Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on February 26, 2010, 02:50:15 PM
-
-
...waiting for HH6, 333386 and Skip82 to chime in.
Funny how all the soldier boys are the first to criticise "socialised" medicine... if they disagree with socialised medicine on principle, why did they join the government-run taxpayer-funded socialised military with it's government-run taxpayer-funded socialised education and government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare...?
Is it just another case of right wingers objecting to anyone else getting what they have?
That seems to be an endemic theme in right wing radio hate speech: welfare isn't the problem, blacks receiving welfare is the problem... budget deficits aren't the problem (when Republicans borrow and spend), democrats running a deficit is the problem... handguns aren't the problem; blacks having handguns is the problem... Rush Limbaugh spouting hate-speech ten hours a day to impressionable uneducated Evangelicals isn't the problem; Americans being exposed to the facts is the problem.
Try to think around the corporate propaganda programming people.
The Luke
PS-thanks blacken700 for the vid, you are consistently the best content provider on this board.
-
They should all be bound to whatever healthcare bill is passed or pay out of pocket and be fined.
-
...waiting for HH6, 333386 and Skip82 to chime in.
Funny how all the soldier boys are the first to criticise "socialised" medicine... if they disagree with socialised medicine on principle, why did they join the government-run taxpayer-funded socialised military with it's government-run taxpayer-funded socialised education and government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare...?
Is it just another case of right wingers objecting to anyone else getting what they have?
That seems to be an endemic theme in right wing radio hate speech: welfare isn't the problem, blacks receiving welfare is the problem... budget deficits aren't the problem (when Republicans borrow and spend), democrats running a deficit is the problem... handguns aren't the problem; blacks having handguns is the problem... Rush Limbaugh spouting hate-speech ten hours a day to impressionable uneducated Evangelicals isn't the problem; Americans being exposed to the facts is the problem.
Try to think around the corporate propaganda programming people.
The Luke
PS-thanks blacken700 for the vid, you are consistently the best content provider on this board.
In case you didnt know midget, Blacken is a repeated plagerizer. As for this video, I agree, none of these bums should get medical on my dime, let them pay their own way like I do and get a real job.
-
and in case you didn't know 333386 is an admitted racist. shit i just found that out. you talk about a plagerizer,and your a racist, doesn't get much worse then that
-
In case you didnt know midget, Blacken is a repeated plagerizer. As for this video, I agree, none of these bums should get medical on my dime, let them pay their own way like I do and get a real job.
...eh, aren't you a soldier getting your healthcare on everyone else's dime?
The Luke
-
...eh, aren't you a soldier getting your healthcare on everyone else's dime?
The Luke
No, i am self employed and pay my own insurance every month.
-
...waiting for HH6, 333386 and Skip82 to chime in.
Funny how all the soldier boys are the first to criticise "socialised" medicine... if they disagree with socialised medicine on principle, why did they join the government-run taxpayer-funded socialised military with it's government-run taxpayer-funded socialised education and government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare...?
Is it just another case of right wingers objecting to anyone else getting what they have?
That seems to be an endemic theme in right wing radio hate speech: welfare isn't the problem, blacks receiving welfare is the problem... budget deficits aren't the problem (when Republicans borrow and spend), democrats running a deficit is the problem... handguns aren't the problem; blacks having handguns is the problem... Rush Limbaugh spouting hate-speech ten hours a day to impressionable uneducated Evangelicals isn't the problem; Americans being exposed to the facts is the problem.
Try to think around the corporate propaganda programming people.
The Luke
PS-thanks blacken700 for the vid, you are consistently the best content provider on this board.
Idiot,
1. I'm not a soldier.
2. Blacken is a moron and that's being nice.
3. I'm endlessly pointing out that accessbility is a huge problem with our system. It's something that should be addressed, though I'm not confident it's going to happen overnight or with one healthcare bill. Perhaps you should actually take some reading comprehension courses?
4. That doesn't mean you socialize the entire thing. There are solutions that don't require taking over the whole system.
-
Fuck Dick Durbin and his dumb ass straw man arguments. Seems to me the DC "elite" are exempt for this shit sandwich they are trying to feed to the rest of us.
-
No, i am self employed and pay my own insurance every month.
But you are a veteran, right? And, as a veteran, if you end up being one of those 15-17% of INSURED Americans who are denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness... you can simply fall back on your government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare.
Must be nice.
The rest of those ONE IN SIX INSURED AMERICANS who end up being denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness just have to go bankrupt; end up homeless or die.
No wonder you are so pro-socialism.
The Lukee
-
But you are a veteran, right? And, as a veteran, if you end up being one of those 15-17% of INSURED Americans who are denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness... you can simply fall back on your government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare.
Must be nice.
