|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted March 10, 2013 02:37 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:39, 10 Mar 2013.
|
Quote:
Dude, YOU are the guy who doesn't want public health care, not to mention FREE health care - so if itīs up to you they would die anyway and sooner due to having no money for any kind of treatment, so don't even start.
And that idiot doctor in your clip - the guy has lost it. He's like a general who should know that the war will be lost eventually, but is not too dumb to cry and demand to fight up to the last drop of blood and to the last penny - THE PUBLIC is to pay. Because if you have the money, you can of course do whatever you want.
That it's you from all people who now sound that horn, is somewhat obscene.
What is obscene is justifying the government deciding who lives and who dies based on their 'value to society" and the government forcing people to buy private products. But Marxist freaks have always done such things when they've gotten into power.
Yeah, the doctor is upset that they government basically wants him to be the executioner of the old and infirm. But you can bet your boots women wanting to murder their babies won't be turned away.
Government meddling in the health care of folks will kill innovation, kill jobs, and kill people.
Washington is supposed to serve the people, not dictate to the people what they must buy and when they must go away and die.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 10, 2013 03:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Government meddling in the health care of folks will kill innovation, kill jobs, and kill people.
Washington is supposed to serve the people, not dictate to the people what they must buy and when they must go away and die.
Wrong. See private health care will still be available for those who can afford it, as it is in most societies that have free public health care. The rich will still have better access to top notch health care. Now I am not a fan of this health care act, because right now it is doing NOTHING. If it was regulating, and taxing the hospitals, and making sure that they can not extort the general populace just because they have NO competition..that would be one thing. As it is written it is a 'feel good' proposal that is a joke.
Health care SHOULD be available for anybody, even those that fall through the cracks between rich enough to afford insurance, and those poor enough to qualify for free health care. Of course unlike some I have skin in the game. It's only by being considered disabled (by you know almost dying) that I am covered medically. Otherwise I would be sol. But hey, I do have to pay a large spend down..and they say that they want everybody to pay $19? I am all for that, as it is a fraction of what I have to pay to be covered.
An overhaul IS needed, but this .. this isn't it.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2013 09:01 AM |
|
|
The problem is, Elodin has no idea, what this is actually all about. He sketches a picture of Marxists deciding - hey, you are 80, go home and die. (Note: in communist Europe health care was free; doctors were paid squat.)
But that is NOT it.
You see, Elodin, HEALTH is a really sensitive issue for everyone. Is there any another job where you can make a fortune with selling people stuff for a lot of money that does nothing?
I mean, think about this: people go to the doctor for no reason at all, just to get checked regularly; or because they feel slightly unwell and don't know why. If a doctor had this sugar pills and would tell them, "take one of these each day, you have a slightly too high blood pressure, these will regulate that, come back in a month, then it should be ok", and if he would cash, say, 50 bucks for the pills - no one would ask or mind. Because people are "concerned" about their health, but have no idea about medicine, actually.
You must come down from the idea, that there is a "correct treatment" for every ailment or disease.
THERE ISN'T.
Age and constitution plays a role. With younger people, NATURALLY all treatment aims at curing, if the condition is potentially deadly, so everything will be done. If a person is 30 and might live another 5 years with his condition without help, NATURALLY it makes sense to risk these 5 years or part of it by starting a treatment that may give him 30 or 40 or 50 more years. Also, with 30 a body is much stronger.
However, the older the person gets, the less clear that gets. If a person is 80 or 85, he may only have 4 years got without treatment - but should they really go ALL OUT? What is there to gain? What CAN actually be gained? So treatment should aim to effect as much as possible, without risking too much, making said person's life hell.
Now, money. Docs, clinics and pharma corps make money by TREATING. They do NOT make money by NOT or sparsely treating. So from a monetary point of view, if it's objectively a toss-up between doing the whole routine and doing only a little something (and believe me, there are LOTS of these cases), then as a rule, for the patient it's better to do only a little something - while money will be made with doing the whole routine.
Now, the question is: when IS IT a toss-up. More to the point - who decides that?
Now bring in psychology. Look at yourself, Elodin, and at your reaction; look at that idiot doctor. Not doing much sounds like surrender, right? Like abandoning. People - relatives, doctors, THE PATIENT - must FIGHT. They must DO something; TRY something; be active; be BUSY with going from Pontius to Pilatus, lest they can stop thinking about the fact that, whatever the doctors can or cannot do, you have a serious condition and are old, and that you will die not too far away in the future.
Unfortunately DOING costs a lot of money.
I would hail a really nice law, where the docs and clinics could "do" if they wanted - but non-profit. Let them decide alright - but let them also not earn money with it. You'd see, Elodin, how fast this idiot doctor would shut the hell up.
