Quote :

"^Ill take a stab at it. If your culture consumes meat and fried foods at most meals vs. a culture that eats mostly fish and rice, is there any surprise that we lead the world in heart disease, and alot of asian cultures have very little heart disease? "

What does that have to do with the number of doctors per capita?

10/23/2007 3:00:55 PM

You could have 100 doctors watch you eat shit for 10 years and die of an heart attack. THe point is, until you take care of yourself having a 100 doctors per 1 citizen doesnt mean you will live longer or even healthier.

10/23/2007 3:04:41 PM

But what role does culture and genetics play in the generation of doctors per capita? What you're saying doesn't link the two at all.

10/23/2007 3:07:04 PM

My post was more about rates such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates. I thought that is what HUR was referring to before I actually read the thread and realized he was referring to doctor-per-capita rates.

my bad.

10/23/2007 3:25:46 PM

Quote :

"To claim that communism is inherently anti-freedom is kind of ignorant, or you just don't have a good definition of freedom."

I have never in my life heard someone with two college degrees say something like this.

10/24/2007 10:51:33 AM

Hypothetically if Hillary did get elected and universal health care were passed i would most certainly be in favor of switching over to a flat tax. After all the people paying the least would be receiving the most benefits from the government.

10/24/2007 12:26:20 PM

Nixon gave the insurance companies too much power


now the insurance lobbyists will never allow for universal health care...... because free healthcare doesnt make money


Money, cash, hoes

10/24/2007 12:27:42 PM

Quote :

"I have never in my life heard someone with two college degrees say something like this."

There's a difference between the system and how it's been implemented. To claim that the majority of people in this country are free is silly, though. They're trapped in a different way -- in a way that alienates them from their human nature. This is a flaw with Capitalism (in my opinion), but there are obviously lots of pros that come with it as well.

So if you look upon those lines, then yeah, communism if actually implemented might free a certain number of people from those who own the means of production. It depends on how you conceive of freedom.

[Edited on October 24, 2007 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2007 12:30:11 PM

theres nothing free about government insurance.

And its actually very, very, very profitable just like any other government contract.

10/24/2007 12:30:13 PM

yeah; we do afterall work 4 months (conservative number) of the year to make money for the government. We are pretty much serfs except the gov gives us just enough income to afford consumerable items and some vacation time to sedate us from the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf

Quote :

"The usual serf (not including slaves or cottars) "paid" his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally appropriate labor. Usually a portion of the week was devoted to plowing his lord's fields (demesne), harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in the manor house. The lord’s demesne included more than just fields: it included all grazing rights, forest produce (nuts, fruits, timber, and forest animals), and fish from the stream. The lord had exclusive rights to these things. "

[Edited on October 24, 2007 at 12:35 PM. Reason : a]

10/24/2007 12:32:43 PM

Quote :

"To claim that the majority of people in this country are free is silly, though. They're trapped in a different way -- in a way that alienates them from their human nature."

Please explain how exactly these people are trapped. And how do YOU define freedom?

10/24/2007 6:01:03 PM

Trapped out of ignorance, mostly -- that and the temptation of a cushy life. They chase after stuff, and in doing so, do work (for 8 hours a day -- summing to the majority of their lives) that doesn't treat them as anything but a means to an end. People doing the same old shit everyday and working for the weekend, so to speak, alienates them from their human nature.

So yeah they COULD opt out at any point, but they're so trapped (under my view) that they wouldn't. This is what has really become important to people -- but it doesn't make it a good thing psychologically.

I'd define freedom as the ability to apply my talents in any way they warrant, I suppose. I live a fairly free life at the moment, but even then I trap myself quite often. Not saying it's anybody's fault, per se, but freeing people from a childish rat race would go a far way as far as freeing peoples' minds goes.

10/24/2007 7:56:39 PM

Quote :

"How is anyone taking more than half or your hard work? You're doing something wrong."

Well, let's see. My tax rate, federal, state, and SS is at about 40%. Sales tax is about 7% where I live. Factor in the other taxes I pay for electricity, water, cable, and the other hidden taxes that are included in the price of items I purchase that get passed on to me, and I am EASILY having more than 50% of my income stolen from me.