The rest of those ONE IN SIX INSURED AMERICANS who end up being denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness just have to go bankrupt; end up homeless or die.
No wonder you are so pro-socialism.
The Lukee
I dont believe 333 is a vet but if he was that "fall back" ::) as you put it was in return for HIS FUKING SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY so STFU about it.
-
Mark Levine calls Dick Durbin "Little Dick" Durbin, lol!
-
But you are a veteran, right? And, as a veteran, if you end up being one of those 15-17% of INSURED Americans who are denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness... you can simply fall back on your government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare.
Must be nice.
The rest of those ONE IN SIX INSURED AMERICANS who end up being denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness just have to go bankrupt; end up homeless or die.
No wonder you are so pro-socialism.
The Lukee
Wrong again einstein.
-
I dont believe 333 is a vet but if he was that "fall back" ::) as you put it was in return for HIS FUKING SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY so STFU about it.
So, a ghetto crack-baby five-year-old with chicken pox should enlist if he wants antibiotics...?
Is that how it should work? Kill brown people for oil and get healthcare?
The Luke
-
So, a ghetto crack-baby five-year-old with chicken pox should enlist if he wants antibiotics...?
Is that how it should work? Kill brown people for oil and get healthcare?
The Luke
Show me anywhere in this country where 5yr old crack babies with chicken pox are being denied healthcare. This is the kind of stupidity that makes it hard for those of us who advocate health reform - Nonsense arguments.
-
Show me anywhere in this country where 5yr old crack babies with chicken pox are being denied healthcare. This is the kind of stupidity that makes it hard for those of us who advocate health reform - Nonsense arguments.
Type: "infant mortality USA" then click "Google search"
The Luke
-
Type: "infant mortality USA" then click "Google search"
The Luke
That's due to our higher rate of premies (sp?), not a denial of medical care. Again, show me where (a study/anything) that shows 5yr old crack babies with chicken pox are being denied medical care. BTW, Ireland's not doing so great with infant mortality either.
-
...waiting for HH6, 333386 and Skip82 to chime in.
Funny how all the soldier boys are the first to criticise "socialised" medicine... if they disagree with socialised medicine on principle, why did they join the government-run taxpayer-funded socialised military with it's government-run taxpayer-funded socialised education and government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare...?
Is it just another case of right wingers objecting to anyone else getting what they have?
...eh, aren't you a soldier getting your healthcare on everyone else's dime?
The Luke
It's Luke at his finest, more supreme buffoonery. What manner or crack-headed reasoning did you use on this one?
333386 isn't in the military; I think Skip is (or was). Of course, you could talk that smack to HH6. But, you know he'll dismember your musings, if you do.
Military healthcare IS NOT socialized healthcare. You only get it (TriCare) IF you're under DoD's employ.
In other words, you MUST WORK (a novel concept for you, perhaps) for DoD to get its benefits. You aren't entitled to such, simply because you have a pulse. Said another way. you don't get Wal-Mart's benefits, if you work at Chick-Fil-A or don't work at all.
But you are a veteran, right? And, as a veteran, if you end up being one of those 15-17% of INSURED Americans who are denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness... you can simply fall back on your government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare.
Must be nice.
The rest of those ONE IN SIX INSURED AMERICANS who end up being denied coverage in the case of catastrophic illness just have to go bankrupt; end up homeless or die.
No wonder you are so pro-socialism.
The Lukee
Once you separate from the military, your healthcare benefits are GONE. Just as in the civilian world, if you lost your job, you don't keep that job's healthcare insurance. If a solider/salior/airman/marine gets booted for smoking crack, he doesn't keep his TriCare bennies, even if he is a veteran. He simply get a "big chicken dinner" and a foot in the backside.
And, if you were referring to retired vets as those who can "simply fall back on your government-run taxpayer-funded socialised healthcare", here's a news flash for you: RETIRED VETERANS STILL WORK FOR DoD. They are simply put on what's called (in the Navy, at least) "Fleet Reserve". Technically, they can still be activated for duty, under certain circumstances. But, the odds of that happening are small. That's WHY they still get a paycheck and still KEEP their health insurance for themselves and their dependents (wives and children).
-
So, please explain to us, boy genius, how military depend on "socialized" healthcare again.
-
So, a ghetto crack-baby five-year-old with chicken pox should enlist if he wants antibiotics...?
Is that how it should work? Kill brown people for oil and get healthcare?
The Luke
Hardly, O ye of big mouth and little sense.
His mother should have a job. But, as is the case in life, when parents do stupid crap, their kids pay the price for it. That doesn't mandate, however, that the government (or anyone else) pick up the tab for that woman's misgivings.
Plus, there's still the little matter of your silly explanation as to how military folks are using socialized healthcare...Tick, tock!!!
