# Would you take firearms to a political event Mr. Booth?



## Benzesp (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm speachless...


----------



## Tiger (Aug 18, 2009)

People are fucking dumb.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

i mean i understand how people might feel they have the right to carry em or whatever. but based on the history of terrible things that happen when people bring guns to those sorts of things i don't think i would no matter how i feel about my "right" to do so.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 18, 2009)

Fucking gun rights.. Yeah, I want my countrymen to have the right to be armed and able to put a bullet through my skull at a moment's notice for whatever reason. 

Doesn't fucking matter if they get arrested for it after the fact. That doesn't bring me back to life.

IN THE HOME, fine -- I totally get that. 

In public? Fuck you.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Fucking gun rights.. Yeah, I want my countrymen to have the right to be armed and able to put a bullet through my skull at a moment's notice for whatever reason.
> 
> Doesn't fucking matter if they get arrested for it after the fact. That doesn't bring me back to life.
> 
> ...



gotta be ready to start the fuckin' revolution, man! (what revolution? i don't know.)


----------



## synrgy (Aug 18, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> gotta be ready to start the fuckin' revolution, man! (what revolution? i don't know.)



In a complete lack of seriousness, that's what SWORDS are for.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

synrgy said:


> In a complete lack of seriousness, that's what SWORDS are for.


ha... good god. i think i'd rather be shot than attacked with a sword.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 18, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> ha... good god. i think i'd rather be shot than attacked with a sword.



There's at least a CHANCE that you could outrun the swordsman (can't outrun a bullet) or that the swordsman fucks you up, but doesn't kill you. Unless it's this guy, anyway:


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

^ why does he look so familiar?


----------



## synrgy (Aug 18, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ why does he look so familiar?





Jeez KJ, I feel like I don't know you any more! 

Please tell me you've seen Highlander?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Jeez KJ, I feel like I don't know you any more!
> 
> Please tell me you've seen Highlander?



sadly i haven't.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 18, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> sadly i haven't.



Good God, man!! Go, now!! I'll wait...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

^ if only i weren't at work. if i'd brought my gun i could fix that, though. get us all the day off.


----------



## Tiger (Aug 18, 2009)

I have something to say...its better to burn out, than to fade away!


The Kurgan voices a spongebob character btw.


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2009)

FWIW, if those people were outside of a Bush event, they'd have been 'disappeared' in short order.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't know if it's just the way the news is being filtered on its way out to jolly ol Socialist England, but has the red half of America gone bat shit insane post Obama's election?! I mean okay, I know the likes of Limbaugh, Beck and Palin are not to be taken seriously but...wait...that's exactly what's happening. They're telling people that Obama's healthcare reform plan is akin to Nazism and will lead to forced euthanasia, and *has a look of utter disbelief on his face* a lot of people are buying it, and reacting to it. They've been told to be afraid...and now they're turning up with guns. And how do they think this is going to end?

It's just madness. Utter madness. There's no discourse, no democratic process - just fear and hatred. Ya know, earlier, I saw a video (lost the link, sorry) of a grown woman shouting down an Israeli born Jew with chants of "heil Hitler" because he was extolling the virtues of Israel's nationalized system. When he tried to get back on topic and explain that he was charged $8,000 for 2 hours in a waiting room because he's uninsured, and that that might be slightly unfair...she drowned him out with crying baby noises. I mean...just....GOD! Anyway...

Someone please tell me it's not as bad as it looks from over here :-\ I know the news isn't always to be believed, and that there are two sides to every story but America really looks like a crazy place to be right now. I'd dismiss these incidences as one-offs but the anti reform/birther/Obama-is-a-black-Hitler camp seems to be pretty big in numbers. Big enough to effect real changes (no more public option?),

Oh btw, yes I'm in England, but my dad's American born  Most of my family is in the states, and there's always the possibility of ending up there one day for one reason or another. People think it weird that I get so bothered about what goes on there sometimes so I thought my rantings could do with some context!


----------



## JBroll (Aug 18, 2009)

Somewhere between 99% and 100% of people acting as political 'experts' in the media are actually actors planted by people who believe otherwise and want to make the stated views seem stupider by comparison.

If you take the media seriously, you can't be against the 'health care reform' without being a terrified hick who believe that Obama just wants to eat babies and the elderly, you can't be pro-gun without being a paranoid nutter who thinks he needs to defend himself from the international Jewish conspiracy to wreak havoc on our mullets, you can't be critical of public schools without being an anti-education Luddite, you can't wish that politicians would shut up about global warming without being a corporate puppet... fortunately for those of us who prefer our view of the world less tainted by sensationalist bullshit, though, the media is just doing with green screens and supposed 'experts' what Jerry Springer has been doing with a live studio audience and tons of security workers for decades now and not all of the States are like that.

Jeff


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2009)

While there's bits and pieces of that statement I can agree with, I find it hard to believe that Fox News are making themselves and their supporters look like looney tunes, because they're actually closet liberals. 

If you're looking for a 'tin-foil hat' conspiracy, that'd be one.


----------



## Arminius (Aug 18, 2009)

Randy said:


> While there's bits and pieces of that statement I can agree with, I find it hard to believe that Fox News are making themselves and their supporters look like looney tunes, because they're actually closet liberals.
> 
> If you're looking for a 'tin-foil hat' conspiracy, that'd be one.



I'm pretty sure that making a news channel to appease all of the hicks and right wing extremists would indeed bring in a lot of cash. Regardless of whether they mean it or not, they sure make it hard to believe that they are 100% serious/sane. Almost every time Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, or some other psycho comes on the radio, their broadcast is immediately followed by a flood of commercials advertising products clearly aimed at country hicks/old people.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 18, 2009)

Jeff


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

^ jeff, you're on fire today.


----------



## Randy (Aug 18, 2009)

I've always believed that has everything to do with greedy, reasonably intelligent people, preying upon the values of less intelligent people, for financial gain. 

I think you see a lot of the same thing in most extremist groups (from skinheads, to crazy Christians, to Al Qaeda). The people giving the marching orders have something to gain financially, and they just use their followers as fodder. That said, I don't think guys like Rush buy into the crap they sell at all.


----------



## Arminius (Aug 18, 2009)

@ Jbroll
Yeah, that's about it. They seem to have a big thing going with selling gold right now, saying that it will last through recession/global warming/minorities.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 18, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ jeff, you're on fire today.



Thank you, days without sleep and increasing separation from reality! (I guess!)

Aysakh, if I'm not mistaken Germany has seen a few gold vending machines (charging a hefty 'fee' for all transactions and monitored by security cameras for obvious reasons) to make it just a little more convenient for people to assume that an arbitrarily overpriced metal will last in ways that arbitrarily trusted fiat money just can't.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 18, 2009)

Maybe it's just me, but if I were a politician running for/elected to office, I would encourage carry to any rally/speech I would hold...

