I saw Michael Moore's Sicko

dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
I saw Michael Moore's Sicko

It wasn't as bad as I was expecting, but I did think it was rather dishonest of him to not address the common complaints people have regarding Britain's NHS or Canada's health care system.

He didn't address issues regarding rate of taxation, how much people are taxed, who is actually paying for the health care system, etc. He also didn't address the complaints of those countries' citizens regarding their systems, such as those that have left their countries to come here and receive better treatment.


My position regarding federal-funding of universal health care has not changed at all, and I highly doubt that it ever will. Universal health care seems to be working fine in San Francisco and other local governments in the United States that have done it. That is fine by me. It should be up to the local governments, rather than the federal government, to decide on something like that.

San Francisco's universal health care system seems to be working well for them. Their policies are driving away small businesses that are just beyond the tax bracket that would save them from the increased rates that pay for the system - a complaint that is often touted by those in favor of such socialistic systems, but also a complaint that is inevitable within a progressive tax system such as ours. Nevertheless, San Francisco's system does, in fact, work.


Personally, I think a better solution would be to take away government protection of HMO's and leave the insurance companies to be subject to the civil court system and the dollar of the people. Moore's argument cries out against the suppression of choice by way of strong-arming via debt, but he fails to acknowledge that an alternative solution would be to simply get the government out of the system all together.

Moore tells us that the government is to blame for our current shithole of a system, and he even tells us that the leading voice in proposing universal health care (Hillary Clinton) was paid off by the lobbyists to keep her trap shut. He paints this terrible picture of our government and Hillary, but then he would have us believe that the government would be altruistic and caring when actually instating such a system.


Moore also fails to give us both sides. That's typical of him so I'm not going to knock him too much for that. I'll touch on some of the problems with universal health care, as viewed by some of the people within those systems. Here's an article from Guardian that discusses how people are leaving the UK and going to South Africa to seek treatment for their cancer because they don't get adequate treatment from NHS. [link] Here's a Google Group post about a guy that came to the United States and spent $100+k for treatment in order to avoid the poor quality health care that he was offered by NHS. [link]

Those are just two that I had on hand. I would have appreciated it if Moore would have found people in Britain that complain about the quality of service offered by NHS. That's not to say that I think Moore should have attempted to prove his opponents' agenda; rather, I'm saying Moore should have gathered the complaints from those people and then attempted to debunk them all. I would love for Moore to tell me why the people that leave to avoid NHS are making a bad decision. I really would. So why did those people leave NHS? Well, it's because NHS, much like our HMO's, refuses service to people that require expensive medication. As an example, they refuse service to cancer patients that are in need of new medication.

Think about the guy that is never sick, ever. Think about the guy that goes through his life, and only suffers from minor allergies and a common cold every now and then. He never goes to the doctor unless it's for a regular checkup. Now imagine that this guy is wealthy, so he's paying a lot into the system. At age forty, he gets diagnosed with a terminal disease that can be cured with modern medicine. Is it not unreasonable for him to think, "Well, I've paid so much into this system, now it's time for them to take care of me." ? Obviously that's an extreme hypothetical, but the point is to illustrate that the system is flawed. That guy paid for your health care. He paid for everyone's health care. He paid into the system. And the system fucked him over later.

His payments into the system were necessary to sustain the system. Without him, the system would collapse ... and that's the problem right there. When enough of those cases happen, and enough of the people that sustain the system have bad experiences with it, they will leave. When they leave, the system will collapse.


I do think that he raises awareness of the problems with letting the government get involved in the health care industry, so I give him a thumbs up for that. But at the same time, I think it's a rather defeatist position to advocate more government involvement in the health care industry, so I give him a thumbs down for that.


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Waaahhhh!!!!!!!  I don't

Waaahhhh!!!!!!!  I don't WANNA pay TAXES!!!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

Seriously, people from the libertarian/Republican view of things on this issue piss me off to the nth degree.  While you're suing your insurance company, you could be, I don't know, dying of cancer.  Let's go with that scenario.  Now, you're dying from cancer, paying for your chemo out of pocket, trying to pay your attorney who's handling the litigation, and all because you don't like nationalized health care and.....paying your taxes.

