Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='speedracer']Ask him how many of those use the public option.[/QUOTE]

One thing at a time brohammer.

[quote name='UncleBob']Thank you for providing another example of people who go without automotive insurance but would be required to have health insurance.[/QUOTE]

You're right. Anyone that doesn't have health insurance needs to work for it and not mooch off the system. I hear that coal mines were a great place for a child to earn a living. We should start that up again.

Oh...and how many of those millions are using the public option. Also, you might want to calculate how many use the single payer option as well.
 
I'd like to point out that (making the choice of) using the "public option" of transportation doesn't require citizens to purchase services from a private company in order to be legal.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd like to point out that (making the choice of) using the "public option" of transportation doesn't require citizens to purchase services from a private company in order to be legal.[/QUOTE]

I gotta know where the fuck you're going with this cause you're a fucking mess. Call it morbid curiousity...or maybe I just like watching dogs chase their tails.

So if someone doesn't need to purchase from a "private" company, whatever the hell that means, and require a respective service, where would they get it from. And what the hell does legal have to do with it. Obviously if something is legal, it means it's ok according to your warped logic.
 
It doesn't look its going to pass like 20 states want to take it to supreme court against it id imagine in time that list will increase to.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Clak - you do realize that millions of Americans get by daily without owning a vehicle, correct?[/QUOTE]
And you realize there are plenty who couldn't, correct? Not everyone lives within the range of public transportation. Maybe if America didn't have such a love affair with cars and hadn't said "fuck it" to trains that would be different.
 
[quote name='Clak']And you realize there are plenty who couldn't, correct? Not everyone lives within the range of public transportation. Maybe if America didn't have such a love affair with cars and hadn't said "fuck it" to trains that would be different.[/QUOTE]

Show me someone who "can't" live without owning a car and I'll show you someone who can ride a bike, walk, move, pay a taxi, find a new job or become a hermit and grow their own garden, living off the land.

Are those choices fun and exciting? No. But they're all choices someone can make to forgo partaking in the practice of purchasing car insurance from a private company.

However, if a law were passed that required you to have health insurance, there would be no choices to allow you to forgo purchasing health insurance from a private company (unless, of course, there's a public option...)
 
If someone has basically admitted they are only talking about (what are basically) outliers and ignore the reality of the matter for the vast, vast majority of people then I see no reason why anyone should bother to respond.

As for something else that has been repeated, those bitching about people being forced to pay a premium would have no leg to stand on what was paid was a tax.

But that would bring about a slightly different bitching of equal and probably greater volume.

It is just another dishonest song and dance.
 
This is what happens when you throw practicality out the window in favor of pure theory. In theory I could say whatever I want, but bob will go crying about it to someone cause we heart his feelings.
 
[quote name='Clak']This is what happens when you throw practicality out the window in favor of pure theory. In theory I could say whatever I want, but bob will go crying about it to someone cause we hurt his feelings.[/QUOTE]

This isn't theory though, this actually happens...LOLZ.
 
Nononono, the theory is that I can what I want without punishment for it, but in practice that apparently isn't going to happen.

Bob is basically the Eric Cartman of this forum.

There, lets see how long that stays up.
 
Look, guys - here's the deal. I know it greatly upsets some of you that, yes, I've reported posts here on the vs. forum. It's shocking, I know - but - although a little immaturity is one thing, direct attacks on other forum members (be it against me or someone else) is just tasteless and is *not* the type of forum I, personally, want to see. Obviously, neither does Cheapy, as it's clearly in the description of the forum.

I know some of you disagree with me - vehemently. That's fine. You may think I'm stupid, uninformed and have a simple view of the world. That's fine. You are, of course, welcome to your opinions. All I ask is that you either find a way to communicate that doesn't involve flaming or personal attacks or you can put me on ignore.

Seriously, does anyone here really want a conversation that devolves to calling other members a "Mother ****er"? Telling others to "eat a box of dicks"? Abusing the tagging system to say "So-and-so is a ****ing moron"? Should it really get to the point where one member is so obsessed with another that nearly 2 out of 3 posts they make are attacks, slams and insults on that other member, even when that other member has had the first on ignore for quite some time? Should forum members really be signing up other forum member's phone numbers for telemarketing calls? Is this really the kind of forum you want?

If you want to disagree with another member - that's all well and good - do so! But there's a graceful way of doing it, then there's the "eat a box of dicks" way of doing it. If you're to the point where you simply cannot respond to someone without starting off your post with slurs and flames, then, perhaps, it's best to not respond to that person at all. Put them on ignore, even. No one will fault you.

