Curse

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 03, 2009, 01:24 PM // 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I do not care about other people. Really, I don't. Considering the fact that they don't give a shit about me, why should I care about them? Because they're less privileged than me? Great, so I should be charitable to people who like to speak of me in demeaning terms because I can be charitable to them?

How do you become so callous and self-centered?

Snow Bunny · Oct 03, 2009, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

How do you become so callous and self-centered?

I've become such through popular view of my racial & socioeconomic class. Risky, if you actually want to have a sustained dialogue on this issue (something I think is healthy and/or necessary) I'd very much like you to read this in its entirety. I would love if you could persuade me to another point of view by virtue of an argument that isn't along the lines of "you can and thus you should"

Considering the fact that I am indeed white, upper middle-class, and well-educated, my group is the primary target of political and cultural attacks and humour, whether directly or through association with other entities in our world (corporations = white, right?).

I made a post some time ago that obviously none of you paid attention to, so I shall reiterate a center point of it.

I share little in common with a sizeable share of the US population, a share that is growing. My value system is specifically contrary to mainstream opinion. You (not saying you Risky, saying mainstream Americans) largely think it's fine to download 1000000's of songs/videos/media illegally, whereas I don't. I believe in the rule of law - that we should follow the law and be reprimanded/punished if we break it. I believe that corporations should not ship jobs off to the 3rd world for lower costs, but consumers would rather pay bottom prices and see their economy disintegrate before their eyes than pay for a product that is more expensive because it directly employs their country's own workers.

My values & morals are so off course (with the little anecdote as a very insignificant example) with most of my fellow citizens that I feel literally very little towards them in terms of sympathy.

I'm from Los Angeles, see, and if I took a man from say, the midwilshire area, and put him into my house, and he was imparted to the knowledge that he would be able to rob me blind and I wouldn't be able to stop him, there's a strong probability he would rob me. I wouldn't do the same, and you might not either, but you cannot guarantee that this man might not. Considering the rate of home robbery/invasion in Los Angeles, we'd most likely find out I'm right.

Considering that, why should I pay more money to fund a healthcare system that would allow such an individual to receive treatment? Now multiple my example to millions of people, and you begin to see where I'm coming from. The man who throws his McDonald's trash out of his car window and yells "faggot!" at me when I say "c'mon man pick it up!", I should care about him?

The US's system would have to work for a seriously culturally fragmented society, one that does not have the cultural uniformity of the Northern European nations.

It's not that I'm self-centered so much as that I have good reason to believe that my fellow citizens would sooner mock and harass me for my class and race than help me. Considering that in my experience this has overwhelmingly been the case, I see little reason to deviate from that theory.

A11Eur0 · Oct 03, 2009, 08:01 PM // 20:01

To cap snow bunny's post into something that most of you can understand:

they don't deserve my money.

And I agree...because they don't. The vast bulk majority of people who would benefit the most from socialized medicine in this country would sooner shoot me in the head and take my belongings than put effort into a meaningful education and career to earn the same belongings for themselves. Those who will benefit least from this system are those who will be paying the most into it. This is not fair. This is not American. This is Communist/Socialist (depending on the viewpoint). And it has no place in the United States of America, where the unwritten contract is that you pay your own way, you work to get ahead. The sky is the limit and you have every freedom to earn every cent you can. And if you can't, you live a mediocre life or, at worst, you fail and die. You take out what you put in. You get what you give. YOU don't get what I GIVE. Too long we have been moving away from that unwritten contract, and the time has just about come where the American people need to stand up and take this country back to where it belongs.

Calling Snow Bunny self-serving because he wishes to keep what he earns is hypocritical. I'd be more apt to say that you thinking you deserve what I earned because I have more of it, that's selfish. If you want money, work for it. Nobody in their right mind would consider equal rewards for unequal work, risk, intelligence, charisma, cunning, or even luck to be even close to reasonable. If I put myself in a position for a windfall, why should I pay out of pocket to give a percentage of it to someone who chooses to fall behind, get lost in the crowd, and stay where he's at? Whether it's physical effort, mental effort, or just really good planning, I got to where I'm at for a reason, and everyone has that ability. People should get rewarded for using that ability, not for ignoring it.

KiyaKoreena · Oct 03, 2009, 08:48 PM // 20:48

If you are paying into private health insurance now you are already paying for others healthcare. So would you support abolishing health insurance and making everyone pay costs directly out of pocket?

bhavv · Oct 03, 2009, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

[FONT=Tahoma]bhavv,QUOTE=Snow Bunny;4881478][FONT=Tahoma]bhavv,

considering the fact that I've lived in the UK for 11 out of my 21 years of life, I will tell you I know just how mediocre your UK health system is, and that my parents paid exorbitant amounts of money in taxes for crappy care.

and i will choose to have free mediocre healthcare as opposed to excessively priced healthcare that would bankrupt me.

