okay, good. I was worried for a second that you were a socialist

I hate to play into stereotypes here, but wow, a republican talking about short sightedness and greed.

If you were worried about that, you've obviously never paid much attention to Obi before.

My post was stranded on the previous page, supplanted by an, uh, interesting discussion of a rather flat reply to it.

i concur. But i also don't disagree with anything you said

I guess one thing is that they may not go through will all their reforms at once, however they may see their recent winnings as a "mandate" for change (which it very may well be). I fear that they will be too hasty with their reforms, even the positive ones, which could lead us to disaster. I doubt both party's power of self control, to say the least.

I'm rather wary of their ideas in the first place, and the political attitude as of late has been "screw the other side, we're the winners!" in both parties. A democrat white house and majority congress/senate does not bode well to me.

Health care seems like a pretty good idea.

Yeah it does. Few people would actually argue that. The thing is though, how is America supposed to afford it and make it more efficient and effective than other socialized health care systems?

how does stealing sound?

This is exactly what my thread is about. Do not choose your side and boast to everyone what opinion you have.



Both parties do not trust each other entirely, and both have the goal to improve America (not america, whatever that is).



I do not understand why you still have so much bias.



Good.



Hard workers? You don't see that anymore. In fact, I don't even think you know what that term is. You spend 14 hours a day as a nine year old child running machines that you saw kill your friend just days ago, and then come tell me about "hard work". We don't work that hard anymore. Very easy.

Money won't do you any good once you're dead.

You remind me of a child. Read with an open mind, inform yourself, understand.

IIRC, at least some of that is because Canada wouldn't take them. I think Canadaland's immigration policy requires you to have a job lined up or some other promising thing that you can bring to their society, and I imagine it's hard to line up a job in another country when they have a decent economy.




It may be crude, but I remember in the 2k election I had classmates who wanted to vote for Bush "because he's so cute." (I give thanks that they were 16 at the time, but they're voting age now ). I'm not saying we can't do better than the chart (and we should), but I feel like in the grand scheme of American... Americaness, this isn't so bad.

Of course, I think they have more worries than just oversimplification on that chart... they should probably work on making their symbols a little more intuitive. I'm just sayin, 'cuz my first glance through the chart ('cuz I didn't see the key with my resolution), I definitely thought they were saying that Brownback gets excited by torture.

You really resemble a child now.

Hey Mystic0, try condensing your thoughts into one post

[Edit- damn you mb, you beat me to it]

i have a bad reputation for 'flooding'

Yes, well, it's annoying, so how about you just make larger posts m'kay?

please make the following changes to your 'forum' software: disable the ability to edit one's own posts and automatically merge consecutive posts

I don't understand what you're saying.

I don't think Massassi is for you, child.

For some reason I think I'm on Anovis's ignore list. Don't know why.

Why would you be?

fifty-three quoted fifty-five quoted fifty-two

Strangest thing, I have no idea why.

I guess that solves that, thanks.

I don't suppose you two kids can take the squabbles outside?

please don't close threads

Wow, haha... I'm absolutely astounded by how many republican candidates are actually in favour of a constitutional same sex marriage/union ban.

Obama seems okay, although I find it strange he's in favour of the patriot act. I also think it's a damn shame his stance on Kyoto isn't known. He'd be even cooler if he was in favour of same sex marriage.

haha

That's because, thanks to the technology we've developed, we don't have to. We have to work smarter, not harder. And Americans still work more hours per week than Europeans. We really don't need to.

/nods

That's the thing, though. People keep holding to the fallacious notion that American health care isn't socialized. Truth is, it's very socialized.

It's true that the issue is a complex one and people shouldn't assume a candidate's position based on that chart. However, having actually listened to these guys in debates and read other things they've had to say, Giuliani, Romney and Tancredo do not have a clue about the complexity of the torture issue, and just think that saying no to it would make them look weak on terror. (Hunter I don't care about because he hasn't distinguished himself enough from the pack to merit any attention.)



Socialized badly, too. It's amazing to me what ridiculous lengths we've gone to in order to avoid government-provided healthcare. I'm pretty libertarian on just about everything else, but I'd gladly pay taxes for that.

It is?

BlueShield, Kaiser Permanente, BlueCross, Health Net, all private companies might want to have some words with you.

Edit: Ok the thing I have with government healthcare is plainly I don't trust the government at all. Honestly, I think there is 0 oversight in A LOT of bureaucracies in all levels, mostly in the national. I forsee rampant abuse of the healthcare system. Now I know that the private industries aren't exactly the patrons of outstanding healthcare. I can see government healthcare being a good competitor to the private sector if it is done efficently and effectively. As Roach said, I'm not about to say "YOU CAN'T SEE DOCTOR. GO AWAY." I just want to most efficient and cost effective means.

In the United States, we spend way more per capita on health care than any other country. If our health care system is so privatized as you claim, then why do we pay so much more? Shouldn't it be less? Then the next question is, how come that extra money isn't doing anything? Other countries who spend less have better health. So it would seem socialized health care is more efficient.

I'll tell you why. Health insurance is a scam. The whole premise of health insurance is that it's profitable for the health insurance companies. That means you LOSE by default. Chances are, you pay more in health insurance over your lifetime than you would for out of pocket health expenses. Otherwise, health insurance wouldn't be sustainable. The key is just to drop this insurance nonsense and mandate that everyone gets health care. Then, you don't have to play this ridiculous game with these moneysucking leeches. That's where all the extra money is going and why it's not doing any good.

Different populations and different lifestyles equal different health concerns.

We have an epidemic of obesity and metabolic syndrome (which I like to call fat American syndrome). We have a large immigrant population that bring the diseases of the third world to us. We have varied origins than other rather homogeneous countries. Let's say I can freely assume that we have a much higher incidence of sickle cell anemia than Switzerland.

You cannot, cannot, cannot blindly compare per capita spending between countries who have significantly different health risks.

We are NOT the same as Europe, we can't just slap their policies onto ours or directly compare numbers without qualifiers.

Oh, please. Those explanations are weak compared to the health system itself. You're just blowing smoke. And quit accusing me of wishing to "slap Europe's policies" onto the U.S. That's the last thing I want. What I want is a lot like Ron Paul is saying.. health care should be subject to the free market and the government should stop bureacratizing it. Then we would see it behave just like any other service on the free market and we'd be able to pay for medical out-of-pocket without a finiancial crisis.

Buuuuut.

I don't think I should be paying $600 for four stitches to my bottom lip.

:/

(Especially considering my lip was hanging open, and I would have gotten an infection for sure.)

This was the statement that led me to that conclusion.



Then what exactly are you saying here? Cut out the insurance middleman and have people pay for procedures out of pocket? What are you advocating here for?



I still don't know why you had to pay that much. You explained it, but it still seemed fishy to me (as in what they did, not you). I mean, you got fleeced, but I don't think that's par for the course in our system.

I was saying socialized health care is more efficient than our system, which is distinct from both socialized health care and the ideal system I just described.

I understand that much now, however pardon my ignorance, but as I asked, what exactly are you advocating for? Having people pay directly?

Gah, at least tell me you edited the post =|

The bill I have here for the huge chunk of money is for being refferred to the hospital and then seen on the basis of an emergency, as far as the sounded obese over the phone lady at the payment office could figure.

My insurance already paid like $340 of the original $400 it cost for this ******* to sew me up.

Plus the $90 the DOCTOR THAT ONLY TOOK MY BLOOD PRESSURE charged me.

They want like $500 extra, it's a little ridiculous. And I'm basically being forced to pay on it every month. Even though they're ****ING MY CREDIT because I can't pay for all of it in full. :/