But, quite frankly, I have absolutely no plans to discontinue marking posts that contain blatant, unwarranted personal attacks on myself or on other members of the forum. The final call for or against action, of course, will not be mine - but I have no intent to ignore such behavior. Don't like it? Well, I'm sure there's some handy advice floating around here.

Beyond that, does anyone else notice that it's usually one particular group of people who tend to post stuff that ends up getting moderated? How weird is that?
 
Whats even more pathetic is that if you google his phone number, you can see him pulling the same tricks on other forums.

Either he is the most deicated troll in the world or he is completely insane and tries to v
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup. They mostly hate me. That's why I currently moderate at three different forums. Also, the one you linked to? Good times there - had a second job for a while from a guy I met on there. Still friends with him (he's got a movie of mine). Go ahead and try to find some more stuff on me. Could be fun.

*edit* PS: http://www.whitecountyforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1079[/QUOTE]

That's creepy, and even has a reference to the original tron.
 
That guy and I (not the one I got the job from, but that moderator) are super-excited to go see the new TRON. I think he's more excited than I am, but he works virtually all the time.
 
"deploy monopsony power" as a solution. fascinating. and absolutely necessary, since the watered-down moderate Romneycare we have doesn't murder insurance companies or go far enough to control cost inflation.

of course, there would be no concern about it at all if it was a power that emerged in the marketplace - from the right, that is. but establishing single payer from the government is scary communism.

you people on the right understand that's why we actually can't have a reasonable conversation, yes? it's not because of a clash of ideas. it's because you actually refuse to see our point of view. in the world you all argue about, government action is always wrong and corporate action is always right. you don't ever permit yourselves to even think about the both having benefits and problems they provide to society, let alone admit that that truly is how the way the world works.

think about that. you can not admit that government does some good, and you can not admit that corporations and private businesses are ever unfair, create harm, or lead to other problems. and the lot of you come to the table acting like we're intellectually starting on a level playing field, on opposite ends. this is not the case, and it never has been in our lifetime.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Choices. You have 'em.[/QUOTE]


no shit sherlock and choices are still there

- you can choose to pay the penalty
-or simply ignore both, be a dick and whine when you do get hurt (There are no criminal or economic penalties in the bill)

or you can man up and get insurance.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']of course, there would be no concern about it at all if it was a power that emerged in the marketplace - from the right, that is. but establishing single payer from the government is scary communism.[/quote]

While not "scary communism", you are correct. If a "power" emerges in the marketplace, then that power is A.) The choice of the people, B.) Still (in theory) subject to government oversight and C.) Open to competition.

If the government decides to completely take over the system, the people have no choice. There is no competition and there is no independent party to provide oversight.

you people on the right understand that's why we actually can't have a reasonable conversation, yes? it's not because of a clash of ideas. it's because you actually refuse to see our point of view. in the world you all argue about, government action is always wrong and corporate action is always right. you don't ever permit yourselves to even think about the both having benefits and problems they provide to society, let alone admit that that truly is how the way the world works.
Click to expand...

This is the reason we can't seem to have a reasonable conversation (well, that and calling other members a "mother ****er" because they didn't reply fast enough for you). Do you really, honestly think those of us "on the right" hold private corporations up like a infallible god? I can't speak for some of the other members here, but I know I don't. Nor do I think the government is the sole source of all evil in the world.

You say we refuse to see your point of view? You twist and distort our point of view, then attack us based on that distortion.

[quote name='usickenme']no shit sherlock and choices are still there

- you can choose to pay the penalty
-or simply ignore both, be a dick and whine when you do get hurt (There are no criminal or economic penalties in the bill)

or you can man up and get insurance.[/QUOTE]

The choices of "buy into this private service" or "be illegal" are hardly the kinds of choices I want our government dishing out.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"deploy monopsony power" as a solution. fascinating. and absolutely necessary, since the watered-down moderate Romneycare we have doesn't murder insurance companies or go far enough to control cost inflation.

of course, there would be no concern about it at all if it was a power that emerged in the marketplace - from the right, that is. but establishing single payer from the government is scary communism.

you people on the right understand that's why we actually can't have a reasonable conversation, yes? it's not because of a clash of ideas. it's because you actually refuse to see our point of view. in the world you all argue about, government action is always wrong and corporate action is always right. you don't ever permit yourselves to even think about the both having benefits and problems they provide to society, let alone admit that that truly is how the way the world works.

think about that. you can not admit that government does some good, and you can not admit that corporations and private businesses are ever unfair, create harm, or lead to other problems. and the lot of you come to the table acting like we're intellectually starting on a level playing field, on opposite ends. this is not the case, and it never has been in our lifetime.[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

Wingnuts would rather lie about anything and everything than change their worldview or engage something with any substance.