 Dealing with a cheapskate populace is a big reason why large social government programs don't work in the first place.  You get a bunch of pinheads who cry about paying their taxes and try to get morons elected who promise to cut the tax rate.  Then when the elected morons do just that, there's not enough cash to go around to pay for the programs that are needed.  Hooray, deficits and privatization!

The HMOs and health insurance regulations in the US are terrible, evil conglomerates who need to be taken over by the government.  By forcing such corporations to cover everyone, it will drive prices down when the government puts a cap on how much a prescription/operation/doctor's visit can cost.  Let all the libertarians move off to Tahiti or some island paradise where their bogus theories can work on a small scale.  In reality, big governments and socialized medicine are good things - as well as high tax rates.

 

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


dumpydooby2
Posts: 10
Joined: 2007-07-08
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy

Family_Guy wrote:

Waaahhhh!!!!!!! I don't WANNA pay TAXES!!!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

Seriously, people from the libertarian/Republican view of things on this issue piss me off to the nth degree.

I don't care.

 

Quote:
While you're suing your insurance company, you could be, I don't know, dying of cancer. Let's go with that scenario. Now, you're dying from cancer, paying for your chemo out of pocket, trying to pay your attorney who's handling the litigation, and all because you don't like nationalized health care and.....paying your taxes.

So this is only proof that our current system sucks. I never disagreed on that one. 

Quote:
Dealing with a cheapskate populace is a big reason why large social government programs don't work in the first place.

It's my right to do as I please with my money.

Quote:
You get a bunch of pinheads who cry about paying their taxes and try to get morons elected who promise to cut the tax rate. Then when the elected morons do just that, there's not enough cash to go around to pay for the programs that are needed.

I see that as a plus. I would much rather see all of the socialist programs wither away.

Quote:
Hooray, deficits and privatization!

Privatization is certainly better than statism.

Quote:
The HMOs and health insurance regulations in the US are terrible, evil conglomerates who need to be taken over by the government.

Again, I never said our system was good.

Quote:
By forcing such corporations to cover everyone, it will drive prices down when the government puts a cap on how much a prescription/operation/doctor's visit can cost.

Prices are up right now because of government regulation. The government nearly doubles the cost of health care for Americans.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2466 

Quote:
Let all the libertarians move off to Tahiti or some island paradise where their bogus theories can work on a small scale.

Socialism only works on a small scale. It has failed everytime it was tried on a large scale. In fact, large states always fail because they're too damn bloated and work from the top down. The unique thing abou the United States is that it was never supposed to be a large state, though Lincoln and the Reconstruction certainly changed that. Nevertheless, we lasted a good hundred years or so as a libertarian society, and it all failed once some hot-headed power-hungry Republican became president. It just goes to show that the Republican Party was complete shit ever since its inception, though the Democrats back then were the racist homophobic wife-beaters, so I guess neither was any good ........ much like today! Laughing out loud

Quote:
In reality, big governments and socialized medicine are good things - as well as high tax rates.

I couldn't disagree more. 

-dumpydooby


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Moore did comment on the

Moore did comment on the fact that the healthcare really isn't free but people pay for it with their taxes.  He went into that more with the French family who explained that their expenses for the health taxes were minimal.  What Moore didn't mention is that the U.S. spends more of it's GDP on healthcare than do nations with universal health care but provide fewer services.  He did mention that the overhead costs for Medicare are much lower with the administration costs being 1% compared to around 20% with privatized care.  Moore isn't suggesting that universal health care will be perfect but it will be an improvement over the social darwinistic policies that are in place now where people with coverage can't even get the care they pay for.

 These other nations also don't shell out hundreds of billions on a military so they can divert that money towards health care.  Once we cut our military expenses and reduce the interest payments on the debt produced by creating the military industrial complex there will be a lot of money to spare on health care without having to raise any taxes.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
dumpydooby2

dumpydooby2 wrote:
Privatization is certainly better than statism.