I would think, that if I were a dishonest politician (pardon my verbosity), the undercurrent of potential violence might *GASP* keep me from doing something that might fuck over the people who voted for me?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 18, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Thank you, days without sleep and increasing separation from reality! (I guess!)



heh... luck you. i usually have to pay for that sort of thing


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 19, 2009)

Randy said:


> I've always believed that has everything to do with greedy, reasonably intelligent people, preying upon the values of less intelligent people, for financial gain.



Haha from where I'm standing I feel the same way about liberals. "Public Servants" who possess no ability to garner respect and admiration but can find enough backers to win a popularity contest to get into office pursuing "selfless" crusades such as healthcare reform. There are loads of politicians on both sides who the greatest thing they ever did was win an election, they're far and away from being our best and brightest. This is also clearly illustrated by the "competition" argument that Obama and Pelosi keep bringing up. If the government gets involved it's going to destroy competition, not create it. How, you ask? The same reason that FedEx and UPS can't deliver first class mail. A "Government Option" would be backed by tax payers and wouldn't need to make money or break even and could run at a loss for years until the others are put out of business. Government's track record shows that a sweeping majority of Government programs GROW as opposed to remaining the same size or shrinking. That coupled with a lack of language in the bill prohibiting exactly what I'm describing makes me call BS. I don't trust politicians and I hardly trust the government. 

What gets me is this issue is highly politicized but there is hardly a mandate fromm the people on it, according to recent polling (Amid Debate, Obama Approval Rating on Healthcare Steady Notice about 1/3rd of independents approve of Obama's healthcare stance). To me, it's Politicians cementing their power and place in Washington. There are very few counter protests I've noticed being covered in the news that would suggest the population at large clamoring for the government to swoop in and take everything over. 

As for the fear mongering from the right, that sounds familiar on the left, if you recall the "stimulus" bill. Good thing we passed that, I can recall a healthy dose of doomsday predictions coming from the President himself on that one. To date the Stimulus bill has only stimulated conversation and national debt. The sky never fell, but unemployment certainly eclipsed and surpassed the Whitehouse "predictions". 

Showing up outside a presidential presser strapped to the teeth is ridiculous. The 2nd Amendment isn't even on the radar at the moment. It's like the aborto-centrists showing up everywhere when nobody is talking about their pet issue. I guess you could consider these guys the right's equivalent of Code Pink. It does seem ironic that the media treated fringe lefties like Code Pink as legitimate protestors and it seems from where I'm sitting that a majority of dissenters from the right are all being painted with the same brush as some sort of idiot extremist. It IS possible to oppose the President's policy without being a moron an extremist. 

To quote the Hildabeast:
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Obviously the quote was aimed at the Bush administration, but is equally applicable to the Obama administration. 

As for the media's portrayal of people opposed to Obamacare, I find a lot of the media to be government apologists, so it is little surprise to me. 

Screw all this, I'm going Galt!


----------



## Tiger (Aug 19, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Maybe it's just me, but if I were a politician running for/elected to office, I would encourage carry to any rally/speech I would hold...
> 
> I would think, that if I were a dishonest politician (pardon my verbosity), the undercurrent of potential violence might *GASP* keep me from doing something that might fuck over the people who voted for me?



Uh no. There are people in this country who are willing to shoot A)Because Obama is black B) It's God's Will C) It's Charles Mansons will D) Its Rush Limbaughs will etc


----------



## arktan (Aug 19, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Uh no. There are people in this country who are willing to shoot A)Because Obama is black B) It's God's Will C) It's Charles Mansons will D) Its Rush Limbaughs will etc



No.

It's just "because they can!" 

Sorry guys, i had to.

I don't see where there are such huge problems to polarize that much people. 

Here in Europe we have quite a lot of countries with sociahealth care and we're not Nazis (as some Americans pretend about Obamas pans)... 

I can understand that there are people who are against it but a lot of the arguing is just propaganda-crap (see the Nazi-example  ).


----------



## renzoip (Aug 19, 2009)

Wait...Obama is a Nazi now?? He used to be a Communist before winning the election??


----------



## Benzesp (Aug 19, 2009)

The only thing they did was get themselves on the Secret Service and FBI shit list for life. You know, thats probably not something you want to be on.


----------



## renzoip (Aug 19, 2009)

arktan said:


> No.
> 
> It's just "because they can!"
> 
> ...



Cause otherwise they could not go out and brag about their "freedom"


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 19, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Wait...Obama is a Nazi now?? He used to be a Communist before winning the election??



nazi, socialist, fascist... anything that scares people.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 19, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Cause otherwise they could not go out and brag about their "freedom"



Freedom requires one to take responsibility for ones' actions. There is very little freedom left in this country. "Single Payer" healthcare will just be another layer stripped away, but hell it's just another layer of personal responsibility stripped away from the population at large, so what do they care, right?



Konfyouzd said:


> nazi, socialist, fascist... anything that scares people.



The government now owns the banks, the car MFG's, and is shooting to take on healthcare. Sounds to me like we're taking steps toward socialism, so if the shoe fits....

That said, I realize Bush kicked the ball that was already rolling really hard before leaving office, but Obama has kept it at it's current pace.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 19, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> Freedom requires one to take responsibility for ones' actions. There is very little freedom left in this country. "Single Payer" healthcare will just be another layer stripped away, but hell it's just another layer of personal responsibility stripped away from the population at large, so what do they care, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fair enough. i just think the way people say it makes it sound worse than it is... or perhaps bad things *are* coming. i don't know. i just go with the flow. if things get unbearable here i figure i'll just go to another country that may better suit my needs.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 19, 2009)

I don't understand how anyone can possibly think giving health care to people who can't afford it is a bad idea. I don't even like people, but if someone is dying and can't afford a hospital, how is giving them health insurance so they can get care a bad thing? As far as I'm aware the health care bill isn't about taking over the hospitals and making every single one of them government owned, I thought it was just about providing health insurance to pay private doctors like it is here in Canada.

Basically, if you don't think this bill is a good idea, you don't think poor people should be entitled to health care?

Forgive me if I'm totally off base, this is just my understanding of what's going on.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 19, 2009)

I still don't get what all the backlash against socialism is about, as if it's 'new' and/or 'unamerican'.

Is our public school system not socialized? Are our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Departments of Transportation and so on and so on, not all socialized? Is a public service, by definition, not socialized?

Having pieces of our system socialized doesn't automatically put us all standing in a mile long line waiting for a piece of bread. Not saying I support the socialism of America, just saying that a lot of America has been socialized since before I was born, and all this backlash seems uneducated and silly, to me.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Basically, if you don't think this bill is a good idea, you don't think poor people should be entitled to health care?
> 
> Forgive me if I'm totally off base, this is just my understanding of what's going on.



The (completely unfounded) case the other side is trying to make is based on fabricated bull shit, basically.