Evidence?

This entire thread.

The sad thing is we aren't just talking internet ignorantness (which apparently is a word) but basically every conservative in the entire country with the least bit of power.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']


The choices of "buy into this private service" or "be illegal" are hardly the kinds of choices I want our government dishing out.[/QUOTE]

It's still a choice.

See how cute little slogans don't always work?

FYI- that choice is same for any law.
 
[quote name='usickenme']It's still a choice.

See how cute little slogans don't always work?

FYI- that choice is same for any law.[/QUOTE]

Don't honestly tell me your trying to equate "Buy this private service or be illegal" to "Don't kill someone or be illegal."
 
[quote name='Sporadic']What's really sad if him you google his phone number, you can see him pulling the same tricks at other forums.

So either he is the most dedicated troll ever or he is a delusional, crazy person who seeks validation by becoming a "regular" in various online communities (even though they mostly hate him)

- fake edit And it's possible he is a troll

http://www.whitecountyforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=390[/QUOTE]
And yet on here he sucks the Wal Mart cock like it's a life line, hilarious.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Look, guys - here's the deal. I know it greatly upsets some of you that, yes, I've reported posts here on the vs. forum. It's shocking, I know - but - although a little immaturity is one thing, direct attacks on other forum members (be it against me or someone else) is just tasteless and is *not* the type of forum I, personally, want to see. Obviously, neither does Cheapy, as it's clearly in the description of the forum.

I know some of you disagree with me - vehemently. That's fine. You may think I'm stupid, uninformed and have a simple view of the world. That's fine. You are, of course, welcome to your opinions. All I ask is that you either find a way to communicate that doesn't involve flaming or personal attacks or you can put me on ignore.

Seriously, does anyone here really want a conversation that devolves to calling other members a "Mother ****er"? Telling others to "eat a box of dicks"? Abusing the tagging system to say "So-and-so is a ****ing moron"? Should it really get to the point where one member is so obsessed with another that nearly 2 out of 3 posts they make are attacks, slams and insults on that other member, even when that other member has had the first on ignore for quite some time? Should forum members really be signing up other forum member's phone numbers for telemarketing calls? Is this really the kind of forum you want?

If you want to disagree with another member - that's all well and good - do so! But there's a graceful way of doing it, then there's the "eat a box of dicks" way of doing it. If you're to the point where you simply cannot respond to someone without starting off your post with slurs and flames, then, perhaps, it's best to not respond to that person at all. Put them on ignore, even. No one will fault you.

But, quite frankly, I have absolutely no plans to discontinue marking posts that contain blatant, unwarranted personal attacks on myself or on other members of the forum. The final call for or against action, of course, will not be mine - but I have no intent to ignore such behavior. Don't like it? Well, I'm sure there's some handy advice floating around here.

Beyond that, does anyone else notice that it's usually one particular group of people who tend to post stuff that ends up getting moderated? How weird is that?[/QUOTE]
More of your dishonest bullshit here? How about YOU put US on ignore? Or how about the posts of mine that you reported and had pulled that didn't have any attacks or filtered words? You're a lying piece of shit. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you have a problem reading SHAQ-FU on your screen, we're not the ones having problems. YOU are. For all your "freedom loving" double speak, you sure are a censorship fetishist.

And while you're reporting this post, how about you enlighten us on what a legal citizen and an illegal citizen is, you SHAQ-FU eating SHAQ-FUing SHAQ-FU.
 
[quote name='Clak']And yet on here he sucks the Wal Mart cock like it's a life line, hilarious.[/QUOTE]
Well, it IS his lifeline. Although, I'm sure the business his wife's family owns isn't doing horribly either. But only a moron of the higher caliber would post their phone number on the intarwebz. I'm mean really?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']While not "scary communism", you are correct. If a "power" emerges in the marketplace, then that power is A.) The choice of the people, B.) Still (in theory) subject to government oversight and C.) Open to competition.

If the government decides to completely take over the system, the people have no choice. There is no competition and there is no independent party to provide oversight.



This is the reason we can't seem to have a reasonable conversation (well, that and calling other members a "mother ****er" because they didn't reply fast enough for you). Do you really, honestly think those of us "on the right" hold private corporations up like a infallible god? I can't speak for some of the other members here, but I know I don't. Nor do I think the government is the sole source of all evil in the world.