No it's not. Privatization in practice usually means "Give a political friend a sweetheart deal on government infrastructure," and once it's out of the hands of the "public" that "private" entity can do whatever they want with their newly-aquired monopoly which is totally out of the public's hands, abuse their status and keep out competition and jack up prices to something that would make the public bitch like nuts if it was politically owned and they could bitch enough and change it like that. It's like exchanging soviet "communism" for feudal serfdom. At least under state ownership the government had to try to LOOK like it was benevolent, and that weapon can be used against it. Political friends given originally-stolen property for virtually free, by doing what they do under the title "private property" (which it is not consistent with) does not have to appear benevolent.

The problem isn't private property, it's the fact that you can't trust bureaucrats and politicians not to reward their friends and punish their enemies, creating injustice under the label of justice.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Family_Guy

Family_Guy wrote:

Waaahhhh!!!!!!!  I don't WANNA pay TAXES!!!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!!!

Seriously, people from the libertarian/Republican view of things on this issue piss me off to the nth degree.  While you're suing your insurance company, you could be, I don't know, dying of cancer.  Let's go with that scenario.  Now, you're dying from cancer, paying for your chemo out of pocket, trying to pay your attorney who's handling the litigation, and all because you don't like nationalized health care and.....paying your taxes.

 Dealing with a cheapskate populace is a big reason why large social government programs don't work in the first place.  You get a bunch of pinheads who cry about paying their taxes and try to get morons elected who promise to cut the tax rate.  Then when the elected morons do just that, there's not enough cash to go around to pay for the programs that are needed.  Hooray, deficits and privatization!

The HMOs and health insurance regulations in the US are terrible, evil conglomerates who need to be taken over by the government.  By forcing such corporations to cover everyone, it will drive prices down when the government puts a cap on how much a prescription/operation/doctor's visit can cost.  Let all the libertarians move off to Tahiti or some island paradise where their bogus theories can work on a small scale.  In reality, big governments and socialized medicine are good things - as well as high tax rates.

hi castro

 

 

edit: forgot to say more is a moron, a lier, and distorts and hides facts... and he is a commie... and i hate him... and commies and socialists dont value lives as much as free people.... alright i think im done now.  

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Ensuring all citizens get

Ensuring all citizens get healthcare is one of the very basics of civilization (Americans tend to call that govenrment I prefer 'society&#39Eye-wink

 Now there are various ways this can be done compuslory private health insurance, state run healthcare , private but regulated by the public. They all have their good and bad points but the morality of it is utterly absolute, when spend billions buying tanks to defend against other tanks when you can't defend against something far more likley to kill your citizens cancer and other diseases.

 

I would probably say health care is the no.1 priority of government, with defence while important definitely 2nd


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:  They all

mrjonno wrote:

 They all have their good and bad points but the morality of it is utterly absolute,

it is absolute, however not in the direction you lean. the government has no busness in any part of my life, including my healthcare, and my wallet. social healthcare is immoral becaue it is theft. the ends never justify the means.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

edit: forgot to say more is a moron, a lier, and distorts and hides facts... and he is a commie... and i hate him... and commies and socialists dont value lives as much as free people.... alright i think im done now.

Evidence that Moore is a commie?

Evidence that commies and socialists don't value lives as much as free people?  (And just what is a 'free' person and why can't a communist or socialist be one?)

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
have you seen moores

have you seen moores movies? hes an in the closet commie if i ever have seen one.

 

i have mountins, however the most fundemental being they dont respect human rights. if you dont respect human rights you cant love life.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336

lil_rascal3336 wrote:
mrjonno wrote:

 They all have their good and bad points but the morality of it is utterly absolute,

it is absolute, however not in the direction you lean. the government has no busness in any part of my life, including my healthcare, and my wallet. social healthcare is immoral becaue it is theft. the ends never justify the means.

 

No one is born with any rights, you gain them by paying for them either via responsibilties  or via taxes.

