Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

    Originally posted by adaher View Post
    The first problem is the fallacy that if the people can't afford something, somehow they'll be able to afford it through taxes. Doesn't work that way.
    Yes, it does. In addition to simple economy of scale, you would also be eliminating the large chunk of healthcare costs that would normally go to insurance companies-- costs that do not, in any conceivable fashion, contribute to the quality or availability of treatment.

    Originally posted by adaher View Post
    If we can't afford health care as individuals, we can't afford it through the government either. What will happen instead is that you'll give as much money to the government as you'd spend on your own health care anyway, and they would decide how to spend it. But some people are comforted by that because in a single-payer system, 90% of the time the patient never knows what treatments they are missing out on. Whereas if you have private insurance or pay cash, you know exactly what you can't afford.
    Except that there is not a country on Earth that pays as much per capita on healthcare as the United States, despite the majority of industrialized countries having medical coverage for 100% of citizens and standards of care that rival or exceed our own, except for in our prestigious-- and prohibitively expensive-- research hospitals. We could provide our current standards of medical care for 100% of our citizens for much, much less money than we are spending now if it weren't for corrupt politicians and blatant propaganda that are both bought and paid for by the health insurance industry lobby.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

      Originally posted by adaher View Post
      The first problem is the fallacy that if the people can't afford something, somehow they'll be able to afford it through taxes. Doesn't work that way. If we can't afford health care as individuals, we can't afford it through the government either. What will happen instead is that you'll give as much money to the government as you'd spend on your own health care anyway, and they would decide how to spend it. But some people are comforted by that because in a single-payer system, 90% of the time the patient never knows what treatments they are missing out on. Whereas if you have private insurance or pay cash, you know exactly what you can't afford.
      I couldn't afford two wars in the Middle East, but I'm paying for it.

      I couldn't really afford to bail out the banks and pay their execs handsome bonuses, but I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and paid them.

      I still can't afford the trillions of interest free loans to the banking monopolies, but rest assured, I pulled through and paid up.

      At any rate, your premise is flawed. Assuming a tax was instated for something that's actually necessary (and would bring down health care costs), the savings per person in health care premiums and co-pays would be more than offset. Also, businesses would be competitive with their foreign contemporaries because they wouldn't have the health care cost burden that our competitors are free of, thus improving our economy.

      But no one wants to talk about that; instead they keep the standard-fare straw man erected.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

        Originally posted by Korimir View Post
        Yes, it does. In addition to simple economy of scale, you would also be eliminating the large chunk of healthcare costs that would normally go to insurance companies-- costs that do not, in any conceivable fashion, contribute to the quality or availability of treatment.
        That's only 3% that the insurance companies make off the top. And the government doesn't start magically paying for things that individuals couldn't afford on their own. It works the same as insurance. You pre-pay, and when you need it, you get it. Which isn't technically insurance, but whatever.

        Except that there is not a country on Earth that pays as much per capita on healthcare as the United States, despite the majority of industrialized countries having medical coverage for 100% of citizens and standards of care that rival or exceed our own, except for in our prestigious-- and prohibitively expensive-- research hospitals. We could provide our current standards of medical care for 100% of our citizens for much, much less money than we are spending now if it weren't for corrupt politicians and blatant propaganda that are both bought and paid for by the health insurance industry lobby.
        As I've said before, if you're sure of that, peg Medicare to the NHS and see how that works. If elderly folks don't see a decline in care, expand it to everyone else.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

          Insurance companies only make 3%? That's why it costs those who actually do have health insurance 50% more than any other nation! That's why the current governor of Florida is a multi-billionaire whose company was hit with the largest fine in the history of the US for scamming billions from medicare, yet people still elected him to be governor!

          And the administrative costs are a large element of the problem:

          Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          The health care system in the U.S. has a vast number of players. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies in the U.S.[65][150] This system has considerable administrative overhead, far greater than in nationalized, single-payer systems, such as Canada's. An oft-cited study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of U.S. health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs, nearly double the administrative overhead in Canada, on a percentage basis.[151]
          The healthcare system in the US is just as hopelessly broken as the political system, and the cause for it is essentially the same. Those responsible for the problems control the authorities. There is no doubt there are problems with any government run bureaucracy, but HMO insurance is no better than that. In many ways it is much worse because they have a direct incentive to try to disallow your claims whenever they can. But the biggest myth is that it would cost you more than it does now. The fact that we pay far more than any other country for healthcare which is mediocre at best for the average American shows that to be so.