"If you support this reform, you're agreeing to a 'death clause' for old people!!" etc, etc, etc.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 19, 2009)

If you really want to get technical I think countries that are actually "socialist" (not communist) like Sweden have a higher standard of living all together don't they? I think we had this discussion before. I just can't believe in this day and age that the word "socialist" is a big scare word to some folks in the US. Does the government fuck shit up? Most certainly, but if millions of people can't afford health care SOMETHING needs to be done, and instead of nay saying something that could potentially save the lives of millions of people, come up with a better way to save them.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 19, 2009)

It's easy JJ, I don't believe anyone is "entitled to" or "has a right to" anyone else's time, period. Our cardinal doctrine which theoretically enumerates the powers of government does NOT grant government that specific power. The "promote general welfare" clause doesn't even pretend to grant the government this kind of power. 

I understand health care is expensive, but we're not even trying to fix the current system before scrapping it and introducing a statist "solution". Last time I checked the Canadian System wasn't working out all that great for you guys. 

There are private sector solutions before jumping in with both feet on a single payer system 

No one is saying "there shouldn't be any change to health care", there are lots of ways to skin this cat, I don't think we should go the most costly route first. Especially given the government's knack for unintended consequences and making more problems when attempting to solve others.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 19, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> It's easy JJ, I don't believe anyone is "entitled to" or "has a right to" anyone else's time, period. Our cardinal doctrine which theoretically enumerates the powers of government does NOT grant government that specific power. The "promote general welfare" clause doesn't even pretend to grant the government this kind of power.
> 
> I understand health care is expensive, but we're not even trying to fix the current system before scrapping it and introducing a statist "solution". Last time I checked the Canadian System wasn't working out all that great for you guys.
> 
> ...



But who's proposing to 'scrap' the current system?

I've heard it (and read it in what I've been able to dig up of the constantly changing theoretical legislation) a MILLION times: If you have health care currently and you're happy with it, you don't have to do/change anything. This reform doesn't apply to those who have/are happy with their current plan(s).

So far as I understand it, they're merely proposing to add a government funded/subsidized 'public *option*'. The key word there is "option". As in, not everyone has to use it. Just those that want to.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 19, 2009)

Right,and I ask you why not look for a private sector solution before more government spending programs? "Temporary" social spending initiatives become full time spending initiatives and become black holes and often progress to becoming full blown unfunded liabilities (see the "temporary" program social security). 

So if you can accept that as a rule, which is generally proven itself to be true, there is always the possibility of arriving at the government entering the market. We can also accept the rule that if the government gets into the market, there is no getting them out. 

A government solution should only be on the table if ALL other options have failed because a government solution will be permanent, that is highly expensive without the added boogiemen of compromised care/rationing. We haven't even scratched the surface of a private solution.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 19, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> We haven't even scratched the surface of a private solution.



And therein lays the problem. How many years have a disgusting percentage of the population gone without any health care, while the private sector does NOTHING?


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 19, 2009)

synrgy said:


> And therein lays the problem. How many years have a disgusting percentage of the population gone without any health care, while the private sector does NOTHING?



And how many years has bad legislation been in place throttling the private sector's ability to meet those needs?

So a problem that came abouts in part through bad legislation is going to be solved with... more bad legislation and an unlimited price tag? 

Again, because you didn't read it the first time. 

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

More Government is rarely the answer, and this certainly is not one of those rare occasions.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 19, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> It's easy JJ, I don't believe anyone is "entitled to" or "has a right to" anyone else's time, period.



So, you're basically saying fuck the poor, they don't deserve a doctor? Just want to be clear since you didn't come out and say it


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 19, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> So, you're basically saying fuck the poor, they don't deserve a doctor? Just want to be clear since you didn't come out and say it



It has absolutely nothing to do with deserving anything, or their socioeconomic status. I'm against injecting another layer of government control and bureaucracy in a problem I think that can be combated without going down a road that we cannot come back from before first exploring and TRYING all of our options that could ultimately be less costly and more effective. 

I just think this "WE HAVE TO ACT RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND AND USE THE CHAINSAW TO FIX THE SITUATION WHEN A SCALPEL MIGHT VERY WELL DO IT". 

I'm not against poor people seeing doctors/getting treatment (such a statement is absolutely fucking ridiculous), at the end of the day a doctor meets with a patient and is paid for it (if he so chooses). We're debating who is writing that check and how that check is funded, not if the patient should get to see the doctor.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 19, 2009)

Well, being from Canada, I'm glad we have medicare. Do I go see the doc often? Not particularly, but when I do, I'm glad I don't have to pay a shit ton of cash. For instance, what would going to see a doc for a throat infection to get antibiotics cost down there? Just curious. That's one of the trips I made to a doc this year. I didn't pay anything, and due to my Blue Cross coverage through work I only had to pay like $5 for the prescription. Without it, it might have been like $30 or something after tax.

Does it suck paying for other people's shit? I guess, but I don't think too much on it. I don't have children, and doubt I ever will at this rate  But I still pay for other people's children to go to public schools. I guess I consider it an investment in not having a bunch of mouth breathing uneducated fucktards (although there's still plenty, but I bet it'd be worse) around me everywhere I go.

If the government doesn't pay for the poor people, who will? You think a business will want to just hand out free health care, or pay for it? They shouldn't have to. It SHOULD be the government's job. The government exists to serve it's people, whether they be poor or not.

Arguing the government's competency is another issue. If you have no faith in your government, then you either need to move or vote in someone who can do the job right. And I know that statement is really bad coming from me because I don't get involved in politics AT ALL, and have never voted, but then again, I don't see any issues that are that glaring that I need to speak up. If they tried to take away my medicare though, you can bet your ass I'd be getting off my ass and voting out the prick who tried it though at the next election.

Sorry for assuming you didn't think poor people should get health care, I just couldn't get your stance on that from your post


----------



## renzoip (Aug 19, 2009)

synrgy said:


> So far as I understand it, they're merely proposing to add a government funded/subsidized 'public *option*'. The key word there is "option". As in, not everyone has to use it. Just those that want to.


 
Same here. From the consumer point of view, it sound like it would be something like the US mail system where they have both private mail carriers (UPS/DHL/FEDEX) and they have a lower cost government alternative (USPS). For instance, I am happy with the service I get from UPS so I keep using them. I should be nice to have options.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 19, 2009)

David, I do understand what you're saying. The problem is I feel like private health insurance companies have had more than my entire lifetime to provide a solution to the problem, and clearly the only thing any of them are interested in is lining their pockets to run deeper and deeper and deeper.

So yeah, damn right I say that after *more* than my lifetime of opportunity, _they've had their chance_ to do it right, and I think it would be a great thing to give them a fucking run for their money, and hopefully force them to lower their *absurd* charges and change their shady practices to compete with what I expect would be a barely-competent bureaucratic alternative.

As it stands, the pharmecutical lobbyists have fucking EVERYONE in their pockets, and I have absolutely zero faith that any private business in the health sector would ever stand up to them without eventually ending up on their payroll.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 19, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Wait...Obama is a Nazi now?? He used to be a Communist before winning the election??


He's a communist nazi jew.

