Obama Healthcare

[Clint]

There should have been universal health care ever since the concept of health care came into... conception. I'm on my dad's insurance still, due to the fact that I'm still in school and younger than 24, but the company that he works for is suffering, so now, he has to pay full price for health care, which leaves him and my mom about 30 bucks for food and shit. His company is likely to go out of business within a year, which would leave my dad, my mom, and myself without health care. Now my dad and my mom could apply for Medicaid if that happened, however, that would leave me out in the cold. If that happened, I would have to get arrested in order to receive medical treatment. Let me repeat myself, I would have to get myself arrested and become a prisoner in order to receive medical treatment.

If health care is a true right, then why the hell do prisoners get it for free when the working class has to struggle to have it? It takes 300,000 dollars a year to hold one prisoner. 300,000 dollars a year. That's 265,000 dollars more than my family makes in a year. People who go to prison may lose some rights, but they still have it made better than most people out in the general population.

[Sasquatch]

Alright, it's late and I'm not going to spend too much time on this tonight, but I wanted to, at least, hop in quick and make a few points, so I can come back later and correct all the insults and false accusations.

First, come on children, please do not be so ignorant as to think that every Republican (or even "most") is some sort of racist, inbred, shotgun-toting, Bible-thumping hillbilly. That would be about as ignorant as to stereotype liberals as pot-smoking, tree-hugging, Satan-worshiping, gun-hating gay vegans.

Second, anybody who tells you that people in America cannot get health care without health insurance is full of shit. It's that simple. Either they're full of shit and don't know it -- but instead of trying to get more information and learn, ignorantly fall back on what they DON'T know -- or they're full of shit and DO know it, and are intentionally lying to try to make America or its health system look worse than it is. For one thing, there are dozens of government programs, through local, state, and federal level, to pay for a person's health care. Second, there are thousands upon thousands of charitable organizations, including religious institutions, that would help cover treatment costs. Third, hospitals, by law, must offer financing programs, and their payments can be almost nothing -- you can pay five bucks a month if you want, and as long as you're paying it, you're fine (and even if you don't, medical bills do not go on your credit record). And fourth (and most importantly), NO TREATMENT CAN BE DENIED ON FINANCIAL GROUNDS. It is illegal for a hospital or doctor to refuse to give testing or treatment because somebody might not be able to pay. Doing so would violate their Hippocratic Oath and they'd never practice medicine again. So again -- the claim that "if somebody doesn't have health insurance, they cannot get medical treatment" is complete bullshit.

Third, unless somebody can come up with some credible evidence that Fox News is biased, shut the hell up about it. Quit spouting the bullshit claim that Fox News has a heavy conservative bias just because you don't like the fact that they don't have a heavy liberal bias like most of the rest of American news sources. And here's some news for you: "credible evidence" does not mean youtube videos of Bill O'Reilly. He is not a reporter, he's a commentator -- it is not his job to report the news, it's his job to give his opinions on news stories. So if you're going to claim that Fox News is biased, back it up with something substantial. (I wouldn't try to claim that the Yankees are the worst team in baseball, then "prove it" by posting some videos or articles on specific games, or a few videos of errors, strikeouts, passed balls, hits into double-plays, etc. -- I'd find numbers and compare them to other teams. So please, be smart enough to try to find some numbers, some credible evidence, that Fox News is biased in their reporting.)

Fourth, there needs to be a lesson on the word "free". If money is forcibly taken from you without your consent and a sub-par service is provided in exchange, there's nothing "free" about that. That is completely NOT free. If you walk into a Pizza Hut and the cashier pulls a gun on you and forces you to hand over your wallet, then gives you a plate of breadsticks, those breadsticks weren't "free" at all ... though I suppose some people are living happy lives off the teat of the taxpayer, so ignorance is bliss.

Finally, some people need to realize that there's a reason American healthcare is expensive -- because it's the best. I spoke to a guy from Canada once who was proud because his province just got their third MRI machine -- some American hospitals have two or three MRI machines. There are cities in Michigan that make their money by providing health services to Canadians who come across the border because the Canadian government refuses to pay for their treatment. America has developed a large majority of the medicines and procedures that are used around the world -- how do you think those medicines came to be? Research and development costs money. The same medications and technology that is given away by the United States costs American money to develop. There are credible reports of people waiting two years or more for Britain's NHS to let them see a specialist -- and of English people pulling their own teeth out of their mouths because the NHS took way, way, way too long to fit them into a dentist.

[Govinda]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare? Even if it's just a few. I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable? Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

And yes, I remember the scenario a few years ago with the English and their dentists. Basically, there were no dentists, and the few that were around had too many patients. These days there are plenty of dentists who started training when they saw the gap. I don't get why someone would pull their own teeth out though, most people just went to A&E if things got too bad. Luckily, since Scotland was devolved by then, we didn't face a fraction of the same problems.

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more. Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey. The universities in cities mostly have medical research centres based in city hospitals; while Dundee's university may be shit, it's the best place to learn medicine in Scotland, simply because the Ninewells hospital is massive and drowning in investment funding from charities, business, and even the government. A lot of good comes out of Ninewells which, considering it's in Dundee, is an achievement.