          The healthcare industry has had decades to try to fix its own issues by reducing the costs through direct competition, but the opposite has occurred because it is a giant scam. There are a number of contributing factors, such as the AMA only allowing a limited number of doctors to be trained, the high cost of drugs in this country compared to any other, and the lack of any real method to remove incompetent doctors other than them not being able to any longer get malpractice insurance. The list is essentially endless. The bottom line is that we must do something to fix this chronic problem that refuses to fix itself, but it does just the opposite over time.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

            Originally posted by adaher View Post
            That's only 3% that the insurance companies make off the top. And the government doesn't start magically paying for things that individuals couldn't afford on their own. It works the same as insurance. You pre-pay, and when you need it, you get it. Which isn't technically insurance, but whatever.



            As I've said before, if you're sure of that, peg Medicare to the NHS and see how that works. If elderly folks don't see a decline in care, expand it to everyone else.
            Boy, that 3 per cent is touted around a lot. 3 per cent in the grocery business, 3 per cent in retail which I once heard someone say, and now the insurance folks only get 3 per cent, and of course that is pre tax. I do not believe that 3 per cent, in retail or insurance. I am not sure how they arrive at this number, but there are contortions going on, if that is their profit prior to paying taxes. Voodoo accounting I think.

            Yet lets say that 3 per cent is right, for the sake of argument. What you failed to mention are the costs of operating that are substracted to get that 3 per cent. Add that cost in with the 3 and you would come up with a closer number as to the money that would be saved.

            The 3 per cent sounds minimal UNTIL you consider the money paid for operation, buildings, expenses, labor, etc. And don't forget the labor costs are high, especially with some of the bonuses these execs sometime get.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

              Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
              Stop starting wars and trim the bloated defense budget. Defense ain't free, bucko.
              It's already being cut, and further I don't have a problem cutting defense. Yet Obama is still adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt each yr and it is you that could care less. You liberals have to have your entitlements at any cost. But it is you that don't think about cost, because you think there is an endless supply of money. Now are you ready to cut entitlements, hell no, because you liberals only want to add entitlements not cut anything. Except defense, which you say is bloated, yet we have bloated entitlement programs and you want to add more.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                ahoy Forplay,

                well, i have to laugh at you, matey. not conservatives, mind ye....just you.

                ye want all kindsa shit also, from a war with Iran to a 2000 mile militarized fence, and you have no fuckin' clue how to pay fer any 'o it.

                so please, climb off yer soapbox, lighten' up on the hyperbole, and gimme a break.

                - MeadHallPirate
                While you shoot your mouth off, please quote me where I said I want a war with Iran.

                Unlike you I want our southern border closed tight, I want those jobs taken by illegals to go to American citizens.

                Now it is you that don't have a fucking clue how to pay for your beloved entitlements and yet you want more. All along champing Obama for adding 1.5 trillion a yr to our national debt. Yeah, your OK with that as long as you don't have to pay for it. All you liberals think there is an endless supply of money.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                  Originally posted by Forplay View Post
                  It's already being cut, and further I don't have a problem cutting defense. Yet Obama is still adding 1.5 trillion to the national debt each yr and it is you that could care less. You liberals have to have your entitlements at any cost. But it is you that don't think about cost, because you think there is an endless supply of money. Now are you ready to cut entitlements, hell no, because you liberals only want to add entitlements not cut anything. Except defense, which you say is bloated, yet we have bloated entitlement programs and you want to add more.
                  I'm not a liberal ... the rest of your straw man, notwithstanding.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                    It's not constitutional on the federal level. Now if California and Massachusetts want it, so be it. I can always move to a free state.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                      Originally posted by Forplay View Post
                      While you shoot your mouth off, please quote me where I said I want a war with Iran.

                      Unlike you I want our southern border closed tight, I want those jobs taken by illegals to go to American citizens.

                      Now it is you that don't have a fucking clue how to pay for your beloved entitlements and yet you want more. All along champing Obama for adding 1.5 trillion a yr to our national debt. Yeah, your OK with that as long as you don't have to pay for it. All you liberals think there is an endless supply of money.