-
Plus, there's still the little matter of your silly explanation as to how military folks are using socialized healthcare...Tick, tock!!!
...you don't seem to understand the definition of "socialised".
But isn't that the whole basis of this anti-Obama Teabagger backlash?
Ask yourself, what kind of healthcare would Jesus vote for.
The Luke
-
...you don't seem to understand the definition of "socialised".
But isn't that the whole basis of this anti-Obama Teabagger backlash?
Ask yourself, what kind of healthcare would Jesus vote for.
The Luke
Then, enlightened us, O Silly one.
Then, explain exactly how TriCare is "socialized" healthcare (notwithstanding the fact that military folks only get it while under DoD employ).
-
Type: "infant mortality USA" then click "Google search"
The Luke
my guess is the infant mortality rate for 5 y/o crack babies is from the crack addicted family not feeding or taking care of their needs..just spending their welfare checks on shit other than food for their children...5 y/o crack babies with chicken pox will never be denied healthcare...only thing they are denied is proper fucking upbringing by the baby factories that produce them.
-
my guess is the infant mortality rate for 5 y/o crack babies is from the crack addicted family not feeding or taking care of their needs..just spending their welfare checks on shit other than food for their children...5 y/o crack babies with chicken pox will never be denied healthcare...only thing they are denied is proper fucking upbringing by the baby factories that produce them.
Yep!!!
Now, there's still the litter matter of Boy Genius, explaining how TriCare (health insurance for military/DoD employees) is "socialized".
-
The Luke is obviously a moron.NOT ONCE in Jesus' life did he ever say "the government must take care of the poor" NOT ONCE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!He expected those with means to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart.Now,lets see,Obama and his tranny ,slump shouldered wife gave less then 1% of their income to charity,but he turns around and will call me selfish because I dont want the finthy government stealing my money and wasting it on foolish programs BUT I give 20% of my income to the poor.
Typical idiot left wing bullshit.Id love to know how much little Dick Durbin gives in charrity.My bet is close to nothing.Just like all libs,they dont give they want the government to steal.
-
Mark Levine calls Dick Durbin "Little Dick" Durbin, lol!
I wonder how he knows this 'fact' !?! first hand / mouth experience?
-
And, we STILL have no word from Boy Genius as to why TriCare is socialized healthcare.
-
you'll be rip van winkle by the time he googles it...and tries to make an argument..
-
you'll be rip van winkle by the time he googles it...and tries to make an argument..
The beard is starting to kick into gear. And, Boy Genius is MIA.
-
Got more grey in my beard. Where's Boy Genius (The Luke) and his explanation about military health insurance being "socialized"?
-
The Luke is obviously a moron.NOT ONCE in Jesus' life did he ever say "the government must take care of the poor" NOT ONCE EVER!!!!!!!!!!!He expected those with means to help the poor out of the goodness of their heart.Now,lets see,Obama and his tranny ,slump shouldered wife gave less then 1% of their income to charity,but he turns around and will call me selfish because I dont want the finthy government stealing my money and wasting it on foolish programs BUT I give 20% of my income to the poor.
...how Christian of you.
The Luke
-
...how Christian of you.
The Luke
Still waiting, Luke. Why is TriCare (military healthcare) "socialized"?
-
Still waiting, Luke. Why is TriCare (military healthcare) "socialized"?
...'cos the public pays for/subsidises it...?
What do you think "socialised" means?
The Luke
-
...'cos the public pays for/subsidises it...?
What do you think "socialised" means?
The Luke
The public only pays for THOSE WHO WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Once that cease to be the case, the public STOPS paying for vets' healthcare.
Your statement is that vets simply "fall back" on socialized healthcare. What they are doing is falling back on the healthcare that is part of their package, because THEY WORK for DoD: Active Duty, DoD civilian, Reserve, and Fleet Reserve ("Retired").
They don't get healthcare, simply for breathing.
-
The public only pays for THOSE WHO WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. Once that cease to be the case, the public STOPS paying for vets' healthcare.
Your statement is that vets simply "fall back" on socialized healthcare. What they are doing is falling back on the healthcare that is part of their package, because THEY WORK for DoD: Active Duty, DoD civilian, Reserve, and Fleet Reserve ("Retired").
They don't get healthcare, simply for breathing.
...so who funds the DoD?
The Luke
-
Wouldnt someone who has served his country in the military be a far different case then some lazy ass in Omas community who doesnt work,doesnt produce and is a parasite to those that do?
-
...you don't seem to understand the definition of "socialised".
But isn't that the whole basis of this anti-Obama Teabagger backlash?
Ask yourself, what kind of healthcare would Jesus vote for.
The Luke
LIBERAL SOCIALISTS USING JESUS TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT = YOU LOSE!