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch. For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story. And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine? Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology? Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations. Ever heard of TRIPs? Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property, part of the 1994 Round of the ITO (International Trade Organisation, then the General Treaty on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)). Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country. It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO (who probably shouldn't be, it's all TRIPs and NPT's and....another day, another day) who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof. Eventually someone will create a similar product in India or China, and the price will drop from $100 per pack to 50 cents per pack. They're just as bad with machinery. Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world. Western countries can afford to buy from America, but the rest of the world can't. (TRIPs is bad for America too, since we can charge whatever the **** we like on new things, but they make far more from it than they lose; plus they can pretty much buy anything anyway).

[Zargabaath]

Health care is not a right. Nobody has the right to a service; the only right a person has is the right to life. Life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action; the right to life is the freedom to engage in self-generated and self-sustaining action – to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment, and the enjoyment of their own life (such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The right to life means that a person has the right to support their life by their own work and the person cannot be deprived of their life for the benefit of another person nor of any number of other people. The notion that someone has the right to forcibly receive service from someone else is in nature not a right. Nobody has the right to initiate force against another human being; there is no right to violate the rights of others, yet so many of you think that people do. Health care is a service, it is not something given to humanity by nature, it is the product of people who have worked hard to acquire the skills needed to be sufficient in their trade in which they intend to make a living from. Many of you here believe that is totally within your rights to force people to either give you a free service or for other people to pay for your expenses. The only person responsible for their expenses is themselves, not others- people are not the caretakers of other people, they are not chattel as many of you want them to be. You do not respect their right to life at all, you would wish them a life a slavery paying for those who leach off of them. Those who support universal health care support the enslavement of humanity; that some people have more rights than others, that some people’s rights are not as important as others. Nobody’s rights can be violated, that is the nature of inalienable rights – semi-inalienable rights are contradictory in nature but many would wish it a reality.

Loaf, just because your hospital bills are high does not warrant the need for universal health care, if you want the real reason why health care is so high, look at the government that regulates it forcing prices sky high. It is not my or any other persons problem that you cannot afford a service, and health care is a service. Why should others be burden by your or any other person’s expenses? This is now more general not just aimed at Loaf- I love how all these people who support universal health care say that they are selfless, yet it is they who wish that other people pay for their expenses, for their livelihood, it is all about sustaining them, you ignore people’s rights to live their own life and want them to be forced to cater to you- that is more selfish than what the detractors desire. That type of selfish, is the brute that does not care about other people and takes whatever they want, not what I call for. If someone can afford health care then they can get, I will not stop them no matter what they are. You guys hide behind selflessness but are truly the brute who does not respect people treating them as sacrificial animals.

What has the government done that makes health care, health insurance costs so high? In the U.S you cannot buy health insurance from a different state, this constricts the market. Remember the recent “scandal” in New Jersey about them selling organs “illegally”? They were supplying the demand for that product at a much cheaper cost because the regulations on them are so strict it forces the prices and the surgeries so high. Now you will probably say, “Oh Zargabaath, the organs may not be suitable, they can be dangerous for them and die.” And I reply that they knew what they were buying, they knew the risks, it is the government that has caused the price to skyrocket, if the regulations from the government were abolished then prices would go down as more organs could be used, supply would go up to meet demand dropping prices all around. One more thing, if they didn’t get that organ “illegally”, then they would have suffered and died anyways because of the regulations set by governments. If all the regulations from on health care/health by the government were to be taken away, costs would come down. Everyone still may not be able to afford health care but then I say don't force people to provide service and pay for it, instead why not become a doctor and treat those who can't? Of course you would never do that because you can't be bothered, it is much better just to enslave others.

What many of you can’t seem to realize is that everything that government does costs exponentially more than what is first predicted, government cannot accurately predict costs because the program always expands and there is no competition against government- leading to massive debt. Government has its citizens to pay for their programs; government does not operate like a business that must make money to stay afloat. A business relies on the voluntary action of the consumer to buy their product, a government can just increase taxes.
Che, nobody has the right to force someone to give them a service. If you are sick and don’t want to pay then cure yourself, if you are dumb, educate yourself, otherwise pay for the service. Now it does not mean it must only be with money; my aunt was a chiropractor who accepted other forms of payments for those who did not have the money.

There is more opportunity in America than anywhere else. Where else can so many people from poor/bad backgrounds become professional athletes making millions, or actors, doctors, lawyers, it requires hard work but it can be done without help! Anyone read “Gifted Hands” it’s about a black man becoming a very great doctor through hard work. My aunt went through college in Colorado working three jobs. I mention the state of Colorado because my aunt lived in New York and she had no car or money for a plane ticket, so my grandparents drove her out of New York and she biked the rest of the way! A young woman bicycling to Colorado from Pennsylvania or New Jersey, sleeping in graveyards at night when the weather permitted and she somehow survived the trek. Now what you people are so upset about is that the difficulty of each person’s life is different and you find that unfair, which just shows that you are either envious or jealous or both. It is not somebody’s problem that they had an easier time than somebody else. Do not criminalize them for it! Just as you criminalize people who make too much money. Isn’t the goal of a company and person to make as much as possible? But once they cross a certain gross revenue they become “evil”. This behavior is irrational and shows how you don’t want people to succeed, to live their life, but that they must never get ahead of you- and who is the selfish one? Who wishes to hold people back? Who demonizes people or companies because they make a million dollars, it is so arbitrary it is pathetic. Tell me, when do they become evil? Is it at $250,000? Is that when you curse their name and say they oppress their employees and are corrupt.

