Your savings will be wiped out and your house will go up for sale. Medical bills are one of the top reasons for bankruptcy--not just overspending on consumer items. Many of these people planned very carefully.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

If anyone's guilty of denying reality, it'd be you. Apparently it's unfathomable to you that I (and other people) don't 'see' and 'know' all the same things you do.

I don't think you 'see' and 'know' very much at all, as evidenced by your willingness to deny basic realities for the sake of argument.

But then again, you're Michael Moore's target audience.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I have a theory.

I have a theory about many of you wishing so fervently to turn control of your health over to bureaucrats who can't even balance a budget.

You're hypochondriacs. You're scared of virtually everything, living life itself -without some a government sponsored safety blankie- first and foremost. You're the type that figuratively never took the training wheels off your bikes out of pure fear. You still sleep with a night light, and wish a state-sponsored surrogate mommy would tuck you in first. You're deathly afraid that if you walk outside into *gasp* the sunlight, and actually open your eyes you may catch something and die.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is true, but we can't do anything under our current system about this without infringing upon personal liberties, and I'm sure a true Republican wouldn't want to do this.

No. So why force responsibility on them at the cost of others?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Their administrative costs are also cheaper. Half the 'actual' costs? Half the costs that providers would like, in an ideal world, to bill. Those are different. I got my car for 3/4 of the 'actual' cost. No, wait, 3/4 of the cost the dealer asked for. It's different.

Read the article. It's half the actual cost.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Also, for any given amount of money, their admin percentages are MUCH lower. They spend less on administration. A lot less, so, even given two identical bills, the govt system is cheaper. By a lot.

Source? Data? Journal article? Link???

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

No. The bottom line is we want to enable people to take care of themselves, not force others to do it through socialism. And then if they refuse to take care of themselves...

I'm sick of the word "socialism" tossed around so irresponsibly. Public health does NOT equal socialism, and social programs are not inherently bad. We rely on all sorts of social programs - public education, et all... does this mean we live under socialism? Of course not, don't be silly.

I truly hope that people start reading this and comprehending this.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I don't think you 'see' and 'know' very much at all, as evidenced by your willingness to deny basic realities for the sake of argument.

So far all I'm getting from you is if if its true to you, then it's a basic reality.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But then again, you're Michael Moore's target audience.

Do your posts have any real content, or are they just a vehicle to drop these lines?

I've never even watched a Moore interview, let alone movie. But I'm sure that won't stop you from dropping a new generalization on me in the next post.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm sick of the word "socialism" tossed around so irresponsibly. Public health does NOT equal socialism, and social programs are not inherently bad. We rely on all sorts of social programs - public education, et all... does this mean we live under socialism? Of course not, don't be silly.

I truly hope that people start reading this and comprehending this.

Now you're being nitpicky on the use of the word. "Socialism" in this case is an accurate use. Ther are obviously different levels of socialism. I'm not accussing you of being communist in your opinion. One definitition is: "The view that the government should own and control major industries." You want the government to own and control the health care industry. Thta constitutes socialism. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's what it is.

Edit: Not trying to be snide with that comment, so I'm sorry if it came out that way. What I don't understand is your fear of the word "socialism" when that is exactly what you promote?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

So far all I'm getting from you is if if its true to you, then it's a basic reality.

Why don't you stop spouting crap, and actually prove that no one counted among the uninsured doesn't spend a lot of money on frivolous things, rather than health care?

All you've done is question things that are obvious to anyone other than a willing dupe, and then when presented with facts that disprove you, you just go "Oh well, I didn't bother to really look at it, and jumped to this conclusion blah blah..."

Yeah, I'd say you're Moore's target audience, so perhaps you should see some of his movies.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

The link I provided was to a post of mine that roughly outlined an alternative to government-controled universal insurance/care.

Reason Magazine - Mandatory Universal Health Insurance?

Ah OK, thanks for the link. So sorry if I missed this in the article (I didn't have time to finish it), but what about the people who cannot afford the "mandatory health insurance"? If you can't afford auto insurance you can't drive, if you can't afford this health insurance... you can't live?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Read the article. It's half the actual cost.

The article says that, but does not explain how that is calculated. If that were true, why would anyone accept it? It's like saying 'when the government buys cars, it only pays half the cost'. If that were true, no one would sell.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Source? Data? Journal article? Link???