I'm sure jesus would approve of partial birth abortion, gay marriage, death panels, rationing of old people based on community standards, stealing 50% and more of peoples' labor, all to fund this garbage.
Luke - face it, you lost this debate again, like every other one.
-
And lo, Jesus did lay his hands upon the leper, and did heal him.
Then Jesus asked the man whom he had healed: "So, what type of insurance do you have?"
To which the leper replied: "Jesus, I am a poor beggar... I have no insurance"
And Jesus did answer: "Well fuck you then. Healthcare is not a right. You should pay your own way. This needs to be sorted out by the free market".
And Jesus did smite the man with leprosy... and it was good.
The Luke
-
Well atleast you got one thing correct, healthcare is not a right.
-
Well atleast you got one thing correct, healthcare is not a right.
Except for in the UN charter... and except for in the Geneva Convention... and except for POWs... and except for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and except for in the Army Field Manual... and except for enemy combatants.
Well, George W Bush provided taxpayer-funded government-run free access universal socialised healthcare for the poor assholes being raped and tortured in Guantanamo Bay... but it seems the guys who voted for the naked child emperor don't think they deserve it.
So, is that the Palin-voter stance... "Our kids can do without, give that care to dem dere Al Quaeda!"
Morons.
The Luke
-
Except for in the UN charter... and except for in the Geneva Convention... and except for POWs... and except for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... and except for in the Army Field Manual... and except for enemy combatants.
Well, George W Bush provided taxpayer-funded government-run free access universal socialised healthcare for the poor assholes being raped and tortured in Guantanamo Bay... but it seems the guys who voted for the naked child emperor don't think they deserve it.
So, is that the Palin-voter stance... "Our kids can do without, give that care to dem dere Al Quaeda!"
Morons.
The Luke
And the only thing that matters to the US citizen is the US constitution, and no where does it way healthcare is a right. You always have to make some off the wall BS straw man argument and of course call people stupid, when in fact if you had a fucking clue, you would know that the federal government pushing this is unconstitutional. This is a decision to be made at the state level. And since you don't agree I can only say, well tuff shit.
And on top of that the only reason POW/Enemy combatants get medical treatment is because we expect our soldiers to be treated the same, in the case of the terrorist girls at gitmo, they can go fuck themselves.
-
And the only thing that matters to the US citizen is the US constitution, and no where does it way healthcare is a right. You always have to make some off the wall BS straw man argument and of course call people stupid, when in fact if you had a fucking clue, you would know that the federal government pushing this is unconstitutional. This is a decision to be made at the state level. And since you don't agree I can only say, well tuff shit.
That's a weak argument...
Strict Constitutional adherence would eliminate about 98% of US law, for example:
-there's no mention of income tax in the Constitution;
-there's no mention of the Federal Reserve ("only Congress shall have the power to print/mint money");
-there's no mention of an army (the word "militia" is used in the Second Amendment)
-there's no mention of a space program (it was the eighteenth century)
-there's no mention of foreign interventions (Iraq, Afghanistan...?)
Let's get realistic: the US signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares healthcare a basic human right.
The US government already provides taxpayer-funded government-run totally inclusive free-access unlimited socialised healthcare at NO COST to those receiving it... it's in Gitmo, but nonetheless.
Why don't Americans want, say, France's system... full coverage, best system in the world, and half the price you're currently paying?
Do Americans think they deserve LESS than "enemy combatants"... propagandised much?
The Luke
-
Luke - should food, water, and shelter also be "rights"? If yes, under what authority?
-
Luke - should food, water, and shelter also be "rights"? If yes, under what authority?
...they are in Europe.
Hasn't caused the collapse of society over here. Maybe, travel a bit more.
The Luke
-
Luke - should food, water, and shelter also be "rights"? If yes, under what authority?
...they are in Europe.
Hasn't caused the collapse of society over here. Maybe, travel a bit more.The Luke
2 times in a row, Luke! "by what authority", maybe, BIGFOOT'S? Where do they come from, Luke?
BTW, McWay says you copy his writting, style. ;D
GC
-
2 times in a row, Luke! "by what authority", maybe, BIGFOOT'S? Where do they from, Luke?
...eh, what authority? Basic human decency?
The Luke
-
...eh, what authority? Basic human decency?
The Luke
I haven't seen that, since the DAWN of TIME.
GC
-
...eh, what authority? Basic human decency?
The Luke
In other words, you are talking out of your ass again and have absolutely nothing to back up your arguments, like most other pronouncements you make.
-
...so who funds the DoD?
The Luke
We know who funds it, the taxpayers. But, what you conveniently keep DODGING is the fact that vets only get TriCare WHILE UNDER DOD's EMPLOY.
The instance you separate, TriCare goes bye-bye. You don't get it, just for having a pulse.