Let’s take a look at some other U.S government run programs. Medicaid and Medicare are broken and their costs have risen more than what was expected. Amtrak, which is heavily subsidized by the government is broken as well and broke, and finally the post office which is 6 billion dollars in debt. And what does the great Obama say about those worrying about a government health care takeover? Look at UPS and FedEx, they’re doing fine against the USPS, that the USPS is the one in trouble. What?! Did anybody get that? Obama is saying that the government health care system could turn out to be like the USPS, but it would be trillions of dollars in debt and we would spend trillions more trying to fix it because government is not the answer. It is the problem. All these programs that are not working properly and are going bankrupt and we want to establish a bigger program? The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

The function of a government is to protect the rights of the people, by stopping those who would or have used force against people. It is not the job of the government to provide a home, car, job, health care, food, etc to people, that is not a person’s right or the function of government. The opposite suggests that some people can be forced to provide a service for others, which is in itself breaking the rights of people making the action illegal. Socialism may not be a bad word in Europe but I would never trust a European to guide the world, or look to for advice ( there are a few exceptions, but they are in the vast minority). We do know what a communist and what a socialist is, but the actions of people like you try to hide it so it can be filtered in and we won’t realize until it is too late the dagger sticking in our back.

America was founded on individualism and selfishness for people to achieve, through hard work their goals, to live their own life. It is only the your messed up sense that in order to succeed, someone must be stepped on. That is what is going on in Europe, except instead of the poor being stepped on by the nobility or rich as it was back in the day, it is the opposite. Europeans feel entitled to service without paying for it or for others paying for it- that is more selfish than letting people live their own lives, succeeding or failing at their own hands.

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. Both violate the rights of humans by ignoring the right to property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality- to think, to work, and to keep the results- which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights”, as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of their effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human”. The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of people towards people’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out- just as you’re starving today, you who believed that crime could be “practical” if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal. – Ayn Rand.

What really sucks is that even though the U.S is going downhill, there is no other country as great as the U.S. Let me add that the only reason why Europe still has some form have power is because of U.S liberals/democrats; they want to emulate and feel that Europe is “hip”. In reality, Europe has no power; ever since WWII Europe has lost all of its former glory. Now most Europeans are spoiled who feel they are entitled to everything and they must not do any hard work. This is the place where if anyone gets fired they start marching in the streets destroying property. This is the place where they hate on America because they know we are better deep down, yet if they ever got in trouble militarily they would feel entitled that America should come and save them. If someone like Hitler started a war on Europe, it would be way easier than the beginning of WWII, Europeans would give up in a matter of seconds, saying that something the West did to the country was the reason for their behavior, most blame would go to America as a new avenue to hate on the U.S. Getting back to it, so Europe would feel that the U.S. must help them because they are entitled to it, which if it was my way I would let you rot, but we would help because we are better than you who won’t lift a finger nowadays. Afterwards you may cheer us, for the third time, but eventually your hatred for us will rise and Europeans will shout that we committed war crimes and protest that our people should be held accountable, that the U.S should pay for the restoration of Europe and should pay the aggressor money as well because it was our fault for starting the war. But it is still not yet done, feeling that you guys have done something so wonderful in fighting the good fight, you would demand of your government that they pass a bill forcing all companies to give their employees 6 months of paid vacation because you work so hard, especially during the war and you feel entitled. Because, how many is it 2 months or one month is not enough. Then after twenty years you will be back in full swing hating on America, and becoming more lazier till there is nobody to pay for your socialist programs and you full into utter chaos, hopefully showing the world, yet again that communism/socialism does not work.

What we stand for is to respect each person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to a guarantee of some product or service, only the right to pursue it and if you accomplish your goal to keep your reward. We don’t support slavery, unlike you guys. We respect humanity.

[Sasquatch]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare?

How exactly is it the hospital's job to protect people financially? If I want to be irresponsible with my money and not have enough to pay for health insurance, that's MY fault, and it's MY obligation to live with it -- nobody else's.

And why do people claim to go bankrupt because of their medical bills? Could be a few reasons. They could not have researched, and thus not know about, the myriad financing plans. They could have insisted on paying their entire medical bill instead of forming any financing plan at all. Or -- and this is by far the most likely -- they could just be irresponsible with their money, and no matter how much they pay on their medical bills, they blame their medical bills for causing them to not have any money.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable?

... so you're not suggesting that doctors break their Hippocratic Oath because patients can't pay, but you believe that patients can't get care for non-life-threatening issues without paying for it? Pick one.

I say again: NO medical care can be refused on financial grounds.

Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

First, since Moore has been proven dishonest multiple times, and he has been proven to have dishonest people in his movies multiple times, I wouldn't trust anything he supports. Second, "the guy who removed his own teeth" wasn't a short anecdote, it's something that has happened more than once -- at least three times I'm aware of, and from what I've seen, at least six percent of NHS patients have resorted to self-treatment. Third, I highly doubt that any little girl died because hospitals refused to treat her because her parents couldn't afford it -- if anything like that happened, the doctors that refused to treat her and the Chiefs of every hospital wing and every hospital that refused to treat her would be out of a job by the next week. Heads would roll. Do you have any articles on this little girl, or anything?

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

It would make sense to have as many as you need -- unfortunately, Canada doesn't have as many as it needs, which is why thousands of people every year cross the border and get an MRI in one of the northern states of the U.S. Three for one province is not enough.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more.

Of course every country, even those with socialized medicine, still has R&D that develops new drugs or new procedures. But not to the extent of the United States.

Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey.

I'd like to see more about that, but searching "research assessment Europe" gave me three links, all non-related. You have any cites?

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

This proves that people give to charity and that charity helps people who need it. Why go further and force people to support others, when most willingly give to charity anyway, and the charity works?

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch.

When did I say that the American healthcare system was without problems?

For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story.

Alright, find a survey that says that more than 1/20th of Americans rely on themselves for medical treatment.

And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine?

I didn't hear anything about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, but Obama is indeed a racist. Not only does he belong to one of the most racist churches in the country (or did, at least, until he realized how poorly it reflected on him), not only does he claim one of the most racist preachers in the country as his spiritual mentor (again, at least he did, until he started separating himself from the people that got his political career well off at the state level), he also has repeatedly said things that generalize whites. Like claiming that his grandmother is a "typical white person" because she was racist.

And again ... it's Beck.

Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Glenn Beck is not a reporter. He is a commentator. Even if he reports his own stories and does his own research, Glenn Beck is not a news reporter for Fox News. So I ask again -- please provide some sort of credible evidence of any type of bias in Fox News reporting, or admit that you simply accuse it of bias because it's not to the extreme left.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology?

I got it from America giving away its technology. It's pretty easy to make that connection.

Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations.

Wait, hahahahahah ... you think America is developing all this technology and medicine, and you think it's hoarding it all or charging outrageous prices for it, and you think that a developing nation's inability to get something for free makes it bankrupt?

I suppose I'm a horrible, horrible person, then. Because I don't spend the money I make to buy food and hand it out to every homeless person I can find, not only am I not helping them, I'm making them more homeless!

Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country.

So if my country spends its money to produce something, and your country wants it, you can't just force me to give it to you for free? How unjust!

It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO ... who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So they joined because they could get something for free, or on the backs of the other nations that had joined -- and now there's a problem because they can't get everything for free?

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof.

Yes, they charge extreme prices, so nobody can afford to buy it. That's great for profit. They could discover it for themselves, they could wait, or they could go without. Nobody force them to buy the new AIDS drug, and if they choose to buy it, they have nobody to blame but themselves for being short on money.

Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world.

So you're saying that the only way a country can buy something from America is through TRIPs, and that America always charges exorbitant amount of money for them, and that there's absolutely no way for countries to form a pack to combine funding for the purchase, and that there's absolutely no way to get the same product at a lesser price from another vendor?

American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it.

There are people who get rich off of anything. If it's worth paying for, somebody will provide it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care.

You need to learn something about American politics, kid Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care. This is why it's always funny to see a politician who supports Obama's healthcare plan stumble whenever they're confronted with a perfectly logical question -- if you support it for the public, would you support having your Congressional health care plan changed to fall under the same standards? (I'll give you a hint: The answer is always, in one way, shape, or form, a resounding "hell no".)

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

(Besides, wouldn't it be damn stupid to not charge the rich people, but charge the poor more? Try to figure out how that would make any sense at all, and get back to me.)

Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

America was built on pure capitalism. I understand that. But it makes it so that it's a pretty selfish world over there. To say the least.

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naive and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich.

Nobody said that everyone can become a millionaire. What was said was that everybody has the chance to get health care. Capitalist economies will never have to worry about everyone trying to get rich, because there will always be people who, instead of working hard for their money, will rely on others and demand that those who do work hard for their money are forced to give it to them instead of keeping it.

You see the people who don't have health care and can't pay for it as 'just a minority'. I can do exactly the same with people who's costs would be a little higher.

The difference is that the people who don't have healthcare are a minority, whereas the people whose costs would be higher aren't. So he would be correct, and you wouldn't.

Why would the quality go down? It would still be the same doctors. It would just be paid for in another way.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I guess the quality of health care in non-American countries is all crap, right?

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I don't see where this statement comes from.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves. Under this type of program, I could eat right, exercise daily, get plenty of sleep, and work a low-stress job; or I could smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, drink like a fish, and eat enough fast food to make me 300 pounds. Either way, I wouldn't pay any more for medical care, but of course my medical care would cost much more if I did the latter.

The issue is not what the definition of 'fair' is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians.

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

And I really don't get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. There is absolutely no reason to suspect such a thing.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

Bill O'Reilly may not be news reporter, but it's still on Fox News Channel, isn't it? I thought you were better than someone not seeing through the quality of Fox News.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

I take a look at some broadcasts, and they're a joke.