At the end of this month, I get a £2000 operation for free, so yay for me.

We also have private healthcare in the UK, in case you didnt realise that while you were here. If you dont like the free one provided by the NHS, you can pay for private health care if you choose to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

ALSO

SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY GETTING TAXED 50 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR SHOULD BE TAXED MORE TO PAY FOR OTHERS.

You already get taxed to pay for others. You pay for education, roads and military, and also many other things that concern other people, but of course you are happy for all of this but healthcare is just bad for some reason.

Lets put forward this idea. What if education was not socialised, and everyone had to pay for their childrens full education costs? Well for starters, the number of unskilled and uneducated people would skyrocket, while the number of educated and skilled workers would plummet. But I assume you are happy with paying for other peoples education, but not for their healthcare right?

And if you are actually being taxed 50 cents on the dollar, then that is quite unbelievable as that would be a 50% tax rate which is higher than the highest tax rate in both Britain and France, yet we still have free medical care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I do not care about other people. Really, I don't. Considering the fact that they don't give a shit about me, why should I care about them?

I hardly care about other people, but I could never be as apathetic as you are to think that no one should be entitled to healthcare for something which was not their fault because they cant afford it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

To cap snow bunny's post into something that most of you can understand:

they don't deserve my money.

And I agree...because they don't. The vast bulk majority of people who would benefit the most from socialized medicine in this country would sooner shoot me in the head and take my belongings than put effort into a meaningful education and career to earn the same belongings for themselves.

And i suppose that it is this highly judgemental attitude that prevents the USA from progressing its medical care.

You actually thinkthat people who are sick that would benefit from free healthcare would be criminals. This is the same kind of ridiculous BS that that Glenn Beck and most other republicans spout out from their
dysfunctional brains.

also, this article on a recent Harvard study makes a good read:

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year

Quote:

The United States stands alone among industrialized
nations in not providing health coverage
to all of its citizens. Currently, 46 million
Americans lack health coverage.1 Despite repeated
attempts to expand health insurance,
uninsurance remains commonplace among US
adults.

But I suppose that the anti - socialism people would think that 45000 deaths per year is a good thing.

Also,this is a documentory that has to be watched regarding this issue, called Sick in america:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

American woman - 'I went to Malaysia and got a new hip for $8000'.

Do watch through all the parts.

Inde · Oct 04, 2009, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

To cap snow bunny's post into something that most of you can understand:

they don't deserve my money.

And I agree...because they don't. The vast bulk majority of people who would benefit the most from socialized medicine in this country would sooner shoot me in the head and take my belongings than put effort into a meaningful education and career to earn the same belongings for themselves. Those who will benefit least from this system are those who will be paying the most into it. This is not fair. This is not American. This is Communist/Socialist (depending on the viewpoint). And it has no place in the United States of America, where the unwritten contract is that you pay your own way, you work to get ahead. The sky is the limit and you have every freedom to earn every cent you can. And if you can't, you live a mediocre life or, at worst, you fail and die. You take out what you put in. You get what you give. YOU don't get what I GIVE. Too long we have been moving away from that unwritten contract, and the time has just about come where the American people need to stand up and take this country back to where it belongs.

Calling Snow Bunny self-serving because he wishes to keep what he earns is hypocritical. I'd be more apt to say that you thinking you deserve what I earned because I have more of it, that's selfish. If you want money, work for it. Nobody in their right mind would consider equal rewards for unequal work, risk, intelligence, charisma, cunning, or even luck to be even close to reasonable. If I put myself in a position for a windfall, why should I pay out of pocket to give a percentage of it to someone who chooses to fall behind, get lost in the crowd, and stay where he's at? Whether it's physical effort, mental effort, or just really good planning, I got to where I'm at for a reason, and everyone has that ability. People should get rewarded for using that ability, not for ignoring it.

When you're old, say 92, living beyond what you had planned for... beyond the years you would have expected. Dying slowly in a nursing home, painfully. With no money to your name, no children who afford to look after you... let's see what all those years of hard work brought you. Let's see you hum the same tune because you "put in the effort" and it all turned out to be for naught. I'd like to see your opinion on that healthcare then.

The "vast bulk majority of people who would benefit the most from socialized medicine in this country" are the elderly. NOT the lazy. NOT the illegal immigrants. NOT the leeches.

As I said, it's impossible to have a discussion in this thread because so many of you are focused on your own lives and can't see outside your own little corner of the world. You worked hard for your money? Pretty sure that 92 year old did too. And now he watches his legacy, the money he worked so hard to save for his kids being stripped from him every single month. Our government won't pay for medical care until you are destitute.

