How can anyone be against universal health care?

[Ooberman]

It may cost some extra money, but when was money more important than health?

[dianaiad]

Ok, if the goal is to slow the health care inflation rate and the ensure that poor people have equal access to health care, what is your solution?

... Do I have a better idea?

Yeah. Scrap the whole thing and start over, this time with the Republicans actually allowed to sit in' go to the meetings, vote, stuff like that. They weren't, y'know.


As to my own ideas?

Two. First, Allow insurance companies national access; allow them to compete across state lines, so that (for instance) Kaiser Permanente can provide services in other states, and insurance companies in those other states would have to compete with them.

Second, allow smart entrepreneurial private citizens to set up 'groups' that contract with insurance companies for the same deals those companies give large corporations. Then allow the individual and small business owner to get access to them. This is NOT the same thing as the government 'exchange.' ...

My bad. I'm sorry that I asked. We've been through all your arguments in previous threads. There is nothing in your responses that could significantly slow the health care inflation rate or ensure that poor people have equal access to health care.

Actually, there is.

But then, you are the one who made the claim here. Please show me how 'nothing in [my] responses could significantly slow the heath care inflation rate or ensure that poor people have equal access to health care.

[JohnPaul]

Why is American health care by far the most expensive in the world? Because it is run as a profit-making enterprise, not as a public service, with outrageous profits aided and supported by the government. Why did the health care industry hysterically oppose the earlier Clinton plan, but not a peep out of them against Obamacare? Because Obamacare guaranteed them even more customers, but still allowed them to charge anything they damwell pleased. Why is it illegal to purchase much cheaper prescription drugs from Canada? Because the government wants to protect the profits of American drug companies. etc, etc. You know the stpry, but you have been brain-washed to obstinately deny the only real solution with one word: SOCIALISM!

[10CC]

I still don't understand what you are saying. I never used Europe as an example of anything.

You brought up Godwin's Law, which is about comparison to Nazi Germany. No one mentioned Nazi Germany before you brought up Godwin's Law, but referred to the instability of Europe in response to someone using Europe as a positive example of universal health care. Therefore, I pointed out that you are the one who confirmed Godwin's law by bringing it up and that the original assertion using Europe as a justification for universal healthcare is speculative do to the volatile nature of European politics. After someone asserted that the US pays for minimizing of that volatility, you brought up Godwin's law. So, by bringing up Godwin's law you were rebutting the questioning of Europe as a positive example of universal healthcare. Therefore, by doing that you were basically supporting European healthcare.

Here for your enjoyment is the non reference to nazi germany/

Here's a factoid for you: the population of Germany right now is about 82 million people. As a result of their military activities during the twentieth century, 87 million people died. Of course, they did have help; Japan and Italy in WWII, the 'Ottoman empire" in WWI.

Thanks
My original gambit was along the lines of [sarcasm]it's much better to support a system takes lives than supporting a system that saves lives[/sarcasm] and in response received a non reference to nazi germany. Spin it anyway you like but I never referenced europe, which for the geographically challenged consists of some 30+ separate nations.

[olavisjo]

.

Why is American health care by far the most expensive in the world? Because it is run as a profit-making enterprise, not as a public service, with outrageous profits aided and supported by the government. Why did the health care industry hysterically oppose the earlier Clinton plan, but not a peep out of them against Obamacare? Because Obamacare guaranteed them even more customers, but still allowed them to charge anything they damwell pleased. Why is it illegal to purchase much cheaper prescription drugs from Canada? Because the government wants to protect the profits of American drug companies. etc, etc. You know the story, but you have been brain-washed to obstinately deny the only real solution with one word: SOCIALISM!

America might not have the best health care system in the world, but at least we have the most expensive.
When I lived in your great state, I had Kaiser Permanente. I went to their office once for an intake physical and never saw the insides of that place again, but for nine years my employer sent them check every month. It was in their best interest to keep me away, as they would not get more money from me if they did do anything for me. So they just sent me literature about nutrition, exercise and other healthy living things.
So, why can't we do that on a national level? One medical system, one payer.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[10CC]

.

Why is American health care by far the most expensive in the world? Because it is run as a profit-making enterprise, not as a public service, with outrageous profits aided and supported by the government. Why did the health care industry hysterically oppose the earlier Clinton plan, but not a peep out of them against Obamacare? Because Obamacare guaranteed them even more customers, but still allowed them to charge anything they damwell pleased. Why is it illegal to purchase much cheaper prescription drugs from Canada? Because the government wants to protect the profits of American drug companies. etc, etc. You know the story, but you have been brain-washed to obstinately deny the only real solution with one word: SOCIALISM!

America might not have the best health care system in the world, but at least we have the most expensive.
When I lived in your great state, I had Kaiser Permanente. I went to their office once for an intake physical and never saw the insides of that place again, but for nine years my employer sent them check every month. It was in their best interest to keep me away, as they would not get more money from me if they did do anything for me. So they just sent me literature about nutrition, exercise and other healthy living things.
So, why can't we do that on a national level? One medical system, one payer.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Do you consider that the wealth of the nation should not be invested in the health and prosperity of the citizens of the nation? Or do you consider that the wealth of the nation should be utilized to increase the already obscene wealth of those who exploit the nations wealth, not restricted to but inclusive of the citizens of the nation?

[dianaiad]

I still don't understand what you are saying. I never used Europe as an example of anything.