Quote :

"So let's be clear on this. aaronburro, you are pro-life, but once the children are born, you think that they should be killed if their parents' genes are determined to be "defective"? Am I understanding you correctly?"

Nope, that's not AT ALL what I am saying. I would never advocate directly killing the children of unfit parents. Rather, I would advocate letting the parent's actions or inaction determine the fate of their children, you know, the same way nature would. Parents with "defective genes," in your words, would fail to produce viable offspring that reproduce, thus removing those "defective genes" from the gene pool. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

10/24/2007 8:17:20 PM

^^ I hear what you're saying, but how is that (working for the weekend) different from any other mode of life? Even the original affluent societies spent time each day tending to the mundanities of life. The rest was their time to spend as they saw fit, of course, but from what I can tell from modern hunter-gatherer-esque societies, much of that spare time is spent gossiping and such. It hardly seems to be the enlightened existence that you're describing.

There has to be some balance between working to subsist (whether directly through farming and hunting, or indirectly by working for money) and being free to apply your talents as you see fit.

There are extremes at each end...those who work all the time with little personal time, and those who work a minimum with much free time. You just need to strike the proper balance for yourself.

[Edited on October 24, 2007 at 8:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2007 8:18:05 PM

i just want to drink everyday, lay out in the sun during the day, and fuck bitches. 24/7

10/24/2007 11:29:34 PM

Quote :

"Nope, that's not AT ALL what I am saying. I would never advocate directly killing the children of unfit parents. Rather, I would advocate letting the parent's actions or inaction determine the fate of their children, you know, the same way nature would. Parents with "defective genes," in your words, would fail to produce viable offspring that reproduce, thus removing those "defective genes" from the gene pool. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me."

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read, and reveals just about the worst understanding of natural selection I've ever seen.

Quote :

"^^ I hear what you're saying, but how is that (working for the weekend) different from any other mode of life? Even the original affluent societies spent time each day tending to the mundanities of life. The rest was their time to spend as they saw fit, of course, but from what I can tell from modern hunter-gatherer-esque societies, much of that spare time is spent gossiping and such. It hardly seems to be the enlightened existence that you're describing. There has to be some balance between working to subsist (whether directly through farming and hunting, or indirectly by working for money) and being free to apply your talents as you see fit. There are extremes at each end...those who work all the time with little personal time, and those who work a minimum with much free time. You just need to strike the proper balance for yourself."

I agree with this pretty much wholly. The bad part is, a lot of folks don't ever, in their thinking, step outside their culture and the views that were socialized into them. These people get trapped pretty easily.

10/25/2007 7:17:56 PM

Quote :

"This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read, and reveals just about the worst understanding of natural selection I've ever seen."

so, you don't think that the genes of the lazy are passed on to their children?
or do you dispute that human evolution involved passing on genes that showed a propensity to care for one's young? I'm just curious...

10/25/2007 8:07:23 PM

Of course genes are passed on. However, to claim that traits such as "laziness" get passed on from the lazy to their children with any sort of predictability or reliability is goofy as hell -- why wouldn't all the lazy people have died out by now, seeing as how there hasn't been wide-spread systematic systems of charity for the majority of human history?

10/25/2007 8:35:50 PM

well, one could argue that genes "against" laziness haven't been completely eradicated from the gene pool, but were kept largely in check up until recently. Remember, evolution allegedly doesn't happen on the time-scale of years or even hundreds of years...

10/25/2007 8:49:06 PM

No, but it likely has happened over the course of our species being roughly what it is (I think we've been roughly the same for 130,000 years or something like that, I don't remember where I heard that figure from and/or if it's a reliable one -- but we have been around much longer than that).

OR, laziness might not be determined as hard-and-fast by genetics as you suggest (perhaps environmental and societal factors have a great deal to do with this).

[Edited on October 25, 2007 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ..]