So, it's much like the civilian world. As long as someone's at his job, he gets healthcare benefits. When he quits or gets fired, THE BENEFITS STOP!!
So, contrary to your silly claim, vets aren't simply falling back on socialized medicine. They are simply getting the benefits that are RIGHTFULLY THEIRS as DoD employees.
-
Wouldnt someone who has served his country in the military be a far different case then some lazy ass in Omas community who doesnt work,doesnt produce and is a parasite to those that do?
It goes back to what I said earlier, vets (still employed by DoD: active, reserve, retired) get the insurance. Vets who have been discharged don't.
-
Once again, Boy Genius, you got some 'splainin' to do.
-
LIBERAL SOCIALISTS USING JESUS TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT = YOU LOSE!
I'm sure jesus would approve of partial birth abortion, gay marriage, death panels, rationing of old people based on community standards, stealing 50% and more of peoples' labor, all to fund this garbage.
Luke - face it, you lost this debate again, like every other one.
.....which might explain why he has show up here and defend his claim about right-wingers not wanting socialized healthcare yet falling back on such, if they're in the military. He even tried to call you, Skip, and HH6 out (forgetting or not knowing that you aren't in the Armed Forces).
-
.....which might explain why he has show up here and defend his claim about right-wingers not wanting socialized healthcare yet falling back on such, if they're in the military. He even tried to call you, Skip, and HH6 out (forgetting or not knowing that you aren't in the Armed Forces).
Every now and then Luke gets his courage up and gets slapped the shit out of. He forgets the beating he takes and then comes back for more, just like in this thread.
-
Every now and then Luke gets his courage up and gets slapped the shit out of. He forgets the beating he takes and then comes back for more, just like in this thread.
I hope he hurries; my beard is growing back.
-
Lots of attacks while I'm offline, (time difference)...
But I'm confused here, when you guys say "veterans", do you mean those who have been soldiers... or those who have fought in actual wars?
I was under the impression that those who had seen actual fighting were entitled to VA hospital coverage for life...? Am I wrong?
The Luke
-
Lots of attacks while I'm offline, (time difference)...
But I'm confused here, when you guys say "veterans", do you mean those who have been soldiers... or those who have fought in actual wars?
I was under the impression that those who had seen actual fighting were entitled to VA hospital coverage for life...? Am I wrong?
The Luke
You're not confused. You simply didn't read what was stated.
Recap:
Vets only get TriCare WHILE UNDER DOD's EMPLOY.
The instance you separate, TriCare goes bye-bye. You don't get it, just for having a pulse.
Someone can serve for 20 years, without seeing a lick of combat and, upon retirement, would have healthcare benefits FOR LIFE. Conversely, a Vietnam vet, who served in combat but got axed with a Dishonorable Discharge or "Big Chicken Dinner" DOESN'T GET JACK.
So, it's much like the civilian world. As long as someone's at his job, he gets healthcare benefits. When he quits or gets fired, THE BENEFITS STOP!!
Vets aren't simply falling back on socialized medicine. They are simply getting the benefits that are RIGHTFULLY THEIRS as DoD employees.
Even if what you said were true about vets serving in wars, THAT STILL WOULD NOT BE “socialized” healthcare. They are simply being paid for the service that they provided to DoD.
-
You're not confused. You simply didn't read what was stated.
Recap:
Vets only get TriCare WHILE UNDER DOD's EMPLOY.
The instance you separate, TriCare goes bye-bye. You don't get it, just for having a pulse.
So, it's much like the civilian world. As long as someone's at his job, he gets healthcare benefits. When he quits or gets fired, THE BENEFITS STOP!!
Vets aren't simply falling back on socialized medicine. They are simply getting the benefits that are RIGHTFULLY THEIRS as DoD employees.
...well if you don't answer my question, and won't explain exactly what you mean by "veteran", how can we discuss this?
The Luke
-
You're not confused. You simply didn't read what was stated.
Recap:
Vets only get TriCare WHILE UNDER DOD's EMPLOY.
The instance you separate, TriCare goes bye-bye. You don't get it, just for having a pulse.
So, it's much like the civilian world. As long as someone's at his job, he gets healthcare benefits. When he quits or gets fired, THE BENEFITS STOP!!
Vets aren't simply falling back on socialized medicine. They are simply getting the benefits that are RIGHTFULLY THEIRS as DoD employees.
Even if what you said were true about vets serving in wars, THAT STILL WOULD NOT BE “socialized” healthcare. They are simply being paid for the service that they provided to DoD.
I want to examine why Luke resorted to bringing "Jesus" into this whole mess when the typical socialist like himself actually mocks RW chrisitians for doing the same on other topics. I am not religious at all, but i thought Lukes' Jesus comment was a White Flag oF Surrender in my mind.