Being part of a nation is the same as being a member of a club, it has rules, it has membership fees and in a decent club you can leave it (ie emmigrate) through you will find all nations/clubs have roughly similar laws.

 

Or for an example you go into a shop, you buy a tv you own it. Why do you own it?. You own it because society/goverment recognises the transaction

 


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
 you are a true democracy

 you are a true democracy advocate arn't you?


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote:  you

lil_rascal3336 wrote:
 you are a true democracy advocate arn't you?

 

Who was that aimed up?, no idea what a 'true democracy' is , some sort of right wing american political concept i think

 

You elect a goverment you live in a democracy, end of story  (you don't need vote on every issue)


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno

mrjonno wrote:

lil_rascal3336 wrote:
 you are a true democracy advocate arn't you?

Who was that aimed up?, no idea what a 'true democracy' is , some sort of right wing american political concept i think

You elect a goverment you live in a democracy, end of story  (you don't need vote on every issue)

 

true democracy being, anyone can do anything they want as long as the majority is on their side. because that is what you are saying. the people can take away your rights whenever we want as long as the majority gives its consent.

 

i hold human rights are self evadent and doesnt need a sanction by anyone or any group (hense my sig) it appears you donot.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I  thought I had better

I  thought I had better look up 'evident' before reply to this

First definition I came up was

plain or clear to the sight or understanding

 There is absolutely no way 'human rights' are in any way plain or clear. They are man made creations like computers, rockets , religion etc. That isnt to say they arent a good thing, its taken us approxmiately 100 000 years to come up with human rights and even now the concept is evolving. They actually came about as societies with them are stronger than those without (the fact it is good an individual is merely a by product)

 

What is right and moral 1000,100 years ago is not moral now, what is moral now may well not be in  a 100 years etc


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: it

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

it is absolute, however not in the direction you lean. the government has no busness in any part of my life, including my healthcare, and my wallet. social healthcare is immoral becaue it is theft. the ends never justify the means.

Who then would build highways?  Provide streetlights?  Sewer/water runoff systems?  Provide police/firefighter protection?  Schools?  Libraries?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree.  I'm just wanting to know how you think these services should be funded. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
  Many highways are

 

Many highways are already privatized. You pay when you go on them, but they give you a quicker rout, and less traffic. I think most (if not all) roads could be handled privately. If a business' driveway is bumpy and they are loosing customers for it, they will fix it; it should be the same with roads. In the case of backstreets, I might be swayed that the government could help (not pay for entirely, and this would only be in extreme cases where it honestly poses a threat to society) to pay for the keeping up of roads. Or, better yet, new developments could have a road service plan included in the price of the house.  Streetlights would be done by the government (assuming we arnt speaking of race tracks on private property and the like) because they would be necessary due to laws in driving, and generally preventing anarchy and death.  Sewers/drinking water/hydro/schools should all be private. When companies compete, it is the consumer who ultimately wins. (Also the post office is another thing) 

Libraries of records, law books and things of that nature should be done by the government to educate the people. Libraries as I think you were referring to should also be private. Again, when companies compete you win. The better the selection the more people who go to that library. the more people in the library the more money they make. its mutually beneficial.

 Again, the government itself shouldn't do taxes, so even the ones that are government funded would only be paid for through voluntary payment and not taxes.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Yes, when things are

Yes, when things are privatized prices go up and services go down.  Such is what happened when water and energy lost their regulation, prices shot up and the promises of lower prices and infrastructure improvements disappeared.  We saw in New Orleans the price of privatized security, people were shot in the backs and security meant that the ones with the guns made the rules.  Privatized health care means higher costs and less services where profit is made when people are denied the health care they pay insurance for.  It's amazing how naive Libertarians are about their religion.

With our socialized system we have provided clean drinking water at lost cost, every has power at affordable prices, the police are a phone call away at a low price, the fire department doesn't require forms and payment before putting out a fire, public schools provide a basic education to everyone, the military protects us without sending us a bill, the highways are free and nobody has to be obstructed with numerous toll booths, the EPA works to keep us free from polluting corporations who poison us for profits, the FDA works to keep us from re-living The Jungle and toxic Chinese imports, and so on, health care is provided to a few for much lower cost than privatized care, social security checks always arrive on time.