Oh come on. Do you know about Google?

Try this one. Anyone with any familiarity with the issue will tell you this, there are dozens of studies, the most credible by Mckinsey.

http://www.aafp.org/online/etc/media...ativeCosts.pdf

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you familiar enough with Christian entities and the concept of tithing to even understand the answer I give you? There are a host of websites and other outlets up to and including the local church that provide provisions not only for short-term disabilities, but those in need of long-term respite care. Most churches and other outlets contribute a portion of tithe for members of the church in need and there are numerous services both local, national, and international to meet the needs of those who have not. Often times, special collections are taken up for specific member needs. This is not even taking into account, half-way houses, missions work, general philanthropy, Open Door Mission, Francis House, various food pantries, etc... This also does not include benefit concerts such as the two-day concert occurring here locally this weekend that is providing free health screening for a host of illnesses. Upon diagnosis, they are put in touch with a number of the above outlets up to and including filing for government aid on their behalf in helping them meet these needs. There are Christian outlets that also meet these needs and others such as low-income housing, child care, women's groups for various issues and men's groups for various issues. You didn't know this?

See the highlighted sentence? That's the closest you came to addressing my question. You say that Christians help poor people with serious illnesses by "putting them in touch" with the outlets you mentioned. They also help them to "file for government aid". So on the one hand you're saying that you simply redirect them to another authority to deal with them, and you neglect to mention the specifics as to what exact aid they'll receive from the outlets you mentioned, and on the other you say that you let the government handle it! Doesn't the "government handling it" go against your entire position?

Do the "outlets" pay for all the medical treatment these people need? Do they pay for surgeries, medication, etc? Do they expect their money back? Do they pay for all kinds of surgeries or only certain types? Do they pay for all those referred to them or only certain groups?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Christians like myself help in a number of various ways including performing for free, helping collect donations, helping build care packages, ringing bells at store fronts during the holidays, meeting folks at the hospitals, cleaning up after the larger events/donating time and labor, etc...

And none of that matters to somebody with terminal cancer and no health insurance! They don't need "care packages" or "ringing bells". They need money. And if you are implying, when you say, "helping collect donations", that this is how Christians pay for their treatment, then you should see that this is the same thing that universal healthcare is doing, the only difference is that you're going to need more money from individual donators since the number of people donating will be much smaller than the entire population of the United States. In fact there's a chance you might not even get the necessary amount of money, or the donations might come in too late. You're also still off-loading responsibility, a concept conservatives take issue with.

Now if you would answer a couple of questions for me;

1) By what moral authority do you claim the advantages of universal health care?

By the authority that it's more effective and will save more lives. I have a question for you, do Christians help everyone? I know that the answer to this is no, at least for a significant portion of Christians. There are many Churches that do not allow openly homosexual members in their doors. Will you or your church, for example, offer to pay for the surgery of a homeless atheist? Or does he not matter because the heretic is going to burn in hell for eternity anyway?

2) What are the secular humanists doing to help those who suffer from serious illnesses and are without health insurance? *hint; other than waiting on legislative changes.

Instead of "waiting" on legislative change they are actively driving it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

No. So why force responsibility on them at the cost of others?

Because most sane people don't want there to be substantial populations with tuberculosis, or other communicable diseases, and think that it is morally reprehensible for a society to allow people to die or suffer disability because of an inability of them or their parents to pay for care.
While you might look on with glee, most people would be uncomfortable having to force (socialized) garbage collectors to pick up corpses from the street when the poor could not get care. They would wonder what kind of a society would not think that controlling disease is not a public good.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

Now you're being nitpicky on the use of the word. "Socialism" in this case is an accurate use. Ther are obviously different levels of socialism. I'm not accussing you of being communist in your opinion. One definitition is: "The view that the government should own and control major industries." You want the government to own and control the health care industry. Thta constitutes socialism. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's what it is.

Edit: Not trying to be snide with that comment, so I'm sorry if it came out that way. What I don't understand is your fear of the word "socialism" when that is exactly what you promote?

No. Socialism and Democracy are not binary things that you either are or aren't, there are many gradients and shades in between.