                      Your hyperbole is funny. The only liberal that I know of, that would think there is an endless supply of money are the ones who never finished jr. high. And those are few and far between.

                      But this is just another tired tactic some on the right uses, because it appeals to the less educated. Liberals just want higher taxes to pay the bills of a modern, civilized society is all. And we especially want to tax, based upon the ability to pay. Most of us want a higher capital gains tax, because most folks making money from capital gains buy and sell at frantic rates, and are not in reality a stockholder, as they do not hold stocks for long, in many cases. You could just watch the controlled chaos in the old wall st to see this visually. This sort of income requires no work, but it should be taxed the same as income created from real work.

                      Liberals too, think that we need to cut out waste in spending as well as cuts in all of the areas of spending. But we do not want to be draconian about it. But we also have high goals for civilization, and one of those is that even the folks that cannot afford insurance gets insurance. This is a noble goal. If the richest nation in the world cannot do that, how do the rest of the west pull it off? To achieve this you have to have a single payer system. And you have to take out the profits in health insurance. That is a no brainer.

                      Can you imagine how the providers of health care would be more streamlined when they only had one insurance entity to deal with? There are more benefits with single payer insurance than not. If I were still in business, getting the expense of private health insurance off my back, with the gov't doing it would have really helped out my bottom line. Most people who have insurance through their employment also pay a part of it. And many times that insurance isn't very good. I think most people who pay for insurance at work, under a group plan, would have no problem with paying twice that amount and actually getting better insurance, and with preventitive care being a part of the single payer system. This would save money over the long haul, just by catching an illness before it becomes expensive to the system.

                      I think unlike cons, liberals actually have a vision of humanity, and what gov't can do to make lives better. Or said differently, of what the PEOPLE can do to make lives better. The gov't is the people, or is supposed to be. It is everyone throwing in to make things better in society, instead of "I"ve got mine, so get yours" mentality. Liberals think the law of the jungle is a primitive thing, that the mind of man was able to change, for the good of humanity. And the cons incessantly work hard to make us regress as much as possible. They call it, individualism and personal freedom. But when taken to its logical conclusion it only yields the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. And health care is based upon whether you are rich or poor. Is this the best that human intelligence can do? No, it instead of just one other thing that human greed does. If allowed to, greed will indeed structure a society, its economy, its health care, etc. When greed is allowed to call the shot, you get disorder instead of order. You get people dying, leaving families because they cannot afford advanced medical care, the sort that you cannot get in the ER. We have people dying everyday in this nation because they have no insurance and cannot afford the treatments to kill their cancers. How expensive is chemo and radiation? If you have no money or insurance, you just have to watch the cancer kill you. This is NOT how a civilized society should be. This is the law of the jungle. Liberals cannot bear this, and we will fight until we get some humanity out of our conservative neighbors. In one way or the other. And we will feel good about our efforts, because life is very valuable, even the lives of the uninsured.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                        Blue Doggy
                        Absolutely. I believe it is the only sane route to follow. Get the profits out of insurance. I would rather see all americans with some healthcare instead of only some having healthcare insurance. We have been trying to get this since FDR I think, but Truman for sure. It isn't a brand new idea. We seem to be the only nation in the west that have not gone this route. The only thing bad about this, is that it grows gov't.

                        Yet the special interests have a lot of money and they are very powerful. And that makes a change damn near impossible. Yet it is inevitable, IMO. I do think it will happen within the next 100 years though. As time goes on, the culture will change enough to demand it, as conservatives get smarter, or shrink in number.
                        So, society, in your view, has a moral obligation to pay for all the healthcare costs of individuals. Does that mean if a 90 year old wants a treatment that costs a million dollars a month to extend his life, it is immoral to deny it to him?

                        What if there were an incredibly rare medicine that cured cancer, but there was not enough for all cancer patients, what would be the moral way for society to distribute that treatment?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                          Your hyperbole is funny. The only liberal that I know of, that would think there is an endless supply of money are the ones who never finished jr. high. And those are few and far between.

                          But this is just another tired tactic some on the right uses, because it appeals to the less educated. Liberals just want higher taxes to pay the bills of a modern, civilized society is all. And we especially want to tax, based upon the ability to pay. Most of us want a higher capital gains tax, because most folks making money from capital gains buy and sell at frantic rates, and are not in reality a stockholder, as they do not hold stocks for long, in many cases. You could just watch the controlled chaos in the old wall st to see this visually. This sort of income requires no work, but it should be taxed the same as income created from real work.