10/25/2007 10:02:51 PM

well laziness always get perpetuated down. but 500 years ago these people would have been the cannon fodder on the front lines of a war, or too lazy to do what needs to get done in order to eat therefore starving to death on the streets

10/26/2007 10:13:42 AM

Quote :

"i'm just saying there's some middle ground between communism and complete libertarianism. why the same people who claim that health care is a personal responsibility that shouldn't be a burden on everyone else, whereas military protection is obviously something everyone should pay for is beyond me."

me too

10/28/2007 2:00:25 PM

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the people who inflict diseases upon themselves to chip more into the system. Revenue from increased sales taxes on tobacco products could be put into health care, for example. But I don't think it's unreasonable for everyone to have access to health care. What about the guy that makes less than $10,000 a year, gets into an accident that isn't his fault, and needs life-saving (but expensive) surgery? Should he be told he has suffer and/or die simply because he's poor? And what about people with genetic disorders, such as diabetes? Why should they be forced to pay more for supplies to treat a disease they didn't do anything to deserve?

10/28/2007 2:15:55 PM

^it amazes me (in a bad way) that those questions even need to be asked

10/28/2007 2:26:46 PM

As in "why hasn't anybody asked them yet" or as in "are you fucking retarded? The answers to those questions are obvious" ?

10/28/2007 3:50:18 PM

umbrella. First of all, the person who gets into an accident and needs life saving surgery will get the surgery. People arent turned away from hospitals. (although some should be)

And most people with diabetes today ate themselves into it. However, your question about buying supplies to keep yourself healthy? Id call that a personal decision. People can make sacrifices in thier lifestyle to afford these things. Often the companies will GIVE you the supplies and even medicine if you can show your income level. I think that is a great program.

10/28/2007 5:36:13 PM

Quote :

"And most people with diabetes today ate themselves into it."

Could you back this up with real evidence?

10/28/2007 5:57:15 PM

^^o ok so genes or race has nothing to do with it right? even if you were right your point of view sickens me, we all have weaknesses but we should not let them cost someone their life

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 6:51 PM. Reason : k]

10/28/2007 6:50:15 PM

It's really easy to assume all poor and sick people deserve it. That way, nobody is justified to touch my wallet.

10/28/2007 6:57:41 PM

Quote :

"It's really easy to assume all poor and sick people deserve it. That way, nobody is justified to touch my wallet. "

Again, its very easy to be sympathetic when you are spending other people's money. Im my experience throwing more money at the problem wont fix it. Some people simply refuse to help themselves.

For your evidence hockey: This is from the CDC

"Type 2 diabetes, which is linked to obesity and physical inactivity, accounts for 90%–95% of diabetes cases and most often appears in people older than 40. However, it is now being found in younger people and is even being diagnosed among children and teens."

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/ddt.htm

You guys can blame health ins all you want. The fact is we are a fat lazy culture. And until that changes no amount of health ins. will adjust americans eating habits and lifestyle. This contributes more to shorter life expectancies. However, we dont like to hear that. So yes, its the fact we dont have health ins, which makes us fat. The dirty little secret is that our "poor" are some of our most obese, and they are given insurance. Simple having ins. wont solve this crisis. I know this wont make a dent in some of you, but its still worth saying.

10/28/2007 9:44:53 PM

Quote :

"Again, its very easy to be sympathetic when you are spending other people's money."

Why do you assume I don't pay taxes? It's my money too.

Quote :

"Some people simply refuse to help themselves."

Which is really too bad. Others want to help themselves, but don't have the means or opportunity.

10/28/2007 11:10:46 PM

I strongly disagree with your last statement.

10/28/2007 11:22:13 PM

So not a single person who wants to help themselves lacks the opportunity to do so?

I find that extremely hard to believe. In fact, it's just not true.

10/28/2007 11:30:09 PM

Quote :

"he fact is we are a fat lazy culture. And until that changes no amount of health ins. will adjust americans eating habits and lifestyle. This contributes more to shorter life expectancies. However, we dont like to hear that. So yes, its the fact we dont have health ins, which makes us fat. The dirty little secret is that our "poor" are some of our most obese, and they are given insurance. Simple having ins. wont solve this crisis."

Your argument seems to essentially say that we need to leave the system the same, let the poorest loose their health insurance because of rising costs, then some of them will die off due to poor health habits, and eventually because of these common deaths these people will evolve and change their eating habits or continue to die.

How humane.