You say we refuse to see your point of view? You twist and distort our point of view, then attack us based on that distortion.



The choices of "buy into this private service" or "be illegal" are hardly the kinds of choices I want our government dishing out.[/QUOTE]
Wait a fucking minute, now you want to get practical? I thought all you cared about was that there was an alternative? Just don't pay it Bob, there is your choice.
 
Let's flip this post around in order to see something peculiar. First, Bob asks us (or me, if you prefer) a question:

[quote name='UncleBob']Do you really, honestly think those of us "on the right" hold private corporations up like a infallible god? I can't speak for some of the other members here, but I know I don't. Nor do I think the government is the sole source of all evil in the world.[/quote]

Now, before I answer this by simply saying "yes" or "no," (which, as a person of integrity I will answer with a yes or no, something our friend Bob has not done and can not do), let's see what Bob had said just prior in the *very same post* about markets, government, and monopsony power:

[quote name='UncleBob']While not "scary communism", you are correct. If a "power" emerges in the marketplace, then that power is A.) The choice of the people, B.) Still (in theory) subject to government oversight and C.) Open to competition.

If the government decides to completely take over the system, the people have no choice. There is no competition and there is no independent party to provide oversight.[/quote]

So, to answer your question, yes. You show nothing that suggests you think in a way any different than the business is always good, government is always wrong dichotomy. Especially not here. Instead of asking a silly question, perhaps you could post in ways that show you are indeed a complex thinker with the ability to moderate views, instead of simply another anarchist Randian who thinks the market will cure all ills.

The choices of "buy into this private service" or "be illegal" are hardly the kinds of choices I want our government dishing out.
Click to expand...

What about single payer, then? It takes the private market out of health insurance altogether. Does that moderate your view? Or, alternately, do you believe our collective well being and access to remedies for our well being are a commodity to be priced and distributed according to income and ability to pay?
 
[quote name='Clak']And yet on here he sucks the Wal Mart cock like it's a life line, hilarious.[/QUOTE]

And see, this is what's amusing - I'm the same person here as I am on WCF. As I've said before, I do speak out against Walmart when I think they're in the wrong. You just choose to take in what you want and ignore anything that goes against what you already believe.

[quote name='dohdough']More of your dishonest bullshit here? How about YOU put US on ignore? Or how about the posts of mine that you reported and had pulled that didn't have any attacks or filtered words?[/quote]

Which post were those, exactly? Because if there was a post of your's that did not have an attack/flame (and no, I did not report a single one of your post just because it contained filtered words) that was removed, it was not because I reported it. Every single post of yours that I reported was due to personal attacks on me or other members of this forum. Putting you on ignore does not stop you from making the personal attacks.

And while you're reporting this post, how about you enlighten us on what a legal citizen and an illegal citizen is, you SHAQ-FU eating SHAQ-FUing SHAQ-FU.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer "Citizen in legal standing"? How about "Law-abiding citizen"? I think it's pretty obvious.

[quote name='dohdough']Well, it IS his lifeline. Although, I'm sure the business his wife's family owns isn't doing horribly either.[/quote]

It's not doing bad, but it is their busy time of year, with catering and all. Poor woman, she left at three in the morning yesterday and got in about midnight last night. It's amazing what hard work can do for one's business.

But only a moron of the higher caliber would post their phone number on the intarwebz. I'm mean really?
Click to expand...

Oh noes, my phone number is on line! I guess that means that I can't be a big man that hides behind the anonymity of names like "dohdough" or "Sporadic", then attack people with stuff like "Eat a box of dicks" or calling people "f@ggots" (Stay classy, by the way...).

[quote name='Clak']Wait a fucking minute, now you want to get practical? I thought all you cared about was that there was an alternative? Just don't pay it Bob, there is your choice.[/QUOTE]

If you honestly think that I should be happy with the option of "Don't pay, but you're breaking the law", then you should also assume that I'd be happy with that same option with regards to automotive insurance - thus rendering your entire argument moot.

[quote name='mykevermin']So, to answer your question, yes. You show nothing that suggests you think in a way any different than the business is always good, government is always wrong dichotomy. Especially not here. Instead of asking a silly question, perhaps you could post in ways that show you are indeed a complex thinker with the ability to moderate views, instead of simply another anarchist Randian who thinks the market will cure all ills.[/quote]

First, myke, let me give you credit for attempting to steer the conversation back on topic.