And because some people just won't get the joke,

/sarcasm



JJ Rodriguez said:


> I don't understand how anyone can possibly think giving health care to people who can't afford it is a bad idea. I don't even like people, but if someone is dying and can't afford a hospital, how is giving them health insurance so they can get care a bad thing? As far as I'm aware the health care bill isn't about taking over the hospitals and making every single one of them government owned, I thought it was just about providing health insurance to pay private doctors like it is here in Canada.
> 
> Basically, if you don't think this bill is a good idea, you don't think poor people should be entitled to health care?
> 
> Forgive me if I'm totally off base, this is just my understanding of what's going on.


It'll never work like that in the U.S., JJ, no matter how much they try. The federal government is not capable of overseeing such a system successfully.

Anyway, I've been doing more thinking since my topic on health insurance a while back, and I believe I've come to the conclusion that health insurance, regardless of the way it is administered (private or socialized), is generally responsible for the increasing cost of health care, and an indirect contributor to poor health choices.

I'll break this down from outdated info from a company I once worked for. This company had a private insurance setup, meaning that an insurance company handled the paperwork, but the company footed the bill for ALL claims. For 2004 the total cost to the company, for that single location, was ~$5m. Now there was about 700 people in that location, TOTAL. Now if we divided that money equally, it amounted to roughly $7,150 per employee per year.

That, plus the $10 taken out of my check every week for the insurance, would have left me with an extra $145 every week. I would rather have had the $145 to spend every week, and payed out of pocket for my hernia operation.

Given the choice (in this economy that choice essentially doesn't exist), I would choose to work for a company that offered no health insurance plan. Having to pay for trips to the doctor would coerce me into leading a healthier life than I currently am, (and I've gotten out of the junk food habit for the most part), and the extra money in my check would be available should I need it to pay any emergency medical bills.

Meanwhile, I'm stuck paying for other people going to the doc for a runny nose.

I am describing Direct primary care BTW.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> I don't have children, and doubt I ever will at this rate


Consider petitioning Alt dot com for a murderers/murderees category. 



JJ Rodriguez said:


> For instance, what would going to see a doc for a throat infection to get antibiotics cost down there? Just curious. That's one of the trips I made to a doc this year. I didn't pay anything, and due to my Blue Cross coverage through work I only had to pay like $5 for the prescription. Without it, it might have been like $30 or something after tax.


If we assume that by doing away with insurance we are leveling whole piles of waste at various levels? About $5. Antibiotics are actually fairly cheap, it's all the middle-men you have to go through that drives the price up.



synrgy said:


> As it stands, the pharmecutical lobbyists have fucking EVERYONE in their pockets, and I have absolutely zero faith that any private business in the health sector would ever stand up to them without eventually ending up on their payroll.


What's preventing the consumer then? My grandparents have a dim view of prescriptions. My grandfather makes a study of vitamins and herbal supplements. (No, not cannabis ) They've never taken ANY long term medications and they're both over 80.

I would have a long conversation with my doctor before he prescribed me ANYTHING, not only to limit my cost, but to limit my exposure. I don't trust pharmaceutical companies to put out good products.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 20, 2009)

The pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies simply have too much power.

If this passed, they'd ruin it - we wouldn't have problems within an order of magnitude of what we face today if we were actually facing a market not designed to fuck everyone over for the benefit of those who lobby the most. People love to blame the free market for our problems, but if the market was anything even remotely resembling free (and not biased heavily towards them) we'd be far better off - the simple fact of the matter is that our government is for sale, can't do a thing right, and is enforcing a mix of free and controlled markets that only benefits those who can play politics well.

Jeff


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> David, I do understand what you're saying. The problem is I feel like private health insurance companies have had more than my entire lifetime to provide a solution to the problem, and clearly the only thing any of them are interested in is lining their pockets to run deeper and deeper and deeper.
> 
> So yeah, damn right I say that after *more* than my lifetime of opportunity, _they've had their chance_ to do it right, and I think it would be a great thing to give them a fucking run for their money, and hopefully force them to lower their *absurd* charges and change their shady practices to compete with what I expect would be a barely-competent bureaucratic alternative.
> 
> As it stands, the pharmecutical lobbyists have fucking EVERYONE in their pockets, and I have absolutely zero faith that any private business in the health sector would ever stand up to them without eventually ending up on their payroll.



Great so you want to throw out the people who will act predictably in search of profit for people who are unpredictable who are in search of power and unearned admiration who cannot find comparable jobs in the private sector. That, and you'd be becoming further dependent on your politicians, empowering them further. 

Better the devil you know, when faced with this option as far as I'm concerned. 

As for a government system, it'd be far cheaper just to write the uninsured a freaking check than what they're proposing. Why not pursue this avenue? 

And as for the "Option", Obama favors single payer he is on record saying so, Frank favors single payer he is on record saying government option is the best path to single payer, other prominent dems favor single payer as well. Forgive me if I fail to trust them at their word. There is no wording in the legislation preventing the program to growing to single payer.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> If we assume that by doing away with insurance we are leveling whole piles of waste at various levels? About $5. Antibiotics are actually fairly cheap, it's all the middle-men you have to go through that drives the price up.



I meant for the doctor's time. I'm assuming you have to pay per visit. Also, if I slice my leg/arm open on something and need stitches, or get into a car crash and break a few bones, what is that going to cost? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I meant for the doctor's time. I'm assuming you have to pay per visit. Also, if I slice my leg/arm open on something and need stitches, or get into a car crash and break a few bones, what is that going to cost? I'm genuinely curious.



THe last time I went to the doctor for a check up/blood work, the doctors visit was billed at $400ish dollars, through my insurance and agreed upon rates, only like 220$ was paid, 20 of which I paid via co-payment. 

The lab work was like $600 for blood/urine tests, the insurance company paid $260ish, I paid nothing. 

Pretty ridiculous, I'd agree.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2009)

Look, all I'm saying is this:

I am not nearly smart enough to know what the solution is. Fact.

I certainly have enough experience now to know that even WITH 'good' health insurance, I STILL can't afford most of the care I would like to be receiving. Nor could my terminally ill mother before she died, nor could my ex girlfriend when she was battling chronic lyme disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. As a result, all of the above suffer when there's truly no need to.

That's all WITH 'good' health insurance. How the fuck are people who don't have ANY insurance supposed to navigate that system? I'm not even talking about homeless or poverty stricken. Let's talk about honest working class folks who work 40+ hours a week and *still* can't afford health insurance??

If _somebody_ doesn't step in and say 'enough is enough, here's a set of laws to keep your greedy asses in check', when does it stop? When/why would they stop increasing their rates beyond the point of absurdity to where guys like me who have relatively respectable jobs/incomes *still* can't afford the care they need? When I have an accident like back when I sliced a section of my finger off while setting up my pedal board, why should I be paying hundreds of dollars for _6 stitches_, when I HAVE insurance??


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I meant for the doctor's time. I'm assuming you have to pay per visit. Also, if I slice my leg/arm open on something and need stitches, or get into a car crash and break a few bones, what is that going to cost? I'm genuinely curious.