You worked hard for your money? So do I with a double degree, fantastic insurance, and putting in 60+ hours a week. Means nothing now because I pay between 10-15k a year for medical. Out of pocket. Every... single... year. With no end in sight. That's on top of living expenses. I'm pleased that you feel you can take 15k cash out of your take home salary every year and it doesn't have much effect on you. That's over $1000 a month I pay in just medical bills alone on top of my health insurance payments/deductibles/out of pocket/co-pays (you don't realize how much that 'great' medical insurance you have doesn't cover). But for those of us who face the broken medical and insurance system every single day... I welcome anything then the thought of all MY HARD EARNED money going toward a medical system that is so overpriced and expensive that I will probably one day be destitute.

And only then will the medical care for free.

Snow Bunny · Oct 04, 2009, 03:49 PM // 15:49

I think a lot of you are missing my point.

In fact, even the people who agree with me about the issue don't truly understand my point.

I'm totally fine with a system where everyone throws in... $3000 a year or whatever and we all get great healthcare, I really am.

What I'm not fine with is taxing only a socio-economic bracket that is already taxed 50 cents on the dollar.

That's essentially my entire argument in a nutshell.

So....make it so that everyone puts in $3000/yr (wasn't that the figure proposed by the whitehouse to be laid on that certain tax bracket?) and make it significantly more difficult to sue doctors for malpractice, and I bet we'd have a pretty good healthcare system.

Inde · Oct 04, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Yeah, I kind of missed that point in your posts Snow Bunny. Thanks for clarifying that. I can agree with that.

Shursh · Oct 04, 2009, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I think a lot of you are missing my point.

In fact, even the people who agree with me about the issue don't truly understand my point.

I'm totally fine with a system where everyone throws in... $3000 a year or whatever and we all get great healthcare, I really am.

What I'm not fine with is taxing only a socio-economic bracket that is already taxed 50 cents on the dollar.

That's essentially my entire argument in a nutshell.

So....make it so that everyone puts in $3000/yr (wasn't that the figure proposed by the whitehouse to be laid on that certain tax bracket?) and make it significantly more difficult to sue doctors for malpractice, and I bet we'd have a pretty good healthcare system.

1. I'd be willing to bet that we end up with the same problem that we have now - not enough people paying in. $3000 from everyone sounds fantastic on paper (and would likely be enough to cover expenses), but do you honestly believe that EVERYONE will be paying in his $3000? Tax evasion, illegal immigrants, and the never-ending cycle of "exemptions" added to the bill would cripple whatever good intentions we had.

2. Tort reform? That would be great, but don't hold your breath...

It would be nice if we all lived by a set of standards and rules, but when so many play without rules what's the point?

Furthermore, I don't trust our government to handle anything with any degree of efficiency and financial responsibility.

bhavv · Oct 05, 2009, 10:42 AM // 10:42

In the UK and France, everyone who is working legally and earning more than a certain minimum amount which I cant recall does pay into the system. But the amount paid varies on income. The tax brackets are calculated so that people on income low income do not end up bankrupting themselves from the costs, while high earners still have plenty of money left over to buy or save whatever they like. People who cant afford to pay in dont pay in. People who can afford to but dont pay in are breaking the law, but you are going to get criminals in any system or country regardless of the tax and healthcare system.

But everyone gets access to free healthcare as a result, and no one actually dies from a lack of healthcare unless they neglect themselves, or dont actually go to a doctor early enough.

The USA is still far more expensive then any other country for healthcare, causing bankruptcy to too many people, and not covering a vast majority of honest decent American people, yet illegal immigrants can still walk into any hospital and get treatment.

A society cannot exist without people working for low wages, you need people working the low end jobs that educated high earners have usually refused to do throughout their lives, everyone cant magically become a doctor or a lawyer, nor is everyone clever enough to get an education in the first place.

Or you could have a communism instead that would pay everyone the same regardless of their job. That would actually fix the USAs economy and healthcare.

/Joke about communism.

But what better option do you have? Socialised medicine or carry on bankrupting so many people with medical costs?

Rocky Raccoon · Oct 05, 2009, 12:37 PM // 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

But what better option do you have? Socialised medicine or carry on bankrupting so many people with medical costs?

Yes, and once these people are backrupt they then become dependent on help from the government to survive, adding to more taxes which could be avoided in the first place.

To Snow Bunny, I did read your full post and for the most part we agree more than we disagree.

Winterclaw · Oct 05, 2009, 07:47 PM // 19:47

A couple of things:

First of all: There's a video you can watch here

So how can anyone support a bill if the people who are crafting it don't know the final text? Also why would you support them if they are writing things that they don't know what the real wording of it is going to be? Finally, if the wording is so arcane don't you think that it needs to be simplified so that most people could read and understand it?