-
I want to examine why Luke resorted to bringing "Jesus" into this whole mess when the typical socialist like himself actually mocks RW chrisitians for doing the same on other topics. I am not religious at all, but i thought Lukes' Jesus comment was a White Flag oF Surrender in my mind.
...so can you answer my question?
If I was a soldier, saw active duty (actual warfare), came home and got a job, lost my job and walked into a VA hospital... can I get treatment?
The Luke
-
...well if you don't answer my question, and won't explain exactly what you mean by "veteran", how can we discuss this?
The Luke
Simple! By your realizing that YOU MUST BE UNDER THE DOD's EMPLOY TO GET TRICARE. That is, the people who get TriCare are: Active duty military, Retired military, and dependents (wife, husband, kids) of such.
A Veteran has simply served in a military operation. But that doesn't matter. If he is no longer part of the Department of Defense, HE GETS NO HEALTHCARE.
-
...so can you answer my question?
If I was a soldier, saw active duty (actual warfare), came home and got a job, lost my job and walked into a VA hospital... can I get treatment?
The Luke
I have no idea as I am not in the military.
-
...so can you answer my question?
If I was a soldier, saw active duty (actual warfare), came home and got a job, lost my job and walked into a VA hospital... can I get treatment?
The Luke
Only if you honorably discharged. Plus, you must meet these qualifications as well:
- You were discharged or separated for medical reasons, early out, or hardship
- You served in theater of combat operations within the past 5 years
- You were discharged from the military because of a disability (not preexisting)
- You are a former Prisoner of War
- You received a Purple Heart Medal
- You receive VA pension or disability benefits
- You receive state Medicaid benefits
Of course, that's still not "socialized" medicine. It is simply payment for (once) being employed by DoD.
-
I have no idea as I am not in the military.
My mistake, I thought you HH6 and Skip82 were all soldiers or former soldiers.
But McWAY has answered my question:
Only if you honorably discharged. Plus, you must meet these qualifications as well:
- You were discharged or separated for medical reasons, early out, or hardship
- You served in theater of combat operations within the past 5 years
- You were discharged from the military because of a disability (not preexisting)
- You are a former Prisoner of War
- You received a Purple Heart Medal
- You receive VA pension or disability benefits
- You receive state Medicaid benefits
...so when I said a veteran who was denied coverage by his own private insurer could fall back on socialised medicine... how was I wrong?
The Luke
-
My mistake, I thought you HH6 and Skip82 were all soldiers or former soldiers.
But McWAY has answered my question:
...so when I said a veteran who was denied coverage by his own private insurer could fall back on socialised medicine... how was I wrong?
The Luke
I mentioned that earlier. You get the medicine, as payment (of sorts) for being a DoD employee in good standing. Once that ceases to be the case, you don't get it anymore.
Plus, not everyone gets it and you can LOSE it, due to conduct/rule violations.
-
I mentioned that earlier. You get the medicine, as payment (of sorts) for being a DoD employee in good standing. Once that ceases to be the case, you don't get it anymore.
So, if you already receive socialised payments of some sort from the DoD, you are also entitled to socialised healthcare...?
I don't understand your argument.
The Luke
-
So, if you already receive socialised payments of some sort from the DoD, you are also entitled to socialised healthcare...?
I don't understand your argument.
The Luke
My argument is that your use of "socialized" is woefully misguided. Getting a paycheck or healthcare benefits from an employer isn't socialized (not even if that employer is the Department of Defense).
If you work for Chick-Fil-A, you get paid by Chick-Fil-A and receive whatever benefits that company offers.
If you work for Disney, you get paid by Disney and get its benefits package.
Same goes for DoD. You work for it; you get paid by it and receive whatever perks inherent therein.
-
My argument is that your use of "socialized" is woefully misguided. Getting a paycheck or healthcare benefits from an employer isn't socialized (not even if that employer is the Department of Defense).
...so my definition of socialised is wrong, because your definition of "employed" includes retired people and former employees?
The Luke
-
...so my definition of socialised is wrong, because your definition of "employed" includes retired people and former employees?
The Luke
That's not MY definition of "employed". Retired military are actually (at least in the Navy) in the "Fleet Reserve", meaning that they can be reactivated, under certain (albeit unlikely) circumstances.
They STILL work for DoD.
333386, Skip, and HH6 don't have a problem with folks getting benefits, because they WORK for the military.
-
That's not MY definition of "employed". Retired military are actually (at least in the Navy) in the "Fleet Reserve", meaning that they can be reactivated, under certain (albeit unlikely) circumstances.
They STILL work for DoD.
333386, Skip, and HH6 don't have a problem with folks getting benefits, because they WORK for the military.
...so socialised soldiers get socialised medicine?