10/29/2007 6:42:14 AM

monkey, I think you get govt out of healthcare. Let people purchase thier own ins. That way they will know what is covered and what isnt. Allow competition between state lines and nationally which will lower the cost of ins. Competition causes a service to be better and cheaper.
Healthcare costs will continue to rise as long as we maintain our eating habits. Its really that simple. The question now becomes who will pay for it.

If people dont want to take care of themselves THEY can deal with the increased costs. Right now that is not happening. When the govt pays for thier ins, the increased costs are simply pushed onto the tax payers.

Danger, I dont think it takes means or an opportunity to help yourself. What is that saying, "god helps those who help themselves." Something like that. If you are willing and motivated you will MAKE an opportunity. However, many simply just float along waiting and hoping for something to happen, instead of working towards change.

10/29/2007 8:43:59 AM

Quote :

"..same people who claim that health care is a personal responsibility that shouldn't be a burden on everyone else, whereas military protection is obviously something everyone should pay for is beyond me.""

One characteristic of a public good is that it cannot be provided on a selective basis. With national defense, there is no way to provide a defense that omits Cary but includes Raleigh.

National Defense can be consumed by one person without taking it away from another.

It is true that you can get onto a very slippery slope in defining a public good. Health care can be provided on an individual basis..especially because of everyone's specific needs being different. National Defense provides a pretty common service for all--keep away invaders.

I see the main problem with healthcare today is in the convuluted organization of it due to over-regulation. With our technology, many minor problems could be handled by a nurse pratitioner at a much lower cost. We are just asking for trouble to ask gov't to handle something like healthcare where there are so many different specific types of consumption.

10/29/2007 9:45:17 AM

So you're saying if the government deregulates healthcare and it becomes a purely profit-driven system (even moreso than now) that the same companies that employ masses of people to find excuses not to cover people will magically become worlds more caring and the system will be revolutionized and great for everyone?


Color me skeptical.

10/29/2007 10:10:11 AM

^yes. Because of competition. If people have choices they will choose the best fit/value. Allowing for competition is key.

10/29/2007 10:15:23 AM

Yes because competition always makes companies innovate. Like the car companies that are purposefully lagging behind on electric cars because of the oil lobby, or even those oil companies that are competing globally who are so nice to keep our prices sane. And look at how wonderful public transportation is now that it's open to competition....oh wait....


Sorry, the whims of the free market aren't what I want to leave my healthcare up to.

10/29/2007 10:20:25 AM

Quote :

"It is true that you can get onto a very slippery slope in defining a public good. Health care can be provided on an individual basis..especially because of everyone's specific needs being different. National Defense provides a pretty common service for all--keep away invaders."

I have a feeling that the gov't currently spends a magnitude more on defense than what is necessary to protect US territory and the "common good".

10/29/2007 10:52:01 AM

^ agreed.

Hell, as much as I'm against public healthcare, i'd rather the money we're wasting on this idiotic war be spent on healthcare. At least that money won't be needlessly killing people.

10/29/2007 10:55:55 AM

I believe i said the same thing in a previous thread. Be aware TreeTwista10 will enter the debate at some point preaching hell in brimstone, Iraq 9/11 connection, and Iran aiming missiles at grandma's window to justify current US foreign policy.

10/29/2007 11:24:12 AM

Quote :

"Sorry, the whims of the free market aren't what I want to leave my healthcare up to. "

So instead youll give it to those who do such great work in iraq, new orleans, etc.. LOL The irony is unbelievable.

And to use your example of cars. The americans passed on the hybrids. Toyota hit a homerun with the prius and now you have the other rushing in to make hybrids. Why? Because of competition and market demands. Now we have car companies not only trying to come out with more fuel effiecent cars, but trying the make the best one for the least amount of money. The consumer wins when the market is allowed to function.

I also find it funny you mention lobbyist as your example. You are right. Ive never heard of any lobbying going on in govt. So you got me there.

10/29/2007 12:12:23 PM

Quote :

"So instead youll give it to those who do such great work in iraq, new orleans, etc.. LOL The irony is unbelievable. "

The irony is unbelievable (but probably not for the reason you think). It's not like the government is one unified actor, who by definition fucks everything up.