So you don't like them. Good for you. Prove that they are biased in their news reporting, or admit that you made false accusations against them and drop it.

The other day, they were critisising Obama for visiting children in schools. They said he was recruiting democrats, and just might have been brainwashing them about the new healthcare reform.

Who? Not reporters -- commentators. And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

Another example would be the following: Rapper Jay-Z was celebrating about something Obama had done. At a particular party, he was rapping away, shouting words like 'nigga', 'motherfucker', the whole thing. The reporters at Fox were discussing and asking so-called experts why Obama didn't say anything about it. They just couldn't believe it... Why the hell would he?

Again -- WHO? Commentators. People who get paid to give their opinions.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

Also, there was this woman last week who was debating in favour of the conservatives. She said to her opponent 'yeah but you probably have medicare'. The guy was like 'No, cause I'm not over 65...'. I mean, she doesn't even know what medicare is, and she's going to explain how socialised healthcare is from the devil? Sad.

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare. Maybe she assumed that he received them without being 65, or maybe she assumed that he was 65 or older. Those were ignorant assumptions that she made -- followed by the two you made. First you assumed that she doesn't know what Medicare is (for which you have absolutely no evidence), then you assumed that she must not know much about Obama's healthcare plan (for which you have no evidence).

That's just 3 small examples from the last two weeks alone.

And not one of those three would reflect bias in the news reporting of Fox News Channel. Try again.

Then there's Glenn Beck. Granted, he's not a News reporter, but he makes me laugh every time nontheless. When I watch him talk, I'm not sure whether I should be sad about the fact that some Americans actually eat that shit he sells, or just laugh away.

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

For example, he connects some communist activist that Obama met when he was 8 years old. That MUST mean Obama is Stalin.

Did he keep up with this communist activist? Did the communist activist help launch his political career, like the domestic terrorist David Ayers did? (Yes, that was yet another political ally and personal friend that Obama abandoned once he realized it'd be bad for his reputation.) Did the communist activist get Obama into socialist/communist groups like Democratic Socialists of America?

Don't say THIS doesn't make you laugh:
YouTube - Glenn Beck Does Not Know How To Spell "Oligarchy"
(Don't pay attention to the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about that.)

The bullshit about the spelling mistake -- his missing one letter, then acknowledging it and continuing it but not correcting it -- and the dumbasses who posted comments on it did indeed make me laugh. As far as the video itself, no, it was prettymuch accurate -- a little too extreme for me, but not that much.

But the worst (/best?) things I've seen him say, were comparisons between Obama and Hitler. (Yeah, the German guy.) He showed some advertisements from Nazi-Germany, constantly saying 'Does this sound familiar to you?', playing the crowd at home.

Because Nazi Germany bought into focusing on the man and the symbol instead of the policies. I don't care for anybody pulling out the Nazi card, but that doesn't mean he wasn't accurate.

I can't believe a guy like that still has a show on tv. Even if it is on Fox... There's a reason why most major sponsors during Beck's show have asked Fox for another time to show their commercials.

Any credible evidence for that claim? I'd like to see it.

False. Medicaid failed to pay my dad's hospitalization bills, and my credit was hit and plummeted as a result. A mistake to charge the wrong member of my family, but a credit rating was still hit for not paying. It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report.

My brother's credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments for the past few years and getting hospital bills tacked onto his credit rating, even though a lot were covered by different organizations, the bills he had to pay he couldn't afford, and his credit now suffers as a result.

If he paid nothing at all, yes. (Like I said, five bucks a month will do.) If he didn't pay his insurance, yes. (That's not the hospital, it's completely separate.) But the claim that hospitals will refuse treatment for people without insurance or money, or that medical bills will affect one's credit score, is completely false, even with your anecdotal evidence.

But you say that your dad was hospitalized, and that your brother went through years of cancer treatments? Did they have insurance at the time? Or did the hospitals refuse to treat them because they didn't think they'd get their money?

The United States already spends a larger fraction of its GDP on healthcare than any country in the world ...

I already explained this.

... but it's health indicators (such as child mortality and life span) are lower

than those in many other countries of comparable income.

First, child mortality: the United States takes numbers differently than some other countries, considering a live birth to be a child, whereas some others wait a couple weeks or month before they would consider it a child fatality. So if a baby is born and lives for ten minutes, it's considered a child death in America, whereas the same situation would be considered

As for life span -- America has millions upon millions of people who risk their lives to come to America and do whatever it takes to hide from the people who would send them back to their home country. America has many, many people do not get medical treatment in time to cure their situation because they've only learned the lie that people without insurance cannot get treatment. America has people that come from other countries for medical care, when it's too late to cure them. America has a thousand factors in why the life span might be lower. Trying to say that life span reflects directly and only upon the healthcare system is like trying to say that the reason so many people get into car accidents is because the roads are bad.

Before someone tells me to shut up because I'm not an American, I'm getting this from a book written by Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics, business, and international and public affairs at Columbia University, and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2001.

And because you quote from a book, you know everything about the situation?

[Govinda]

I refer to my earlier post about this being irreconcilable. Points, for Sasquatch:

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

I take it you hate CNN?