It's really nice that socialism has brought you the standard of living you enjoy and you take it for granted claiming it's be better if we turned back the clock 80 years and lived in a world of monopolies, corruption, toxins in our food, air, water and medicine where police and the fire department would turn there backs if you didn't provide payment.  If you are ignorant of history then by all means I can see why you would support complete privatization.  Thankfully you're in the minority and the majority don't want to turn their backs on progress and hand over what generations have worked for to corporations solely interested in profit and pleasing shareholders.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
rofl

rofl.

 

 i could go on but i see it would be pointless.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: have

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

have you seen moores movies? hes an in the closet commie if i ever have seen one.

It would be hard to tell, but I doubt that Moore is a closet communist. 

Quote:
 

i have mountins, however the most fundemental being they dont respect human rights. if you dont respect human rights you cant love life.

How do they don't respect human rights?  (beware of sweeping generalizations) 

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:lil_rascal3336

qbg wrote:
lil_rascal3336 wrote:

have you seen moores movies? hes an in the closet commie if i ever have seen one.

It would be hard to tell, but I doubt that Moore is a closet communist. 

- i dont think its that hard to tell. if he isnt an in the closet commie than he is in the least a socialist, with extreme communist leanings

How do they don't respect human rights?  (beware of sweeping generalizations) 

taxes (for whatever reason)= theft

theft= against human rights

against human rights= lack of love and respect for life.  i could go into detail but a) i dont feel like it, and b) rand did a much better job that i would.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

 

edit: forgot to say more is a moron, a lier, and distorts and hides facts... and he is a commie... and i hate him... and commies and socialists dont value lives as much as free people.... alright i think im done now.

 

After reading your post I think you have a cheek calling anyone a moron.   You also have no idea what a communist is or what socialism's about.

Maybe you should spend more time in class and less time on message boards, huh? 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: qbg

lil_rascal3336 wrote:
qbg wrote:
lil_rascal3336 wrote:

have you seen moores movies? hes an in the closet commie if i ever have seen one.

It would be hard to tell, but I doubt that Moore is a closet communist.

- i dont think its that hard to tell. if he isnt an in the closet commie than he is in the least a socialist, with extreme communist leanings

How do they don't respect human rights? (beware of sweeping generalizations)

taxes (for whatever reason)= theft

theft= against human rights

against human rights= lack of love and respect for life. i could go into detail but a) i dont feel like it, and b) rand did a much better job that i would.

So when the needed service is privatized and the corporation in control of it charges you the exact same amount of money as the evil government tax and calls it a "user fee", will you feel less ripped off?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I love it when people use

I love it when people use isolated examples to try and prove a point.

*Sigh*

First of all, generally we love the NHS in the UK. Why? Mainly because we know we're not going to get turned away from a hospital because we don't have the right insurance. The last thing I want to be worrying about if they pull me from an auto wreck is if I'm actually going to get treated or not or if I'm going to be presented with a bill at the end of it. Oh sure, we bitch about the NHS and we complain about waiting times but, hey, we'd rather have it than some system where you pay variable amounts for drugs and the quality of your care depends on your personal wealth.

Of course, the NHS isn't without problems. Whilst it's great for emergency care and routine stuff it's not that great at chronic non-life threatening illnesses - like hip replacement surgery or prostate operations for example. Mind you, you don't have to wait because we have private care too if you want to take out health insurance or pay for a one off procedure. That's what I did (well my compnay as it's their insurance scheme). Another difference is that private health firms like BUPA are non-profit making organisations.

So, yeah. The US may have better chronic care. If you have the money. It may have better and newer equipment. If you have the money. It may even have better doctors. If you have the money. Us, well we just have free health care.

Oh, and by 'free' I acknowledge a certain amount of taxation goes towards health care just as a certain amount goes towards social welfare, old age pensions, military spending, the roads, education...