Quote :

"And to use your example of cars. The americans passed on the hybrids. Toyota hit a homerun with the prius and now you have the other rushing in to make hybrids. Why? Because of competition and market demands. Now we have car companies not only trying to come out with more fuel effiecent cars, but trying the make the best one for the least amount of money. The consumer wins when the market is allowed to function."

Look I know you think that the market solves everything and that if there were no regulations we'd all live in wonderful Libertopia, but let's have a reality check -- without regulations, we'd all live in a corporation-dominated steam punk dystopia.

10/29/2007 12:16:39 PM

Quote :

"^yes. Because of competition. If people have choices they will choose the best fit/value. Allowing for competition is key."

riiight so it's ok for some of the people that make the wrong choices to die...ok sounds ethical

10/29/2007 12:44:51 PM

If nothing else look at Nationalized Legal Representation given to people who can not afford a private lawyer.

[/thread]

10/29/2007 12:46:43 PM

Quote :

"riiight so it's ok for some of the people that make the wrong choices to die...ok sounds ethical"

No, he's bitching that people make poor dietary choices and that increases his healthcare fees. His solution is to make the same people make good choices for their own healthcare which is obviously a great way to go.

10/29/2007 12:48:34 PM

Canada's Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver

Quote :

"'I'm a born-bred Canadian, as well as my daughter and son, and I'm ashamed,' Jill Irvine told FOX News. Irvine's daughter, Carri Ash, is one of at least 40 mothers or their babies who've been airlifted from British Columbia to the U.S. this year because Canadian hospitals didn't have room for the preemies in their neonatal units. 'It's a big number and bigger than the previous capacity of the system to deal with it,' said Adrian Dix, a British Columbia legislator, told FOXNews.com. 'So when that happens, you can't have a waiting list for a mother having the baby. She just has the baby.' The mothers have been flown to hospitals in Seattle, Everett, Wash., and Spokane, Wash., to receive treatment, as well as hospitals in the neighboring province of Alberta, Dix said. Three mothers were airlifted in the first weekend of October alone, including Carri Ash. 'I just want to go home and see my kids,' she said from her Seattle hospital bed. 'I think it's stupid I have to be here.' Canada's socialized health care system, hailed as a model by Michael Moore in his documentary, 'Sicko,' is hurting, government officials admit, citing not enough money for more equipment and staff to handle high risk births. Sarah Plank, a spokeswoman for the British Columbia Ministry of Health, said a spike in high risk and premature births coupled with the lack of trained nurses prompted the surge in mothers heading across the border for better care. 'The number of transfers in previous years has been quite low,' Plank told FOXNews.com. 'Before this recent spike we went for more than a year with no transfers to the U.S., so this is something that is happening in other provinces as well.' Critics say these border crossings highlight the dangers of a government-run health care system. 'The Canadian healthcare system has used the United States as a safety net for years,' said Michael Turner of the Cato Institute. 'In fact, overall about one out of every seven Canadian physicians sends someone to the United States every year for treatment.' Neonatal intensive care units in Alberta and Ontario have also been stretched to capacity, she said. The cost of these airlifts and treatments, paid to U.S. hospitals by the province under Canada's universal health care system, runs upwards of $1,000 a child. 'We clearly want to see more capacity built in the Canadian system because it’s also expensive for taxpayers here to send people out of the country,' Dix said. The surge could be due to women giving birth later in life, and passport restrictions and family separation adds to the stress. 'I think it’s reasonable to think that this is a trend that would continue and we have to prepare for it and increase the number of beds to deal with perhaps the new reality of the number of premature babies and newborns needing a higher level of care in Canada,' Dix said. British Columbia has added more neonatal beds and increased funding for specialized nurse training, Plank said. 'There is an identified need for some additional capacity just due to population growth and that sort of thing and that is actively being implemented,' she said."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300939,00.html

Speaks for itself.

11/1/2007 3:34:04 PM

eyedrb has pretty much owned this thread since page one

11/1/2007 3:57:26 PM

Part of me wishes critical thinking skills were more heavily selected for in nature.

11/1/2007 4:20:45 PM