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. Know how you can tell? We don't use it as a point. We don't feel the need to say it. It's taken as granted that we are proud to be what we are. We don't need rhetoric, and it's kind of sad that you guys seem to. Repeating how much you love America isn't going to help it. Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.

[Sasquatch]

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Your claim was that "Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE."

The RAE 2008 website itself goes against you on multiple aspects: First, there is no five-star rating. There's only 1-4. Second, there is no "internationally distinguished" rating. Third, the RAE is not "independent", as you claimed, it is commissioned by the UK government.

What you might have been referring to is that it found that 87% of UK universities were ranked at "quality that it recognized internationally" -- or that 84% of UK research projects "were judged to contain at least 5% of world-leading quality research".

I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at with that anyway, considering that not every university or research project was judged ... but still, those that were were of international quality of some sort, so that must be good. I'm not sure what they would consider "international quality" in Europe, since the U.S. has states that are bigger than some European countries (so "international" in Europe would be "interstate" in America), but kudos. They've definitely got something to be proud of.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

I didn't back you up, I didn't even address the idea that America overcharges, or charges at all. The only thing I mentioned was one sarcastic comment suggesting than overcharging is bad for profit.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

[ur=http://www.euronews.net/2007/10/15/nhs-failings-pushing-britons-to-pull-their-own-teeth/]It's not much, but at least it mentions it.[/url] I don't know where I'd find the actual survey, but at least you can see that I'm not pulling it out of my ass. (1/20th is 5% -- the truth is that 6%, close to 1/17th about, reported resorting to treating themselves.)

Have you honestly never heard of people treating themselves because the NHS isn't competent enough?

I take it you hate CNN?

Meh, not really hate. I'll use it for news if I have to. They're not as biased as MSNBC or CBS, but they're still not neutral.

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. ... Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.

If you want to go with a "different strokes for different folks" approach, I'm all for it. Some Americans take the view that bettering themselves so that they don't have to rely on others makes their country better. Apparently, some Europeans take the view that forcing everybody to help each other makes the country better. America values individual liberty more than they value the collective good, and Europe values the collective good over individual liberty. To each their own.

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy.

There was no reference to health insurance -- that was talking about medical costs. Medical costs include the costs of training and employing medical personnel, purchasing and upkeep of medical equipment and facilities, etc. etc. etc.

If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I'm not sure what the question here is.

... The last line of that, clearly distinguished from the rest of the paragraph, was, "Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?" Do you not know what the question is?

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

People in worse health -- those who don't take care of themselves -- pay more for their insurance. Just like people who get into more car accidents pay more for their car insurance.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

... I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories.

So you think it's good to remain objective, but don't like Fox News -- not because it's actually biased, but because they emphasize issues -- in another country, with another culture, four thousand miles away -- that you don't think should be emphasized?

But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything.

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

That's also your opinion as a whole, that the more liberal media supposedly reconsiders their ow ideas. Now wait, are you talking about actual reconsideration, or are you talking about being sued for defamation or making stories up, like Dan Rather? Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times. It's not the President's job to parent America's children, and frankly, I don't want any politician talking to my kids.

There is no double standard here.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be.

While it wouldn't reflect on his Presidency, it would indeed reflect on Obama. But then, he's already proven that he has absolutely no problem accepting support for less-than-honorable people -- racists, terrorists, etc. -- so why would he have a problem with this?

Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Except for the fact that people with more money pay much more taxes, you might have a point. Instead, you insist on perpetuating the bullshit lie that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalists only get rich off the backs of others.

If you make one dollar, I make ten dollars, and Joe Schmoe over there makes a hundred dollars, there are multiple ways to tax all three of us. What COULD happen -- and what I support -- is a flat tax, where everybody pays the same percentage. You would pay ten cents, I would pay one dollar, and Joe Schmoe would pay ten dollars -- all in relation to how much we make. The extreme version (socialism) would be to make everybody equal, taking $63 from Joe, giving $27 of it to me and $36 to you, ensuring that we all have the same $37 dollars. What happens in America -- and what's been happening for decades, and is getting worse -- is similar to this. Joe gets about 45%-55% of his income forcibly taken from him, and it is redistributed to you and me and everybody else that doesn't make as much money as Joe. You not only don't have to pay taxes, you actually GET money from the government. And the same with me -- the middle class.

And thus, as I said, the idea that people in the middle class pay more taxes than people in the upper class is a complete falsity. (That's a nicer way to say that it's a steaming pile of bullshit.)

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that?

It's the federal government. It's tax money.

They increase taxes on the middle class.

And increase taxes on the upper class to a much greater proportion. I wonder why you keep ignoring that fact ...

So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

Yes and no. Of course the middle class couldn't afford to pay for every American's healthcare -- but under the proposed system, they wouldn't. Under our current tax system, it would be the upper class, not the middle class, that foots the bill.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you?

No, I see us paying for it. Which means it's not free, it's paid for, just not by them.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class.

You're leaving out the fact that the "wealthy" have always -- and still under Bush -- paid proportionally much, much more than the middle class.

When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things.

Only if you believe your money comes from the government and not yourself.

Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Is there something wrong with him being half white?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against.