Right now, it is like all medical care, assuming you go to a doctor practicing in a large hospital. EXPENSIVE. But that's because you're not just paying for the doctor's time, you're also paying for his MALPRACTICE insurance, (which for the average physician is over $100K/yr, so I hear), you're paying the salary of the paperwork gnome he has to have to handle insurance paperwork, in a large hospital you're paying for directors and CEO's, and the list goes on, and on. If I have to go to the doctor anytime soon, I'll get a quote from an insurance doctor, a quote from an independent doctor, and I'll compare the two.

Aside from that, I don't believe in removing the medical insurance from car insurance, as I don't think it's contributing in any meaningful way to the problem. Mine is $25,000 per person, for a motorcycle policy.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> I still don't get what all the backlash against socialism is about, as if it's 'new' and/or 'unamerican'.
> 
> Is our public school system not socialized? Are our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Departments of Transportation and so on and so on, not all socialized? Is a public service, by definition, not socialized?
> 
> Having pieces of our system socialized doesn't automatically put us all standing in a mile long line waiting for a piece of bread. Not saying I support the socialism of America, just saying that a lot of America has been socialized since before I was born, and all this backlash seems uneducated and silly, to me.




To go off on a tangent from the current topic, yes, they're all socialized, sort of. Police departments and Fire departments are socialized on the local level, public schools and DOTs on the state level. the reason these projects need to be socialized is because there's no incentive for the private sector to be involved in them. It would be impossible, for example, to ask a private company to put out fires and be paid a flat rate for their services.



And, to extrapolate on the Canave vs US situation, the US has a population of over 300 million, of which nearly 150 million are overweight, and 44 million of them are smokers. there's only 50 million people in the entire country of canada, of which (according to the survey I found, CANSIM 2001) 21 percent are smokers, which is under 12 million people, and about 14 million people are overweight. Most highly-developed european contries have lower percentages than that. A very high percentage of illnesses and conditions are as a result from those, so one could assume a higher percentage of people will need/want to take advantage of the system. The sheer logistics of implementing a system like exists in canada or Denmark, per se, are insurmountable.

furthermore, in Canada and those European countries, healthcare is socialized, you just walk in and a doctor sees you, and they're paid a flat rate by the government, or at any rate, aren't allowed to name their own price for the services. If a universal HC reform bill was passed in the US, I can bet that the government program would not be willing to pay as much as a professional would command/demand, or conversely, undercutting the private sector in costs, by way of premiums and co-pays. If THAT were to happen, the program would start hemorrhaging money (face it, they would), and as long as the private sector continues to make money charging more than the government for the service, they have no incentive to lower their rates. It turns into a cycle which would force the government to raise taxes to support a system that would be collapsing under it's own weight.


The administration talks an awful lot about what needs to be done, or what they'd like to do, but say very little about what they're gonna do. Obama compared his initiative last week to the USPS vs. UPS and FedEx, which gave me a laugh. Another bloated, expensive, inefficient government program getting their ass handed to them by a more expensive, faster, more efficient private alternative. 2, in this case, who maintain healthy competition between them.

There's no way I can support something like UHC in the US in the current stage, without a clearer idea of what it will cost, what it will do, and who will be able to benefit from it.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> That's all WITH 'good' health insurance. How the fuck are people who don't have ANY insurance supposed to navigate that system? I'm not even talking about homeless or poverty stricken. Let's talk about honest working class folks who work 40+ hours a week and *still* can't afford health insurance??


Why do they *NEED* health insurance? Why are they not capable of seeking out a direct care provider, and petitioning their employer to drop the overhead cost of health insurance?



synrgy said:


> If _somebody_ doesn't step in and say 'enough is enough, here's a set of laws to keep your greedy asses in check', when does it stop? When/why would they stop increasing their rates beyond the point of absurdity to where guys like me who have relatively respectable jobs/incomes *still* can't afford the care they need? When I have an accident like back when I sliced a section of my finger off while setting up my pedal board, why should I be paying hundreds of dollars for _6 stitches_, when I HAVE insurance??


Perhaps if you had a physician lined up who wouldn't charge so much for something as simple as 6 stitches, you wouldn't be paying hundreds of dollars. Allow me to wager a guess, you went to the emergency room in a large hospital, huh?

The one thing that keeps greed in check is the free market consumer. If nobody buys the insurance companies services because they are too expensive, they either lower rates to attract customers, or go out of business.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

And what's more, if the large companies increase their rates too much and lose customers, it opens the door for new companies to break into the market, charging less. It's car insurance, but look at Safe Auto. They're an insurance company who advertises the lowest possible premiums, because they offer very little coverage, only enough to ensure that it's legal for you to be operating said vehicle. They can peacefully coexist with giants like Allstate, State Farm, and Geico, because they're drawing from the opposite sides of the customer pool.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Perhaps if you had a physician lined up who wouldn't charge so much for something as simple as 6 stitches, you wouldn't be paying hundreds of dollars.




Not to mention a physician that would be available to stitch me up at 1am? Do you have one? I might relocate to where you live if you do.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

At that point, you're paying for the convenience, not the service.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Ketzer said:


> To go off on a tangent from the current topic, yes, they're all socialized, sort of. Police departments and Fire departments are socialized on the local level, public schools and DOTs on the state level. the reason these projects need to be socialized is because there's no incentive for the private sector to be involved in them. It would be impossible, for example, to ask a private company to put out fires and be paid a flat rate for their services.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, you guys have a shit ton more population, but you factor in you have a lot more tax payers than we do, and you guys can probably afford it, especially if they took a small chunk out of your military spending 

At least we can all agree that something needs to be done for your country. But the fact remains that until some other system can be set up to provide affordable health care, or affordable health insurance (since both aren't the same) that at least if this bill goes through, poor people won't be completely fucked.

Also, for the statement that our health care is socialized like European countries, not exactly. Someone posted a link a little awhile ago that I can't find right now explaining the differences between our health care and the UK's, but I think it basically boiled down to the government providing health insurance for private doctors (like us) or the doctors actually being government employees? I could be mistaken. I imagine there's a few different systems.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2009)

Ketzer said:


> At that point, you're paying for the convenience, not the service.



Bull shit. I couldn't just let it sit there overnight. We're talking about my fret hand, here.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Bull shit. I couldn't just let it sit there overnight. We're talking about my fret hand, here.



What were you doing at 1 AM that necessitated getting the stitches?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Does it matter? Shit happens. You could be masturbating with a Ginsu knife and it wouldn't change the fact that if you don't seek medical attention it could get a nasty infection.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Sure, you guys have a shit ton more population, but you factor in you have a lot more tax payers than we do, and you guys can probably afford it, especially if they took a small chunk out of your military spending
> 
> At least we can all agree that something needs to be done for your country. But the fact remains that until some other system can be set up to provide affordable health care, or affordable health insurance (since both aren't the same) that at least if this bill goes through, poor people won't be completely fucked.
> 
> Also, for the statement that our health care is socialized like European countries, not exactly. Someone posted a link a little awhile ago that I can't find right now explaining the differences between our health care and the UK's, but I think it basically boiled down to the government providing health insurance for private doctors (like us) or the doctors actually being government employees? I could be mistaken. I imagine there's a few different systems.