America is not a full democracy, but a representative democracy. America, whether you like it or not, is partly socialist policy. Having one set of policies in a certain area does not all of a sudden make a government socialist, it just pushes them further along in one direction of the sliding scale.

What you probably meant to say was "social", or something like it. "Socialism" is a style of government, and there is no common belief or understanding that as a whole our country is socialist, because we aren't. Having public health would not change this, because Canada has public health (as do most other countries) and Canada is not a socialist government either.

Socialism is not an adjective used to describe the relationship between the public and private sectors with a particular policy, it is a very specific form of government, and the word carries a very specific meaning. Please don't misuse it.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No. Socialism and Democracy are not binary things that you either are or aren't, there are many gradients and shades in between.

America is not a full democracy, but a representative democracy. America, whether you like it or not, is partly socialist policy. Having one set of policies in a certain area does not all of a sudden make a government socialist, it just pushes them further along in one direction of the sliding scale.

What you probably meant to say was "social", or something like it. "Socialism" is a style of government, and there is no common belief or understanding that as a whole our country is socialist, because we aren't. Having public health would not change this, because Canada has public health (as do most other countries) and Canada is not a socialist government either.

Socialism is not an adjective used to describe the relationship between the public and private sectors with a particular policy, it is a very specific form of government, and the word carries a very specific meaning. Please don't misuse it.

Fair enough.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Because most sane people don't want there to be substantial populations with tuberculosis, or other communicable diseases, and think that it is morally reprehensible for a society to allow people to die or suffer disability because of an inability of them or their parents to pay for care.
While you might look on with glee, most people would be uncomfortable having to force (socialized) garbage collectors to pick up corpses from the street when the poor could not get care. They would wonder what kind of a society would not think that controlling disease is not a public good.

Apparently you missed the part where we were talking about those who simply choose not to have health insurance so they can have a "better" standard of living. The rest is just exaggerated BS. Obviously since I am against "socialized" health care, I would look in glee at a TB outbreak. This is why people don't like debating with you. Your logic just can't be argued with.

[peeb]

Are you just going to sling abuse, or are you going to address the point? If you are against socialized healthcare, how will you prevent TB among people without insurance? You are the one with the logic problem.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Socialism is not an adjective used to describe the relationship between the public and private sectors with a particular policy, it is a very specific form of government, and the word carries a very specific meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective action

You haven't really got the slightest clue what you're on about, have you Bess?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You haven't really got the slightest clue what you're on about, have you Bess?

No, I don't.

I struggled with making that post say what I wanted to say, and I realize my definitions were flawed, but the main point whether or not you want to pick apart pieces of my post is that there is a difference between something tending socialist vs. actually being a socialist government.

We are so far away from being a socialist government that I really don't think people need to be worried.

Moreover, people tend to get very reactionary when discussing health care and bring up the idea of socialism and communism. Most fail to realize that we already rely on many social programs, making us part socialist, and that we aren't a pure democracy either.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Are you just going to sling abuse, or are you going to address the point? If you are against socialized healthcare, how will you prevent TB among people without insurance? You are the one with the logic problem.

Firstly if you think that someone saying you have poor reasoning skills is abuse then you're a little overly sensitive. Somehow, even without socialized medicine we have virtually eliminated TB in this country. That's why it is such big news when there IS a case. How long have you worked in the health care industry? I'm just curious, because you are so amazingly certain of yourself you must have decades experience and an in-depth understanding of the system and I want to know what that arrogance is based on. You seem to think socialized health care is the only solution to our current problems. It's not. I give up trying to explain this to you. I don't even care about convincing you. I just want a conversation without being accused of enjoying a TB outbreak. (Abuse-slinging maybe...) See, I know I would get along great with Besson3c in real life, because he can have a stimulating conversation/disagreement without just getting nasty. You're a little over-the-top.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I struggled with making that post say what I wanted to say, and I realize my definitions were flawed

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We are so far away from being a socialist government that I really don't think people need to be worried.

Nope. Everyone should be worried. People not being worried and the left slowly chipping away at social programs is how socialists eventually get to be in power.

Keep an eye open at all times.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Moreover, people tend to get very reactionary when discussing health care and bring up the idea of socialism and communism. Most fail to realize that we already rely on many social programs, making us part socialist, and that we aren't a pure democracy either.

That's a fair comment.