I didn't blatantly insult you, I pointed out some other misguided, ignorant, completely stupid conspiracy theories, like the idea that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are being kept secret because treatments make more money. If you take stupid, ignorant conspiracy theories to be an insult, stop buying into them.

That means one thing; that you have a weak case.

You've presented less facts than I have and have had to be corrected on more occasions than I have. And you've got the arrogance to claim that I have a weak case because I pointed out how stupid your belief in cures for cancer and AIDS is?

It's not about good quality health care.

I hope not, because they're not going to get it.

It's merely about the security of having health care.

Just because somebody's poor does not mean that they can't get health care. Everybody in America has health care, period. Anybody and everybody who needs medical attention -- hell, they don't even have to be a United States citizen -- will receive medical attention, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care.

Nah, it won't eliminate private health insurance -- it'll just drive them out of business by ensuring that only the rich can afford private health care, since everybody (who makes money) will be taxed more whether they use the lower-quality public health care or not.

Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.

Except for the fact that the rich are footing more of the bill, and the middle class is already having money redistributed to them, despite their underachievement in life.

Apparently you missed the point, kid. Medicaid (or some form of his insurance, I'm not even positive anymore since it was so long ago) was supposed to take care of my father's bills ...

Medicaid is public health insurance for low-income people. Might want to learn a little about your little anecdote before you try to use it to prove a point. Might also want to not tell stories about how incompetent public health insurance is while you're advocating for public health insurance. Whoops.

Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your "five bucks a month" comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you're full of shit on this.

You can offer up all the anecdotal evidence you want, and that still won't make your bullshit any more credible. I've got family that had medical care without insurance, and none of them ever had a problem with it. The hospital knows that it's the responsibility of the insurance agency (if there is one) to pay, not the patient, and wouldn't harass the patient for money they know they won't get out of them. That's just plain common sense.

I've got more personal experience than you, here. I know ten -- no, HUNDRED -- medical lawyers, and all of them agree with me! So I must be right, because even though I don't have any credible evidence to back me up on something that seems implausible to logic and common sense, I make unverifiable claims that I personally have more experience in this subject than you do.

[RagnaToad]

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I don't see why they would.

"Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?"

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

Like I said, both. I'll rephrase it: I respect that there's a difference, but I think it's a shame that some things aren't being done like in Europe. And don't think I want to change the USA into Europe. Not at all. I like American culture. You have the best guitars, a lot of great motorcycle brands and your cars are high quality (if only they would have started investing in greener cars when Asia started to do that...).

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

Very true.

Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.
It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way. It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective? (And I'm not trying to accuse you of not having perspective here.)

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office. You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

Then where was his point being made? Ok, he has a tv show. He can say whatever he wants without any explanation. But that just doesn't do it for me. If I want to hear a conservative approach, Glenn Beck would be the last person to listen to. He looks crazy.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

[Alpha]

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don't try hard enough? I'm going to be you for a second: "You're so ignorant, kid". Sure, I don't deny that hard work breeds success, but I don't deny that money = opportunity = more money. I.e., if you're already poor, it is harder to get money to create opportunity to make more money.

A good example is private schools. Imagine two people, say you and me. Lets assume that your family is already wealthier than mine, and you can afford a flash private school, while I'm forced to attend some shit public school. Now, lets assume we work as hard as each other. If you're anything like I am, you'd have to work your ass off, but lets assume you can. With the same amount of effort exerted, you will still have better access to resources, better quality teachers, faster computers, more recent text books, etc. They're generalisations, but I'm sure their fair. You're are much more likely to come out of high schools better equipped for the world, be it university, or something else, than I am, as I (most likely) did not receive as good as an education as you, even though we worked just as hard.

Now, the reason wealthier people should give up some of their wealth is also quite a simple concept. Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because you've worked harder than your sibling that day, you should receive more pie. Sounds fair in principle, right? Well, I'm forced to agree thus far. But what if you receive so much pie that your sibling is still a little hungry, and you're quite full. Would it make sense to give some of your pie to your sibling, as they're hungry, and you're full? Applied to something such as healthcare, rich people can afford healthcare (mostly), while poorer people have more difficulty in this regard. But we all require healthcare, so why not give a bit of your excess to someone else, because you both have an equal need to the same care, but they do not have the same means with which to access it?

Oh, if/when you quote me, stop breaking it apart into sentences. Most people write with complete paragraphs in mind, and to pick it apart is to to take it out of context and misrepresent what they have said. It's inaccurate and annoying.

[Clint]

Except for the fact that people with more money pay much more taxes, you might have a point. Instead, you insist on perpetuating the bullshit lie that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalists only get rich off the backs of others.

You have a point. The wealthy do pay more taxes, however, they're also the ones who have gotten high-distributed tax cuts. I'm not saying that the middle class hasn't gotten tax cuts. I'm saying that the wealthy have gotten larger tax cuts. And I'm not saying that conservatives and capitalists are the only ones who get rich off of other people's money. All politicians and big business do.

You not only don't have to pay taxes, you actually GET money from the government. And the same with me -- the middle class.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. I'd love to get money from the government. I don't, however.

And increase taxes on the upper class to a much greater proportion. I wonder why you keep ignoring that fact ...