Well, we have, from an absolute standpoint, more taxpayers. However, by the same token, we have more people who would benefit from the service, and that's where the ratio becomes skewed. A higher percentage of Americans would require the services of such a plan than Canadians who would require the services of such a plan, if your country had the same system ours did.


something needs to be done, something's gotta give. but if history is any indication, Americans are remarkably bad at knowing what's best for themselves, and NEVEr want to give anything up.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Does it matter? Shit happens. You could be masturbating with a Ginsu knife and it wouldn't change the fact that if you don't seek medical attention it could get a nasty infection.



However, if I'm masturbating at 1 AM with a ginsu knife and slice my hand or dick open or whatever, I would expect to pay for that, because hey, PROBABLY wasn't such a good idea. If I didn't want to, I'd do it in the daytime when regualr doctors' offices are open.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Why would the ratio of people who need health care be off if we're talking percentages? Our health care is done on a provincial basis, so if you did it on a state level, I'm sure some would be higher and some would be lower, but if we're talking poor people, I don't think Canada is that far off from the US. If anything, different parts of Canada would be worse off than a lot of states.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2009)

Ketzer said:


> What were you doing at 1 AM that necessitated getting the stitches?



Doesn't matter at all, but my hand slipped while I was trying to remove the little rubber feet from the bottom of my Whammy pedal so that I could velcro it to my pedal board.

And mind you, this happened prior to 1am (a bit) but you have to account for initial self treatment at home, the ride to the doctor/hospital, the time filling out the forms prior to receiving any care, etc.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Why would the ratio of people who need health care be off if we're talking percentages? Our health care is done on a provincial basis, so if you did it on a state level, I'm sure some would be higher and some would be lower, but if we're talking poor people, I don't think Canada is that far off from the US. If anything, different parts of Canada would be worse off than a lot of states.



Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of the Canadian system, just that by and large, as developed countries go, the US is the most unhealthy by percentage of people who are obese or have a heart condition or diabetes or whatever, and that it would be a bigger strain on our system.


With that said, I've long been a believer that you can't fix a broken system without tearing it down and starting all over, otherwise you just have a big 'ol clusterfuck of needless legislation. The way our congress and unions/lobbyists currently work, there's basically no way in hell that something like UHC in this country could work well.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Does it matter if it works well?  The only thing it needs to do is provide coverage for people who can't afford it. Right now there's nothing in place for that (to my knowledge) so something is better than nothing.

*disclaimer - In case you haven't heard me say it before, I hardly know anything about politics, economics, etc, so don't be afraid to call me out on something I don't completely understand


----------



## JBroll (Aug 20, 2009)

Look at how well the government handles law enforcement, public facilities, and education for the poor before you assume that this is a particularly good idea. There are far bigger issues that need to be fixed before we touch this stuff, but it's easier to play politics than actually confront the people really responsible for the expenses of health care (hint: the answer does not resemble "the free market is evil") so that's what we're seeing. There are options other than "Dude, let's, like, have that Obama guy be everyone's doctor! He's got like a degree from Harvard and shit!" and "Well, chaps, if this does go through we'll have a hard time holding medical expenses over poor people's heads to force them to sell us their children for our weekly rich bastards' dinner and champagne bath! This must be stopped!", for fuck's sake...

Jeff


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Does it matter if it works well?  The only thing it needs to do is provide coverage for people who can't afford it. Right now there's nothing in place for that (to my knowledge) so something is better than nothing.
> 
> *disclaimer - In case you haven't heard me say it before, I hardly know anything about politics, economics, etc, so don't be afraid to call me out on something I don't completely understand



Well, if it doesn't work efficiently, the government has a duty to the people to support it, so they'll have to raise taxes to finance it, which ends up hurting the people in the long run. You're just borrowing from your other pocket, so to speak. Essentially, if it doesn't work right, it will *probably* end up costing people MORE than going with a low-cost private provider in the long run. Paying all that money in taxes to another bloated inefficient government program, and in return receiving compensation that's lower than the private companies provide. To say nothing of the people who already have providers who will also be affected by the hikes.

Which leads into...

The other big gripe people have with it is that people in this country who have private insurance providers don't want to pay taxes that fund a public provider. People who send their kids to private schools bitch about public schools too, but it's on a far lesser magnitude. If it was basically a system where the uninsured citizens could get marginal coverage from the government on a person-to-person basis, it would conceivably work, but again, logistics. It's just more money spent on record-keeping and all that nonsense. Because of those increased expenditures, it would lose money in a different area that way.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Ketzer said:


> Well, if it doesn't work efficiently, the government has a duty to the people to support it, so they'll have to raise taxes to finance it, which ends up hurting the people in the long run. You're just borrowing from your other pocket, so to speak. Essentially, if it doesn't work right, it will *probably* end up costing people MORE than going with a low-cost private provider in the long run. Paying all that money in taxes to another bloated inefficient government program, and in return receiving compensation that's lower than the private companies provide. To say nothing of the people who already have providers who will also be affected by the hikes.
> 
> Which leads into...
> 
> The other big gripe people have with it is that people in this country who have private insurance providers don't want to pay taxes that fund a public provider. People who send their kids to private schools bitch about public schools too, but it's on a far lesser magnitude. If it was basically a system where the uninsured citizens could get marginal coverage from the government on a person-to-person basis, it would conceivably work, but again, logistics. It's just more money spent on record-keeping and all that nonsense. Because of those increased expenditures, it would lose money in a different area that way.



That could work too. Have the government provide health insurance through a private company. Of course, you'll have people bitch about the government supporting one business and not another, but you can't please everyone  As long as people get the health care they need, who gives a shit where it comes from?


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> That could work too. Have the government provide health insurance through a private company. Of course, you'll have people bitch about the government supporting one business and not another, but you can't please everyone  As long as people get the health care they need, who gives a shit where it comes from?



Well, the people do. Especially the people who are paying for it but not benefiting from it. It's impossible to please everyone, and the administration has to do what they feel is the right move, and also be prepared to be held accountable for its results.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Well, if someone agrees poor people should have health care, who else is going to pay for it besides the government, which ultimately means the tax payer? Can't have it both ways. Some random company isn't going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

And if someone doesn't think poor people deserve medical attention when they're fucked up, then fuck them, they're assholes anyways.

I mean I'm no humanitarian by any stretch of the imagination. I don't give bums change because I lose a shit ton of my money to taxes which already pays for welfare, soup kitchens, and shelters. I've done my part as a tax payer. But if those people were to get hit by a car or beaten up, I do think they deserve to get patched up.