                          Liberals too, think that we need to cut out waste in spending as well as cuts in all of the areas of spending. But we do not want to be draconian about it. But we also have high goals for civilization, and one of those is that even the folks that cannot afford insurance gets insurance. This is a noble goal. If the richest nation in the world cannot do that, how do the rest of the west pull it off? To achieve this you have to have a single payer system. And you have to take out the profits in health insurance. That is a no brainer.

                          Can you imagine how the providers of health care would be more streamlined when they only had one insurance entity to deal with? There are more benefits with single payer insurance than not. If I were still in business, getting the expense of private health insurance off my back, with the gov't doing it would have really helped out my bottom line. Most people who have insurance through their employment also pay a part of it. And many times that insurance isn't very good. I think most people who pay for insurance at work, under a group plan, would have no problem with paying twice that amount and actually getting better insurance, and with preventitive care being a part of the single payer system. This would save money over the long haul, just by catching an illness before it becomes expensive to the system.

                          I think unlike cons, liberals actually have a vision of humanity, and what gov't can do to make lives better. Or said differently, of what the PEOPLE can do to make lives better. The gov't is the people, or is supposed to be. It is everyone throwing in to make things better in society, instead of "I"ve got mine, so get yours" mentality. Liberals think the law of the jungle is a primitive thing, that the mind of man was able to change, for the good of humanity. And the cons incessantly work hard to make us regress as much as possible. They call it, individualism and personal freedom. But when taken to its logical conclusion it only yields the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. And health care is based upon whether you are rich or poor. Is this the best that human intelligence can do? No, it instead of just one other thing that human greed does. If allowed to, greed will indeed structure a society, its economy, its health care, etc. When greed is allowed to call the shot, you get disorder instead of order. You get people dying, leaving families because they cannot afford advanced medical care, the sort that you cannot get in the ER. We have people dying everyday in this nation because they have no insurance and cannot afford the treatments to kill their cancers. How expensive is chemo and radiation? If you have no money or insurance, you just have to watch the cancer kill you. This is NOT how a civilized society should be. This is the law of the jungle. Liberals cannot bear this, and we will fight until we get some humanity out of our conservative neighbors. In one way or the other. And we will feel good about our efforts, because life is very valuable, even the lives of the uninsured.
                          Yeah, Blue that's right, just keep on taxing to pay for whatever free shit you want. In other words take it from the rich and give to the poor. Wealth distribution, you have just described a Marxist society. It is you liberals that want and want and want some more in the way of entitlements, now it's free healthcare. You liberals just can't stop yourself from wanting more and more entitlement and control over peoples lives.

                          We now 15.5 Trillion in debt and Obama is adding another 1.5 this yr making for 17 trillion and you can strip all the wealth from the top earners of this country and still not cover this debt. You see you liberals always think there is no end to the money supply. If you did you would first figure out how to pay off our debt before ever adding yet more entitlement, adding more debt.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                            Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
                            I'm not a liberal ... the rest of your straw man, notwithstanding.
                            You could never prove it by me.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                              Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                              ahoy Halpo,

                              i kinda disagree with ye there.

                              if yer a valued employee, then a private corporation has good reason to care about yer health. i mean, 'tis hard to believe that Apple didn't care about the health 'o Steve Jobs.

                              i also believe that the government has good reason to care about the health 'o its citizens.

                              well met, by the way.

                              - MeadHallPirate
                              Well, in the absence of a personal connection or a direct monetary interest, I don't think anyone in this world has a reason to care about you. I mean, yeah, there are altruists out there, but they don't have what it takes to rise to the top in any large institution. The theory behind the Soviet Union was that they would put the state in charge of everything, and then make sure that there was a good person in charge of it all, directing everyone and everything to the best solutions. It worked for a little while (maybe), but eventually, the unscrupulous will band together and find a way to take power.

                              That is why decentralization is a good idea, and capitalism forms the basis for decentralization.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Re: Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?

                                Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
                                And the rub is, you don't even have to raise taxes to implement such a system. The system could pay for itself with the cost savings alone.
                                That's what they said about Obamcare, that it would be cheaper, duped again.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X