The Luke
-
...so socialised soldiers get socialised medicine?
The Luke
Where do get this "socialized" stuff?
They get the benefits that their employer provides, just as those who work for Chick-Fil-A, Exxon, or any place else.
-
That's not MY definition of "employed". Retired military are actually (at least in the Navy) in the "Fleet Reserve", meaning that they can be reactivated, under certain (albeit unlikely) circumstances.
They STILL work for DoD.
333386, Skip, and HH6 don't have a problem with folks getting benefits, because they WORK for the military.
Its called part of the compensation package, its not a right.
-
Its called part of the compensation package, its not a right.
In the situation where wounded veterans are called back to active duty, wouldn't every able-bodied American be drafted too?
So are they technically in the DOD's employ also? If so, why don't they qualify for Tricare?
The Luke
-
Its called part of the compensation package, its not a right.
That's the term for which I was searching. Thanks!!!
-
In the situation where wounded veterans are called back to active duty, wouldn't every able-bodied American be drafted too?
So are they technically in the DOD's employ also? If so, why don't they qualify for Tricare?
The Luke
Because they aren't getting a paycheck for present or past service. You don't get paid for potential or alleged future military duty.
Plus, wounded vets aren't called back into service, unless they are retired and still able to perform. Even then, those are extremely rare circumstances.
-
Because they aren't getting a paycheck for present or past service. You don't get paid for potential or alleged future military duty.
So getting back on the point of this thread, a senator should be entitled to lifetime socialised healthcare after his first term?
The Luke
-
So getting back on the point of this thread, a senator should be entitled to lifetime socialised healthcare after his first term?
The Luke
Hell no. Its a rip off of the taxpayer. I am completely against this abuse of taxpayers.
-
So getting back on the point of this thread, a senator should be entitled to lifetime socialised healthcare after his first term?
The Luke
That's not an entitlement. If that's part of a benefits package (something with which I certainly don't agree), that's STILL not "socialized".
Once again, your use of the word (referring to anyone employed by the government) is woefully inaccurate.
Neither 333386 nor I oppose anyone getting healthcare FROM HIS EMPLOYER (even if it's a government entity like DoD).
-
Hell no. Its a rip off of the taxpayer. I am completely against this abuse of taxpayers.
...except when it comes to soldiers, right?
That's not an entitlement. If that's part of a benefits package (something with which I certainly don't agree), that's STILL not "socialized".
Once again, your use of the word (referring to anyone employed by the government) is woefully inaccurate.
Neither 333386 nor I oppose anyone getting healthcare FROM HIS EMPLOYER (even if it's a government entity like DoD).
...dude, ANY service provided by or subsidised by the government via the taxpayer is, by definition, SOCIALISED. In fact, ANY service provided by the public for members of the public with public money is SOCIALISED.
For that matter, (technically) charities are socialised too. Check a dictionary.
The Luke
-
...except when it comes to soldiers, right?
...dude, ANY service provided by or subsidised by the government via the taxpayer is, by definition, SOCIALISED. In fact, ANY service provided by the public for members of the public with public money is SOCIALISED.
For that matter, (technically) charities are socialised too. Check a dictionary.
The Luke
Soldiers actually perform a service and place themselves in physical danger from day 1 and sign a committment for at least 4 years or more.
These disgusting vermin on the senate are robbing us blind and should be on a volunteer basis at best.
-
...except when it comes to soldiers, right?
...dude, ANY service provided by or subsidised by the government via the taxpayer is, by definition, SOCIALISED. In fact, ANY service provided by the public for members of the public with public money is SOCIALISED.
For that matter, (technically) charities are socialised too. Check a dictionary.
The Luke
Take your own advice. As long as you WORK for the government or a charity, you get benefits from that entity. That's NOT an entitlement. That's getting what you've EARNED!
Once that stops, SO DO THE BENEFITS (unless there's some form of compensation/severance package, as 333386 mentioned).
Your arguments aren't about who's the employer. It's about your feeble attempt to justify giving someone healthcare benefits, for simply having a pulse. People who don't work for DoD and never have AIN'T ENTITLED to TriCare, unless they're dependents of those who have/did (retired).
-
Soldiers actually perform a service and place themselves in physical danger from day 1 and sign a committment for at least 4 years or more.
Do the poor provide a service?
"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?
Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.
Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?
The Luke
-
Do the poor provide a service?
Nope, at least not one for which healthcare is a payment.
"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?
Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.
Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?
The Luke
NOPE!!
-
People who don't work for DoD and never have AIN'T ENTITLED to TriCare, unless they're dependents of those who have/did (retired).
...so, fuck the orphans?
Socialised healthcare based on "who's your daddy", not based on merit? Seems a bit feudal to me.
But I suppose, isn't that the same way you guys decide who should be president?