But this is why we can't have a real conversation. If I thought "Government bad, ugh!", then why would I have pointed out that the private market has government oversight? Wouldn't that be a bad thing? This isn't a matter of "Government = Bad" - it's common sense - Choice is good. Oversight is good. Competition is good. Which leads in to the second part of your post...

What about single payer, then? It takes the private market out of health insurance altogether. Does that moderate your view? Or, alternately, do you believe our collective well being and access to remedies for our well being are a commodity to be priced and distributed according to income and ability to pay?
Click to expand...

Honestly, Single-Payer seems like it would be a better option than this monstrosity we have now. As I've said before, I would prefer a government-ran health insurance plan that competes in the private market place. It should be subject to all the same laws and regulations that private companies are subject to. It should be self-sustaining (although, of course, it would need tax payer dollars to get started up - it would be awesome if the plan could eventually pay back those dollars). Since, ideally, a government ran option would have lower overhead (as it would have none of those highly paid executives that y'all hate so much), along with a much stronger bargaining power (with regards to numbers, preferably not with regards to the fact that they're the government) there's no reason they shouldn't be able to offer coverage to anyone who wishes to apply at a cheaper cost than private companies. However, this would still allow for private companies to operate, should citizens choose to purchase insurance from one of these companies.
 
Why must it compete in the marketplace? The marketplace is not hallowed ground, and the point is to drive down the cost of care, yes? Forcing it into a for-profit marketplace would simply lead to monopoly claims by existing insurance agencies.

Not to mention making it a profitable entity would lead to cries from the public that they're overcharging.

The marketplace is simply where commerce happens. I don't believe it to be a sacred place for purification rituals where institutions must pass through in order to claim mantles of legitimacy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why must it compete in the marketplace? The marketplace is not hallowed ground, and the point is to drive down the cost of care, yes? Forcing it into a for-profit marketplace would simply lead to monopoly claims by existing insurance agencies.

Not to mention making it a profitable entity would lead to cries from the public that they're overcharging.

The marketplace is simply where commerce happens. I don't believe it to be a sacred place for purification rituals where institutions must pass through in order to claim mantles of legitimacy.[/QUOTE]

The point is not to just to drive down the cost of care. It's to bring down the costs while keeping (or improving) our current levels of quality. One way to achieve this is by maintaining competition - which is why I believe that the "government option", if you will, would do more good as competition in the open market than operating as either a "government cheese" option or a "public school" option.

Why does it have to be profitable? Merely self-sustainable.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why does it have to be profitable? Merely self-sustainable.[/QUOTE]

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure sounds capitalism in here boyo.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And see, this is what's amusing - I'm the same person here as I am on WCF. As I've said before, I do speak out against Walmart when I think they're in the wrong. You just choose to take in what you want and ignore anything that goes against what you already believe.



Which post were those, exactly? Because if there was a post of your's that did not have an attack/flame (and no, I did not report a single one of your post just because it contained filtered words) that was removed, it was not because I reported it. Every single post of yours that I reported was due to personal attacks on me or other members of this forum. Putting you on ignore does not stop you from making the personal attacks.



Would you prefer "Citizen in legal standing"? How about "Law-abiding citizen"? I think it's pretty obvious.



It's not doing bad, but it is their busy time of year, with catering and all. Poor woman, she left at three in the morning yesterday and got in about midnight last night. It's amazing what hard work can do for one's business.



Oh noes, my phone number is on line! I guess that means that I can't be a big man that hides behind the anonymity of names like "dohdough" or "Sporadic", then attack people with stuff like "Eat a box of dicks" or calling people "f@ggots" (Stay classy, by the way...).



If you honestly think that I should be happy with the option of "Don't pay, but you're breaking the law", then you should also assume that I'd be happy with that same option with regards to automotive insurance - thus rendering your entire argument moot.



First, myke, let me give you credit for attempting to steer the conversation back on topic.

But this is why we can't have a real conversation. If I thought "Government bad, ugh!", then why would I have pointed out that the private market has government oversight? Wouldn't that be a bad thing? This isn't a matter of "Government = Bad" - it's common sense - Choice is good. Oversight is good. Competition is good. Which leads in to the second part of your post...