I keep ignoring that little fact because of all the tax breaks given to the upper class. Yes they pay more in taxes, but their tax breaks in relation to our tax breaks are much greater, which makes no sense, considering that they can actually afford to pay taxes.

Under our current tax system, it would be the upper class, not the middle class, that foots the bill.

Yeah, I heard that, too. I, however, don't agree with it. Everybody who's proposing that bill is upper class and money hungry, which is the exact reason why the bill is never going to see the light of day.

No, I see us paying for it. Which means it's not free, it's paid for, just not by them.

It's free to them.

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

That's a very ignorant statement. My grandfather was a house painter. He owned his own business and worked until he retired in 1969. My dad was a delivery man for various baking companies for thirty years, and then retired, and got into construction. Both were very hard working, yet didn't make much money.

You're leaving out the fact that the "wealthy" have always -- and still under Bush -- paid proportionally much, much more than the middle class.

Yes, but they're the ones who got the larger tax cuts.

Only if you believe your money comes from the government and not yourself.

I have to say, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Is there something wrong with him being half white?

People thought he was going to be a different kind of president because he's black. The point is, he's just another good ol' boy. There's nothing wrong with being half white, but if you're a white male politician, you have that stereotype.

I didn't blatantly insult you, I pointed out some other misguided, ignorant, completely stupid conspiracy theories, like the idea that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are being kept secret because treatments make more money. If you take stupid, ignorant conspiracy theories to be an insult, stop buying into them.

You're still insulting my intelligence, you realize that, right? AIDS and cancer treatments are a business, as I've said before. There's a cure for them, but it's kept secret for two reasons. One, people make big bucks off of treatment, and two, population control.

You've presented less facts than I have and have had to be corrected on more occasions than I have. And you've got the arrogance to claim that I have a weak case because I pointed out how stupid your belief in cures for cancer and AIDS is?

Well, I'm kind of ignoring the fact that you corrected me on a few things, because I've taken the time to correct your corrections, thus I correct you. You're welcome. And if you blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing your case against, then you do have a weak cause, hence the reason why you resort to insults.

Everybody in America has health care, period.

That's not true. My brother doesn't have health care. He can't get it due to the way he lost his job. He was going to be laid off, he found out about it, and just no-showed. Sure, he can get medical treatment, but he'll have to pay for it out the ass, which he doesn't have the money for. His car would probably get repossessed, but that's about all they could do to him.

Nah, it won't eliminate private health insurance -- it'll just drive them out of business by ensuring that only the rich can afford private health care, since everybody (who makes money) will be taxed more whether they use the lower-quality public health care or not.

If it drives them out of business, then people will be paying into the socialized health care in order to receive better treatment, instead of to private insurers, making the socialized health care better, and eliminating the need for private health care.

Except for the fact that the rich are footing more of the bill, and the middle class is already having money redistributed to them, despite their underachievement in life.

That's not true. My family hasn't received a cent. And just for the record, being middle class doesn't mean you're underachieving. If your only goal in life is to get rich, and if you think that the only way to achieve satisfaction is to have money, then you have a really sad life.

[RagnaToad]

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy. If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I'm not sure what the question here is.

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I have no idea about the Canadian health care, but you may be right about the British health care system. Over here in Belgium we have one of the most efficiently working health insurance systems in the world AND the best health care possible. I'm not trying to be patriottic. It really is one of my country's main assets. We have lots of flaws (like shortage of prisons etc.), like any country.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves.

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

I didn't say they were biased. And I never said I criticised them for making points that I don't agree with. If they were to praise Obama for things he never did, I would be annoyed in the same way.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

Whether MSNBC is liberally biased or not is not the issue. And frankly, I don't know if it's true what you're saying or not.
But you can have your opinions all you want, I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories. Maybe it's a matter of taste? But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything. Whether they are conservatives or liberals doesn't really matter. Being biased is not an attractive feature to me. But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

There is no double standard here. I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be. Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

I'm going to quote you:
"I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job."

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare.

Ummm.
YES YOU DO.
(Or meet some other 'special criteria'.)

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

And I'll try to find a source about those sponsors. I even read WHAT sponsors wanted to be moved to another hour, but I can't remember, as they were (obviously) American sponsors, and I wasn't familiar with them. You can believe me, if my word is worth anything to you.

[Clint]

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care.

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that? They increase taxes on the middle class. So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you? We're paying for it. They're not.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class. When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things. Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against. That means one thing; that you have a weak case. Now I made my point and made my opinion from a political standpoint. Care to try again?

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

It's not about good quality health care. It's merely about the security of having health care. I mean, for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. If people who break the law are allowed health care, then there should be a minimalist for everybody.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care. Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.

[Clint]

Finally, some people need to realize that there's a reason American healthcare is expensive -- because it's the best.

That's a false statement, and you need to learn a little bit about politics. American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it. They know that they can purge money from the American public, because people need health care. Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care. Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class. The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough. If they haven't found one by now, then somebody needs to get laid off. The reason why there are only treatments available, and no cures, is because cancer and AIDS treatments are a business. The government loves when people are sick, and the most certainly love when people die, because as everybody who's lost somebody knows, it costs more to die than it does to live.

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.