You brought up Godwin's Law, which is about comparison to Nazi Germany. No one mentioned Nazi Germany before you brought up Godwin's Law, but referred to the instability of Europe in response to someone using Europe as a positive example of universal health care. Therefore, I pointed out that you are the one who confirmed Godwin's law by bringing it up and that the original assertion using Europe as a justification for universal healthcare is speculative do to the volatile nature of European politics. After someone asserted that the US pays for minimizing of that volatility, you brought up Godwin's law. So, by bringing up Godwin's law you were rebutting the questioning of Europe as a positive example of universal healthcare. Therefore, by doing that you were basically supporting European healthcare.

Here for your enjoyment is the non reference to nazi germany/

Here's a factoid for you: the population of Germany right now is about 82 million people. As a result of their military activities during the twentieth century, 87 million people died. Of course, they did have help; Japan and Italy in WWII, the 'Ottoman empire" in WWI.

Thanks
My original gambit was along the lines of [sarcasm]it's much better to support a system takes lives than supporting a system that saves lives[/sarcasm] and in response received a non reference to nazi germany. Spin it anyway you like but I never referenced europe, which for the geographically challenged consists of some 30+ separate nations.

Actually, your sarcastic 'they' refered to the previous poster's mention of Europe. Which means you were talking about Europe. I responded with some uncomfortable facts regarding Europe's warlike ways.

......and since I included in my response to you Kaiser Wilhelm's war (nary a Nazi around) as well as the 'helper' nations, like the Ottoman empire (sorry...they were Nazi's? TURKEY?) as well as Italy and Japan...er, I think you have expanded your definition of Godwin's law a bit too far. Indeed, "Quirk's exception' works well here.

As well, when speaking of Europe, it's quite permissible to mention European nations, even if one of them is Germany, without invoking Godwin's law. Remember, that law is about the extraneous use of Hitler and Nazism.

Neither of which, btw, were mentioned.

Except by you.

(shrug)

[olavisjo]

.

America might not have the best health care system in the world, but at least we have the most expensive.
When I lived in your great state, I had Kaiser Permanente. I went to their office once for an intake physical and never saw the insides of that place again, but for nine years my employer sent them check every month. It was in their best interest to keep me away, as they would not get more money from me if they did do anything for me. So they just sent me literature about nutrition, exercise and other healthy living things.
So, why can't we do that on a national level? One medical system, one payer.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Do you consider that the wealth of the nation should not be invested in the health and prosperity of the citizens of the nation? Or do you consider that the wealth of the nation should be utilized to increase the already obscene wealth of those who exploit the nations wealth, not restricted to but inclusive of the citizens of the nation?

Normally I would just ignore questions like these, but since you are new here I will ask you if your questions had anything to do with what you quoted me as saying? If yes, then what did I say that led you to ask those questions?

[10CC]

I still don't understand what you are saying. I never used Europe as an example of anything.

You brought up Godwin's Law, which is about comparison to Nazi Germany. No one mentioned Nazi Germany before you brought up Godwin's Law, but referred to the instability of Europe in response to someone using Europe as a positive example of universal health care. Therefore, I pointed out that you are the one who confirmed Godwin's law by bringing it up and that the original assertion using Europe as a justification for universal healthcare is speculative do to the volatile nature of European politics. After someone asserted that the US pays for minimizing of that volatility, you brought up Godwin's law. So, by bringing up Godwin's law you were rebutting the questioning of Europe as a positive example of universal healthcare. Therefore, by doing that you were basically supporting European healthcare.

Here for your enjoyment is the non reference to nazi germany/

Here's a factoid for you: the population of Germany right now is about 82 million people. As a result of their military activities during the twentieth century, 87 million people died. Of course, they did have help; Japan and Italy in WWII, the 'Ottoman empire" in WWI.

Thanks
My original gambit was along the lines of [sarcasm]it's much better to support a system takes lives than supporting a system that saves lives[/sarcasm] and in response received a non reference to nazi germany. Spin it anyway you like but I never referenced europe, which for the geographically challenged consists of some 30+ separate nations.

Actually, your sarcastic 'they' refered to the previous poster's mention of Europe. Which means you were talking about Europe. I responded with some uncomfortable facts regarding Europe's warlike ways.

......and since I included in my response to you Kaiser Wilhelm's war (nary a Nazi around) as well as the 'helper' nations, like the Ottoman empire (sorry...they were Nazi's? TURKEY?) as well as Italy and Japan...er, I think you have expanded your definition of Godwin's law a bit too far. Indeed, "Quirk's exception' works well here.

As well, when speaking of Europe, it's quite permissible to mention European nations, even if one of them is Germany, without invoking Godwin's law. Remember, that law is about the extraneous use of Hitler and Nazism.

Neither of which, btw, were mentioned.

Except by you.

(shrug)

As I said spin it anyway you like but it was you who introduced nazi germany along with others. At least american carpetbaggers made a lot of money out of those deaths, so some good came of it.

[dianaiad]

As I said spin it anyway you like but it was you who introduced nazi germany along with others. At least american carpetbaggers made a lot of money out of those deaths, so some good came of it.

"American carpetbaggers?"

hooookaaayyyy.....

First, Quirk's exception, then a sort of tu qouque... your debate style is certainly running the gambit of everything but addressing the topic.

Lessee...do you think you could bring the issue back to universal health care?

[10CC]

As I said spin it anyway you like but it was you who introduced nazi germany along with others. At least american carpetbaggers made a lot of money out of those deaths, so some good came of it.

"American carpetbaggers?"

hooookaaayyyy.....

First, Quirk's exception, then a sort of tu qouque... your debate style is certainly running the gambit of everything but addressing the topic.

Lessee...do you think you could bring the issue back to universal health care?

Oh I'm sorry you don't seem to have supported your claim that a system for taking lives is a better system than one for saving lives. Would you care to make that argument?