Honestly, Single-Payer seems like it would be a better option than this monstrosity we have now. As I've said before, I would prefer a government-ran health insurance plan that competes in the private market place. It should be subject to all the same laws and regulations that private companies are subject to. It should be self-sustaining (although, of course, it would need tax payer dollars to get started up - it would be awesome if the plan could eventually pay back those dollars). Since, ideally, a government ran option would have lower overhead (as it would have none of those highly paid executives that y'all hate so much), along with a much stronger bargaining power (with regards to numbers, preferably not with regards to the fact that they're the government) there's no reason they shouldn't be able to offer coverage to anyone who wishes to apply at a cheaper cost than private companies. However, this would still allow for private companies to operate, should citizens choose to purchase insurance from one of these companies.[/QUOTE]
No Bob, I don't think you'd be happy with that alternative, that's what I don't understand. You want to spout theory in the auto insurance argument, then get practical in the health insurance argument. Make up your damn mind.
 
Fine, then - by this same asinine line of thought, no one has to pay for health care at all. You can just go kidnap doctors and health care professionals and force them to provide you with free health care. Therefore, there's no need for any kind of reform in the health care system. You've solved everything, Clak!
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']See, the market just isnt free enough, since monopolies are created by government interference.[/QUOTE]

You won't see a single "plan" about free market healthcare that doesn't involve denying people care for being poor or sickly.

You will see various (at times quite elaborate) mealy mouthed bullshit that tries to sugarcoat the reality and that is all.

A few months ago someone in this thread was asking whether the conservative position really was just to let people die, perhaps he thought there was some nuance he was missing.

And the answer was of course it really is that simple, heck Paul Ryan is still floating around plans that only zero cost controls other than to let people fend for themselves.

Because the Republicans are basically nihilistic sociopaths with zero interest in governing.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The point is not to just to drive down the cost of care. It's to bring down the costs while keeping (or improving) our current levels of quality. One way to achieve this is by maintaining competition - which is why I believe that the "government option", if you will, would do more good as competition in the open market than operating as either a "government cheese" option or a "public school" option.[/quote]

So you admit that the US healthcare system is not the finest in the world? Wowee zowee, we can negotiate from here, can't we?

Why does it have to be profitable? Merely self-sustainable.
Click to expand...

Employees have to be paid; ergo some extraneous monies must be 'redistributed,' to use the parlance of the right, to workers. You're not thinking this through enough.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So you admit that the US healthcare system is not the finest in the world? Wowee zowee, we can negotiate from here, can't we?[/quote]

Didn't say it was or wasn't - just said that we want to - at the very least, keep our current levels of quality. Even if we were #1, it doesn't mean we can't improve.

Employees have to be paid; ergo some extraneous monies must be 'redistributed,' to use the parlance of the right, to workers. You're not thinking this through enough.
Click to expand...

Umm... paying your employees a reasonable wage is part of being self-sustainable. There's not a sane business in the world that puts employee pay in the "profits" column of their business plan.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Didn't say it was or wasn't - just said that we want to - at the very least, keep our current levels of quality.[/QUOTE]

I don't.

Healthcare in this country sucks, it's a goddamn embarrassment in full view of the world.

Even then it's not as much of an embarassment as Americans like you.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't.

Healthcare in this country sucks, it's a goddamn embarrassment in full view of the world.[/QUOTE]

Like I have been saying over the years, we have substandard healthcare and we pay more for the privilege?

Why?

Because anything else would be Communism.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't.[/QUOTE]

You don't want to, "at least" maintain the current level of quality? Meaning you want a lower quality than we have now?
 
I think we should clarify, health care itself in the U.S. is great, if you have access to it. Our health care system sucks basically, not so much the care itself. We do have some of the best facilities in the world, it's just that not everyone can afford to go to them.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Like I have been saying over the years, we have substandard healthcare and we pay more for the privilege?

Why?

Because anything else would be Communism.[/QUOTE]

Amazing how political rhetoric can completely obscure the obvious.

Palin waves her hand and says "this is not the health policy you are looking for" and weak-minded fuckers buy it wholesale.

[quote name='UncleBob']You don't want to, "at least" maintain the current level of quality? Meaning you want a lower quality than we have now?[/QUOTE]

Well that's the difference between you and me isn't it boyo, I dare to dream bigger. You say cope whereas I see hope.

When it comes to present-day America you're happier then a pig in mud, we all get that. When are you going to realize that this isn't all about you you you?
 
[quote name='Clak']I think we should clarify, health care itself in the U.S. is great, if you have access to it. Our health care system sucks basically, not so much the care itself. We do have some of the best facilities in the world, it's just that not everyone can afford to go to them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah - but that doesn't really make a difference. A rich person will always be able to get the healthcare they need, what does it matter if the hospital happens to be in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top