Conversely to that, YOU start painting a picture that the government wants to actually kill people by refusing to give them REAL help. Say, a dialysis machine, meaning clear-cut treatment that keeps a person alive and alive in a real sense.
That wouldn't be possible, would it? It would also make no sense.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 10, 2013 10:08 AM |
|
|
JJ, why are you bothering? Elodin won't listen. his brainslug interprets everything you say as "I'm a satanic commie socialist marxist anti-theist anti-american who must be purged"
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2013 10:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
in communist Europe health care was free; doctors were paid squat
Health care was free if you could get it. If you didn't bribe the right people, you would have to wait a long time and be treated poorly. If you wanted to be treated well at a hospital, bribe the doctor with a crate of oranges - and oranges weren't that easy to get.
Quote:
More to the point - who decides that?
Whoever is paying.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2013 11:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
More to the point - who decides that?
Whoever is paying.
That is not the right answer, at least as long as it isn't the patients who pay for themselves, something not many can afford.
However, if it's covered by an insurance, NEITHER the docs/clinic who will do the treatment (and profit from it) NOR the insurance (their experts) whcih pays should decide, but independents.
The health care system needs a complete separation of the diagnosing/treatment-advising and the actual treatment business, in the interest of patients and costs.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 01:25 AM |
|
|
Free health care.
Is it more important for something to be free or it be qualitative or both?
What I mean is that eventhough you get "Free" health care in some countries, the treatment of people is 2nd class.
You certainly dont want to be knit with on your face with the same level of treating a leg. A giant scar in your face is not a good thing and might be permanent for your life.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 03:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Government meddling in the health care of folks will kill innovation, kill jobs, and kill people.
Washington is supposed to serve the people, not dictate to the people what they must buy and when they must go away and die.
Wrong. See private health care will still be available for those who can afford it, as it is in most societies that have free public health care.
No, you are wrong. Obuma care is "private care" with the government dictating what will be covered and taxing you for additional coverage if you chose to pay for more that what the freak says you must have.
Quote:
The rich will still have better access to top notch health care.
Many of the poor are Obama's voter prostitutes and the pimp will make sure his ******* are taken care of.
Quote:
Now I am not a fan of this health care act, because right now it is doing NOTHING. If it was regulating, and taxing the hospitals, and making sure that they can not extort the general populace just because they have NO competition..that would be one thing. As it is written it is a 'feel good' proposal that is a joke.
No competition? There are thousands of hospitals, clinics, and doctors across the nation.
Quote:
The problem is, Elodin has no idea, what this is actually all about.
Wrong, I know exactly what it is about, which is why I oppose it. Some moron in Washington has no business dictating that I must have health insurance, what that insurance must cover, and penalizing me if I don't have insurance or if I have more coverage than he dictated.
Quote:
You see, Elodin, HEALTH is a really sensitive issue for everyone. Is there any another job where you can make a fortune with selling people stuff for a lot of money that does nothing?
In my opinion anyone who thinks doctors are pushing services and goods that are intended to do nothing is clueless. Liberalism is based primarily on emotion, not on facts.
Quote:
You must come down from the idea, that there is a "correct treatment" for every ailment or disease.
The patient should be making the decision about what treatment to receive, with the doctor's advice. Marxist freaks in Washington should have no say so in my medical care.
Quote:
However, the older the person gets, the less clear that gets.
What is clear is that Obama should have no say so in medical care that is not about him or his dependents.
When I've been in a doctor's office I've asked what the options are and then after he gave them to me I asked what he would recommend. I never once called up some Marxist freak in Washington and asked what his wishes for my medical care are. I frankly can't comprehend why anyone would want Washington calling the shots on their medical care. Well, I know liberals tend to be very dependent on the government in pretty much area of their lives, but still...
Quote:
Now, the question is: when IS IT a toss-up. More to the point - who decides that?
The patient should call the shots, JJ. Not Father Obama.
Quote:
Now bring in psychology. Look at yourself, Elodin, and at your reaction; look at that idiot doctor.
Yes, look at me. I am rationally opposed to someone else deciding my medical care. You have faith in the state-god to do you your thinking for you and decide what is best for everyone else and have a knee jerk reaction against anyone who suggests government does not know best and has no right to dictate their lives.
Quote:
JJ, why are you bothering? Elodin won't listen. his brainslug interprets everything you say as "I'm a satanic commie socialist marxist anti-theist anti-american who must be purged"
Nah, I'm just competent enough to make my own decisions about my medical care. Unlike libs, I don't need any government official to make my decisions.
Quote:
However, if it's covered by an insurance, NEITHER the docs/clinic who will do the treatment (and profit from it) NOR the insurance (their experts) whcih pays should decide, but independents.