You get the picture.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
i know exavtly what they

i know exavtly what they are, and more emportantly, i look at the goals, the means, the ends, and what these people espouse, as well as the logical extentions of what they do. i have done much research.

 

socialism and communism is the greatedst declaration you can have of your thought that people are innept, incapeable, and in the case of communism undeserving. they are the appitamy of nihilism.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
a) yes   b) it is likely

a) yes

 

b) it is likely that a proivate company wouldnt cost as much. but either way, yes i would be more free and therefore feel less riped off, becase i could chose to give them my money or not.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
a) it matters not to me

a) it matters not to me what the money is used for. its still stolen money

 

B) you arnt getting free healthcare, you pay for it.

 

C) i wouldnt say the us health system is prefrect either. to the contrary. however, i hold a good deal of its problems are caused by half assed government interventions.

 

if ou want social healthcare, ill fight you about it, but it at least "works" (even if it works immoraly)

if you want LFC health care, even better. then everyone wins, and noone is being immoral.

 

but dont get the government to half assedly stick its hand in, it messes everything up and puts america in the situation its in now.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: i

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

i know exavtly what they are, and more emportantly, i look at the goals, the means, the ends, and what these people espouse, as well as the logical extentions of what they do. i have done much research.

 

socialism and communism is the greatedst declaration you can have of your thought that people are innept, incapeable, and in the case of communism undeserving. they are the appitamy of nihilism.

Nope.  You definitely don't know what socialism is.

Hint: Communism is but one facet of socialism.

However, if you do feel you know what socialism is then perhaps you can answer the following:

Please describe soviet socialism, democratic socialism and anarchism giving details behind the key ideologies of each and how they contrast and compare to each other. 

Shouldn't be too hard if you've studied it for a long time, eh? 

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


lil_rascal3336
lil_rascal3336's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
i have no need to prove

i have no need to prove anything to you. if you want to see the failings in your thought process, please pick up a rand book. frankly im done debating socialists/communists, its tiering and pointles ive had these debates too many times.

I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. ayn rand


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: i

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

i have no need to prove anything to you. if you want to see the failings in your thought process, please pick up a rand book. frankly im done debating socialists/communists, its tiering and pointles ive had these debates too many times.

You aren't done debating because you never started. When you're ready to actually back up your words then do so.  In the meantime don't spout off about things you clearly know nothing about ok? 

And did you seriously just suggest that I should read some of Ayn Rand's objectivist drivel to see the failings in my thought process?  LOL!  Priceless!

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
lil_rascal3336 wrote: i

lil_rascal3336 wrote:

i have no need to prove anything to you. if you want to see the failings in your thought process, please pick up a rand book. frankly im done debating socialists/communists, its tiering and pointles ive had these debates too many times.

'if you want to see the failings in your thought process, please pick up a Hubbard book.'

I don't see how reading cult drivel is actually going to address the issue.  Your notion that people who are arguing for universal health care are actually arguing for free healthcare is just a strawman.  Try being rational, currently people pay premiums and deductibles in which 20% of the cost is for administrative charges.  Government run health care only has 1% of the costs for administrative costs which explains why the socialized medicine is more cost effective and refutes your claim that privatized care is cheaper.

Instead of paying premiums and deductibles people pay in their taxes which is much cheaper than the current system we have.  America pays more for their health care costs but receive fewer services.  I have dental insurance and am currently waiting for another 10 months until I can get surgery done.  The dentist will fit me in whenever I want but the insurance company won't pay until I wait longer.  Nice system you have.  In a country with universal coverage I could walk in the door tomorrow and have it done but you insist that's not the case and you read Rand so it must be true.

 Whatever.

Anyway, if I paid in my taxes I wouldn't have to worry about rising deductibles and premiums and the threat of having coverage denied because the for-profit company wants to deny me treatment so they can make an extra buck.

Essentially you don't know what you are talking about and you nonsenscial rants about socialism being communism helps document that point. 


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Not everything in life

Not everything in life comes down to your personal rights. You live in country it comes with a cost.

No responsibilities no rights