----------



## Ketzer (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well, if someone agrees poor people should have health care, who else is going to pay for it besides the government, which ultimately means the tax payer? Can't have it both ways. Some random company isn't going to do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
> 
> And if someone doesn't think poor people deserve medical attention when they're fucked up, then fuck them, they're assholes anyways.
> 
> I mean I'm no humanitarian by any stretch of the imagination. I don't give bums change because I lose a shit ton of my money to taxes which already pays for welfare, soup kitchens, and shelters. I've done my part as a tax payer. But if those people were to get hit by a car or beaten up, I do think they deserve to get patched up.



Well, me too, but with that said, if someone gets hit by a car and can get free medical care, which I'm okay with, what's stopping someone from ODing on heroin, beaten up by their dealer, clogging their arteries with fat, or drinking themselves nearly to death and getting medical care, none of which I'm okay with paying for?



Ketzer said:


> Well, the people do. Especially the people who are paying for it but not benefiting from it. It's impossible to please everyone, and the administration has to do what they feel is the right move, and also be prepared to be held accountable for its results.



to add to my point, the government won't be held accountable, which is another problem. they won't step up and admit it was a failed experiment if it fails, they'll just keep pumping money into it until we're all broke.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Ketzer said:


> Well, me too, but with that said, if someone gets hit by a car and can get free medical care, which I'm okay with, what's stopping someone from ODing on heroin, beaten up by their dealer, clogging their arteries with fat, or drinking themselves nearly to death and getting medical care, none of which I'm okay with paying for?



There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. You can't have it both ways. It's the same with someone being on unemployment or welfare. Sure, in theory I believe people deserve a helping hand during rough times, but you know it gets abused. Welfare moms pumping out 5 kids just so she gets a bigger check to drink away. I've seen it. Do I like it and like paying for it? No... but like I said, it's all or nothing. There's absolutely no way to separate it. Nothing is perfect and someone will always find a way to abuse the system.

Also, it's funny how this gun thread turned into a health care thread


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Doesn't matter at all, but my hand slipped while I was trying to remove the little rubber feet from the bottom of my Whammy pedal so that I could velcro it to my pedal board.
> 
> And mind you, this happened prior to 1am (a bit) but you have to account for initial self treatment at home, the ride to the doctor/hospital, the time filling out the forms prior to receiving any care, etc.



Is that cut about the size of a quarter on the length of your finger? (I'm trying to imagine the size). If so, I've treated myself for similar cuts at home, without stitches. And actually, that kind of cut would heal faster with the finger in traction, than with stitches.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Not all people are comfortable making those judgements and would rather a medical professional took care of it. That's not to say that if you get a tiny little scratch you should go see a doc, but better safe than sorry for something like that.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> There is nothing stopping anyone from doing that. You can't have it both ways. It's the same with someone being on unemployment or welfare. Sure, in theory I believe people deserve a helping hand during rough times, but you know it gets abused. Welfare moms pumping out 5 kids just so she gets a bigger check to drink away. I've seen it. Do I like it and like paying for it? No... but like I said, it's all or nothing. There's absolutely no way to separate it. Nothing is perfect and someone will always find a way to abuse the system.
> 
> Also, it's funny how this gun thread turned into a health care thread


Oh but there is something stopping it, which is again, the free market. If someone has to foot the bill for treatment for drug abuse, or poor eating choices, they're going to get the message real quick they need to change their habits, or have no money left. Self-induced poverty is a wonderful deterrent. Is that drunk going to spit out 5 kids in the absence of welfare? I would seriously doubt it, as it would then cut into her drinking budget, rather than adding to it.

If there is no system to abuse, there can be no abuse.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Not all people are comfortable making those judgements and would rather a medical professional took care of it. That's not to say that if you get a tiny little scratch you should go see a doc, but better safe than sorry for something like that.



Yeah, I don't know anything about anything when it comes to these things. There were about 9 people at my house at the time (*sigh*, don't ask..) and they all came rushing in to aid me, and the collective consensus was that I was going to need stitches, so I deferred to that judgment. I mean honestly, I was in shock because with all the stupid injuries I've acquired in my lifetime, I've never bled so much, so quickly before. Stupid vascular fingers.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Oh but there is something stopping it, which is again, the free market. If someone has to foot the bill for treatment for drug abuse, or poor eating choices, they're going to get the message real quick they need to change their habits, or have no money left. Self-induced poverty is a wonderful deterrent. Is that drunk going to spit out 5 kids in the absence of welfare? I would seriously doubt it, as it would then cut into her drinking budget, rather than adding to it.
> 
> If there is no system to abuse, there can be no abuse.



Then you're back to poor people not affording health care, and there being no safety net for legitimate periods of poverty.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Yeah, I don't know anything about anything when it comes to these things.


Knowledge is power.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Knowledge is power.



Expecting everyone to take their lives in their own hands for everything is just silly. If I think I might need stitches I'm going to an emergency room, whether or not I have health coverage. No way I'm doing that shit myself.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Then you're back to poor people not affording health care, and there being no safety net for legitimate periods of poverty.



There are actually safety nets for the poor already in place.

They suck, and this is not the way to fix them.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Then how come people are always talking about not being able to afford health care, or cancer treatment, etc? Do people just not know about these?


----------



## JBroll (Aug 20, 2009)

Those safety nets might leave some people between eligibility for those safety nets and ability to afford health care, but you'd be surprised at how many people know nothing at all about availability of insurance in the States.

I make under $1300 a month working part-time, and can afford full insurance coverage that covers everything from preventative care to birth control to emergency room visits. Oops.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

How much does that insurance cost you, and would someone making less than that be able to afford it?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Then you're back to poor people not affording health care, and there being no safety net for legitimate periods of poverty.


Our minimum wage in the U.S. is $7.25/hr, IIRC.

To pay ONE worker minimum wage in this country costs between $14 and $21 depending on location and benefits, all taxes included.

Eliminate all the overhead bullshit (taxes, benefits, etc) on my paycheck and I go from making $10 (roughly what I've made my entire employed life), to making $25-$30/hr.

The poor are poor only because of legalized theft in D.C.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "legitimate" poverty.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Expecting everyone to take their lives in their own hands for everything is just silly. If I think I might need stitches I'm going to an emergency room, whether or not I have health coverage. No way I'm doing that shit myself.


Knowing when stitches are really needed, and when a large bandage and splint will do the job better, cheaper and faster, is better, IMO.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Our minimum wage in the U.S. is $7.25/hr, IIRC.
> 
> To pay ONE worker minimum wage in this country costs between $14 and $21 depending on location and benefits, all taxes included.
> 
> ...



You should, given the current state of your economy  Shit loads of people getting laid off, unable to find work, etc. Those people deserve health care, and they aren't lazy welfare Moms sitting at home drinking their cheques away. 




The Atomic Ass said:


> Knowing when stitches are really needed, and when a large bandage and splint will do the job better, cheaper and faster, is better, IMO.



Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree  I hardly trust most people to do mundane tasks like making me a sandwhich correctly. You get those people stitching themselves up and they're in for a world of trouble. I do minor shit at home too, like I had an infection in my toe a couple weeks ago, was all swelled up and shit, so I poked a hole and drained some blood/pus out of it. I'm right as rain. If I cut into my finger and there's a big flap of skin, I'd be heading to emergency, or an after hours clinic, depending on the severity.

I don't think people should need to know emergency medical procedures. Is it a good idea? Sure, it's like knowing how to the the heimlich maneuver, could save your or someone else's ass. But I think it's an unreasonable expectation to make people stitch themselves up. Where do you draw the line? Do you make them set their own bones if they break something and make a splint?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> You should, given the current state of your economy  Shit loads of people getting laid off, unable to find work, etc. Those people deserve health care, and they aren't lazy welfare Moms sitting at home drinking their cheques away.


Allow me to rephrase. I believe that the only poverty exists is self-imposed and government-imposed. The first being an individual problem, which can have no group solution, and the second merely being a result of corrupt politicians declaring what amounts to war on the free market. I don't believe either of these to be legitimate. I still believe there IS poverty, especially now, I just cannot believe in a poverty that comes about from sources other than laziness and corruption.






JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree  I hardly trust most people to do mundane tasks like making me a sandwhich correctly. You get those people stitching themselves up and they're in for a world of trouble.


You describe the people who would impose poverty upon themselves.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> I don't think people should need to know emergency medical procedures. Is it a good idea? Sure, it's like knowing how to the the heimlich maneuver, could save your or someone else's ass. But I think it's an unreasonable expectation to make people stitch themselves up. Where do you draw the line? Do you make them set their own bones if they break something and make a splint?


Not necessarily stitches, but basic knowledge is a practical thing to have. I would not have gotten stitches for the same injury, as I would not think them warranted. Broken bones? Probably.

Also, now that I think about it, synrgy, please tell me you now have an awesome Frankenstein scar on your finger now. And post pics.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Also, now that I think about it, synrgy, please tell me you now have an awesome Frankenstein scar on your finger now. And post pics.



I do have a pretty rad scar, yes. Pics, I'm too damn lazy to provide. 

The doctors clearly agreed that stitches were in order. So did the nurses. So did all my friends who were present. You're the only person in the equation (who isn't really in the equation) that seems to feel differently, and you're hardly qualified to give an opinion on it considering that all you have to go on is my word and a single photograph.

In other words, I believe I made the right call.

Oh, also -- My sister, who is an EMT, also thought the stitches were called for. So there.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

synrgy said:


> The doctors clearly agreed that stitches were in order. So did the nurses. So did all my friends who were present. You're the only person in the equation (who isn't really in the equation) that seems to feel differently, and you're hardly qualified to give an opinion on it considering that all you have to go on is my word and a single photograph.
> 
> In other words, I believe I made the right call.
> 
> Oh, also -- My sister, who is an EMT, also thought the stitches were called for. So there.


Doctors love billable shit. They make money off of stitching you up, that's business.

And I am remarkably qualified, because I said so.

Tell your sister I said


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Allow me to rephrase. I believe that the only poverty exists is self-imposed and government-imposed. The first being an individual problem, which can have no group solution, and the second merely being a result of corrupt politicians declaring what amounts to war on the free market. I don't believe either of these to be legitimate. I still believe there IS poverty, especially now, I just cannot believe in a poverty that comes about from sources other than laziness and corruption.



What about someone who gets cancer and doesn't have health care coverage?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> What about someone who gets cancer and doesn't have health care coverage?


Umm... Pay for it, with the extra money they have because the current extreme cost of health care is not being raped from their check before they see it? Perhaps? 

Cancer treatment also needn't cost $500,000.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Umm... Pay for it, with the extra money they have because the current extreme cost of health care is not being raped from their check before they see it? Perhaps?
> 
> Cancer treatment also needn't cost $500,000.



Even if it cost $5-10k, to someone with bad credit and they were laid off from their job, that's still not attainable. Hell, I know people who would in absolutely no way be able to scrape up $2k even if their life depended on it. Might as well be $500k to some people. If it costs the person themselves money, then there's always people who won't be able to afford it, and I don't think being poor or even homeless is grounds to die from a disease that could potentially be treated.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Even if it cost $5-10k, to someone with bad credit and they were laid off from their job, that's still not attainable. Hell, I know people who would in absolutely no way be able to scrape up $2k even if their life depended on it. Might as well be $500k to some people. If it costs the person themselves money, then there's always people who won't be able to afford it, and I don't think being poor or even homeless is grounds to die from a disease that could potentially be treated.


Well, the number one issue is, get the money back in the hands of the people who PRODUCE, and the problem of being able to pay off a $5-10K (or even $100K) goes away QUICKLY. Someone who has based their living expenses off of less than $12K/yr net could quickly repay even $100K if their actual pay was anywhere NEAR the value of what they produce, which is much closer to $35K/yr, in that example. It doesn't matter what your credit is, most doctors will treat you as long as there is some chance, no matter how slim, that you'll be able to remain in the workforce, and therefore, pay.

As for unemployment? Recessions are a natural part of a free-market economy, but depressions, like we are in, ARE NOT. Unemployment should not have to happen for lack of available work, ever.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Aug 20, 2009)

Yeah, definitely agree to disagree time


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 20, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Yeah, definitely agree to disagree time


Just you wait. I plan to take over the state of Ohio, and turn it into a free-market paradise. I'll rub it in when we are prosperous, and the rest of the world tanks under its enormous debt.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 21, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Just you wait. I plan to take over the state of Ohio, and turn it into a free-market paradise. I'll rub it in when we are prosperous, and the rest of the world tanks under its enormous debt.



You do that, and I'll move to Ohio the very next day. 

In other news, Republicans threaten to shut down the Senate with parliamentary procedures until the next election if Dems try to pass healthcare reform via budget reconciliation. 

CNSNews.com - GOP Should Shut Down Senate If Dems Use Procedural Tactic to Ram Through Health-Care Bill, Says Conservative Leader


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> You do that, and I'll move to Ohio the very next day.
> 
> In other news, Republicans threaten to shut down the Senate with parliamentary procedures until the next election if Dems try to pass healthcare reform via budget reconciliation.
> 
> CNSNews.com - GOP Should Shut Down Senate If Dems Use Procedural Tactic to Ram Through Health-Care Bill, Says Conservative Leader



Bunch of toddlers (on both sides of the aisle) throwing temper tantrums on Capital Hill.. What else is new?


----------



## RenegadeDave (Aug 21, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Bunch of toddlers (on both sides of the aisle) throwing temper tantrums on Capital Hill.. What else is new?



I'm starting to believe that anything "bipartisan" is a myth.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 21, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> I'm starting to believe that anything "bipartisan" is a myth.



We've seen it happen from time to time, but it usually boils back down to pure politics -- a guy on one side trying to gain favor with the moderate constituents on the other side, or some such.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 21, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> You do that, and I'll move to Ohio the very next day.


If I manage to get elected, I'll PM you the same day.


----------