LOL. So neither I nor that insurance company I signed a contract with should have a say so in my medical care. Ridiculous.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 07:57 AM |
|
|
|
As I said, no idea what it's all about.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 12:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, you are wrong. Obuma care is "private care" with the government dictating what will be covered and taxing you for additional coverage if you chose to pay for more that what the freak says you must have.
You really can't see the forest for all the trees..can you? You don't have to take my word for the fact that there will always be private care available for those who can afford to pay, regardless if free healthcare is provided for everybody or not. Just look at any other nation that has free public health care. Like say England. Yes, everybody has access to care, but there are private clinics which you can PAY to go to that has better care. While the doctors are required to do so much free health time, they have better equipment at the paying clinics. Like hospitals now, you can be in a 'public' room if you can afford little, or a private room if you can pay more.
Also, how is this imaginary tax of yours any different then normal health insurance. Better health insurance always costs more then basic health insurance. Oh I forgot, forest/tree thing..forget I asked.
Quote:
Many of the poor are Obama's voter prostitutes and the pimp will make sure his ******* are taken care of.
How does this have anything to do with the price of rice in China, or make any sense in conjunction with what I said? Right, right, blinded by the trees..forget I asked.
Quote:
No competition? There are thousands of hospitals, clinics, and doctors across the nation.
Which are run exactly the same way as the other hospitals, with exactly the same (or more) of a markup. Yep, just like the jobs in China..sure you can quit (go to another hospital), but since it is exactly the same everywhere else..what is the point? So yes, no competition. Forest/trees.
What gets me, is we are on the same side...opposed to the law as it stands. But one of us (I won't say which) is so obsessed with Obama that they can't see the forest for all the trees.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 06:06 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Quote:
Many of the poor are Obama's voter prostitutes and the pimp will make sure his ******* are taken care of.
Statements like this are a major reason why the poor will not vote for the GOP, even if they agreed with their policies. People aren't going to vote for the side that doesn't appear to respect them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 06:42 PM |
|
|
There is a poetic justice to it though. The # of poor in the US is increasing, the poor vote for Democrats, who in turn create more poor people.
Did they finally discover an unbeatable strategy?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is a poetic justice to it though. The # of poor in the US is increasing, the poor vote for Democrats, who in turn create more poor people.
Did they finally discover an unbeatable strategy?
Don't forget, they also control the media so they make the GOP look like silly monkeys in suits. And boom, the strategy is now unbeatable in 48 states (the only two where it fails is Arkansas and Alabama (AKA Aleebamer)).
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 08:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't forget, they also control the media so they make the GOP look like silly monkeys in suits. And boom, the strategy is now unbeatable in 48 states (the only two where it fails is Arkansas and Alabama (AKA Aleebamer)).
Which would be true if the GOP did not posses their own media apparatus with influence. Thus the 50/50 deadlock.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 08:50 PM |
|
|
It's far from being one-sided, but all in all, the media has almost always been an inadvertent weapon of war for any leftist beliefs ranging from moderate to radical. The personalities of entertainers (actors, comedians) are heavily drawn to leftists ideologies and, to a lesser extent, so are journalists. CBS, ABC, and MSNBC are all easily biased toward leftists beliefs. CNN is marginally biased towards leftists beliefs. FOX is biased towards rightists beliefs. Albeit, as a single entity, Fox is by far the largest of all of these networks, but it still comes up short-handed against the combined might of the others.
This is probably somewhat more crystallized and transparent in the US since the country suffers from bipolar disorder, where lines are drawn between red godzilla versus blue godzilla. Where political boundaries are not so moronically divided into two camps this might fade somewhat, but really, no matter you go, you're going to find the personalities of actors and comedians to be favorable towards leftism.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 08:54 PM |
|
|
CNN leftist?  This just proves once again how different these categories are used in the US compared to Europe.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 08:57 PM |
|
|
As concepts they aren't used differently at all, but leftism and rightism are relative to the context of a culture. CNN (US version) has a marginal slant towards leftism.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 09:04 PM |
|
|
|
So... Obama is then a culturally-contextual Marxist I guess?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 09:08 PM |
|
|
Not really, but it is accurate to call Obama a leftist president, even if he would be considered rightists in some other places. Even within the context of US culture it would be inaccurate to call Obama a radical left, especially since there is such a thing as textbook Marxists in the States. They're a tiny fringe, but they exist.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 11, 2013 09:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
but it is accurate to call Obama a leftist president, even if he would be considered rightists in some other places.
That's the thing - what you think left in the US is at best moderate right in Europe. If these notions are supposed to have anything even remotely similar to an universal usage, they can't mean different things depending on which side of the Atlantic you live.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