Secondly: a doctor's poll.

It seems that there is a large number of doctors who don't like the upcoming reforms for whatever reason. They also don't think that you can increase coverage by 15% of america's population and do a better job for cheap. Likewise if any large number of them leave as the poll would suggestion, that would further increase the burden on the existing system.

Here's a telling number:

Quote:

The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.

So if we have 2.4 physicians per 1,150 people we'd be left with about 2.1 per 1,000 under obamascare... which would be a full doctor less afterwards... and this doesn't even include the potential for doctors leaving the field. In order to have the same amount of doctors per population as other countries, we'd have to increase their number by 50%. How you can increase the number of doctors by that much and do it for less seems impossible.

I think I said it before but in case I didn't I'll say it again: this is America so before we can even think of debating the issue of national health care we need to find out if it is constitutional. The Constitution is the rules that the federal government has to play by; it says what may and what may not be done in the matter. So I think it is a fair request to see the part of the constitution with explicitly authorizes this kind of thing.

So all Americans should go and read the Constitution and see what it says before demanding one thing or another. So far I've see nothing in the Constitution with allows the government to do this.

Inde, while I do feel for what you are going through and I've had chronic illnesses in my family so I've seen what it does, you've got to understand that it is not the federal government's to handle something like this. If anything it is the responsibility of the states and the states alone. It is not their job to fix the health care system and I think that we should be wary of anyone trying to set up a distant bureaucracy which can affect all Americans. If they screw it up they will screw it up for everyone. If they spend too much of it, that's even more of a national debt that today's and tomorrow's children will be forced to pay back.

It's good that you want to fix the problems in the system, but the system needs to be fixed in a proper manner. Unfortunately national health care is improper for the American government.

Eskimoz · Oct 05, 2009, 09:26 PM // 21:26

Quote:

It seems that there is a large number of doctors who don't like the upcoming reforms for whatever reason. They also don't think that you can increase coverage by 15% of america's population and do a better job for cheap. Likewise if any large number of them leave as the poll would suggestion, that would further increase the burden on the existing system.

Why should we care about the doctors opinion? This is a financial matter.

Quote:

So all Americans should go and read the Constitution and see what it says before demanding one thing or another. So far I've see nothing in the Constitution with allows the government to do this.

There isn't anything that PREVENTS it either.
-------------------

GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY!

The public option is probably going to be dropped from the bill!

Yay for death via capitalism!!!!

Shursh · Oct 05, 2009, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

Why should we care about the doctors opinion?

Because if they quit, we're F-ed no matter what type of healthcare we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eskimoz

The public option is probably going to be dropped from the bill!

YAY!!! Although it will probably still contain a bunch of garbage. Oh wait, our elected officials won't read it, so I guess we don't really know.

Winterclaw · Oct 05, 2009, 09:45 PM // 21:45

Quote:

Why should we care about the doctors opinion? This is a financial matter.

...

Are you kidding?

Quote:

There isn't anything that PREVENTS it either.

Hmm, let's see.

source

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article 1, Section 8

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So yes, there is something that prevents congress from passing national health care. As I said, read the constitution.

karunpav · Oct 06, 2009, 02:48 AM // 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article 1, Section 8

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

I'd say health care is pretty necessary and proper for the citizens of the US. Don't tell me that the majority of Americans would be better off without it.

mrmango · Oct 06, 2009, 03:49 AM // 03:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by karunpav

I'd say health care is pretty necessary and proper for the citizens of the US. Don't tell me that the majority of Americans would be better off without it.

Same response I would have made.

Also, Winterclaw.. I really think statistics are being thrown around without any research behind them..
Let's see this http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/164083.php
63% support a public option..

Shursh · Oct 06, 2009, 12:57 PM // 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by karunpav

I'd say health care is pretty necessary and proper for the citizens of the US. Don't tell me that the majority of Americans would be better off without it.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you there.

What's being argued is how to fund it without having a small portion of the population paying for everyone's healthcare.

Eskimoz · Oct 06, 2009, 07:46 PM // 19:46

Quote:

Are you kidding?

no, Quiet frankly I don't give a damn about the doctors opinion.

It's why they are a doctor and not a senator.

Quote:

So yes, there is something that prevents congress from passing national health care. As I said, read the constitution

Quote:

the States respectively, or to the people.

PUBLIC health-care seems pretty people oriented.

Besides, it's not like we haven't changed the constitution before.

Eskimoz · Oct 06, 2009, 07:48 PM // 19:48

Quote:

Because if they quit, we're F-ed no matter what type of healthcare we have.

Yes, they are going to quit their high paying jobs because they disagree with some changes the Government made.

Quote:

Oh wait, our elected officials won't read it, so I guess we don't really know.

I'm !$@#ing sad because that's oh so true.