The Luke
-
Do the poor provide a service?
"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?
Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.
Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?
The Luke
No, no one should get free anything. If they want to do something to where these people get health care in return for service of some sort if they cant afford it I could see that.
-
NOPE!!
...no argument? Just an instinctual reflex?
The Luke
-
Do the poor provide a service?
"Rich" and "poor" are subjective terms. It could be argued that SOMEONE has to be poor, so (a few) others can be rich. Do the poor provide the service of supporting the ultra-rich? Without the poor, how could American maintain it's repugnant wealth disparity?
Besides, wealth disparity is growing... the ultra rich are becoming wealthier (top 1% received 37% of returns to wealth in 2000, this year it's 57%)... seems the poor are doing their job, and doing it well.
Poverty is pretty dangerous, should the poor get free healthcare too?
The Luke
It could also be argued people are poor becuase they have no marketable skills, should the guy flipping burgers at the local dennys make $50,000 a year? I guess in your world yes, in the real world you are paid for what you provide to your employer.
You are a typical lib, you think that the only reason anyone is rich is because they did it on the backs of the poor, not that they worked hard and actually earned it.
I am so tired of your stupid ass straw man arguments, always trying to take some moral high ground that doesn't exist.
-
It could also be argued people are poor becuase they have no marketable skills, should the guy flipping burgers at the local dennys make $50,000 a year? I guess in your world yes, in the real world you are paid for what you provide to your employer.
...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.
The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.
Reality seems to be at odds with YOUR opinion, perhaps you should reconsider it?
The Luke
-
...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.
The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.
Reality seems to be at odds with YOUR opinion, perhaps you should reconsider it?
The Luke
Who the hell are you to make that judgement?
BTW - your beloved socialist countries are all on the brink of collapse due to massive debt problems and would have collapsed even sooner if they had to pay for national defense which we have provided them.
-
...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.
The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.
Reality seems to be at odds with YOUR opinion, perhaps you should reconsider it?
The Luke
Well maybe if you are talking about the Kennedy's ( worthless Irish girls just like you ).
Really they have best standard of living according to who? You, my standard of living is pretty damn good.
Perhaps you should reconsider posting anymore of your stupid bullshit, like I said tired of your weak ass straw man arguments.
More liberal BS all based on emotional response with no base in reality.
-
BTW - your beloved socialist countries are all on the brink of collapse due to massive debt problems and would have collapsed even sooner if they had to pay for national defense which we have provided them.
Why shouldn't America pay for it's occupation of these European countries?
...in fact, contrary to your assertions, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are in the BEST economic shape of all the European countries, and America isn't exactly a stable debt-free creditor nation.
Again, your reactionary emotional outbursts don't change facts... and facts seem to be at odds with YOUR opinion?
The Luke
-
Why shouldn't America pay for it's occupation of these European countries?
...in fact, contrary to your assertions, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are in the BEST economic shape of all the European countries, and America isn't exactly a stable debt-free creditor nation.
Again, your reactionary emotional outbursts don't change facts... and facts seem to be at odds with YOUR opinion?
The Luke
Do you want me to pull out a Debt to GDP chart and smack you down again?
-
Why shouldn't America pay for it's occupation of these European countries?
...in fact, contrary to your assertions, the Scandinavian countries and Germany are in the BEST economic shape of all the European countries, and America isn't exactly a stable debt-free creditor nation.
Again, your reactionary emotional outbursts don't change facts... and facts seem to be at odds with YOUR opinion?
The Luke
Yeah sure the US is occupying Germany, see how well the fucking economy does when half of it up and leaves with the US military.
-
...I'll have to check in tomorrow guys, my GetBig is slowing down and it's pretty late here.
Remember to include America's GDP; government debt and private debt in that chart.
Be sure to have a congratulatory circle-jerk of self-reassuring posts to convincing yourselves you've won this argument too... after all, I did question your propaganda-derived worldview... using facts of all things.
The Luke
-
Go fuck yourself ya stupid mick, maybe well get lucky and you'll get drunk enough tonight and blow your self up making bombs for the IRA.
-
...does anyone provide services worth a billion dollars? Ten billion? A hundred billion? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that most of the ultra rich either inherited or stole their wealth.
The best standards of living are in the highly socialist countries (not that I'm necessarily a socialist) with the lowest wealth disparity... that's not my opinion, that's reality.
The Luke
Tell that to the folks in Cuba and Venezuela.
-
...so, fuck the orphans?
Socialised healthcare based on "who's your daddy", not based on merit? Seems a bit feudal to me.
But I suppose, isn't that the same way you guys decide who should be president?
The Luke
What do orphans have to do with this silliness you keep spouting?
In case you missed it, many private companies that offer health insurance ALSO EXTEND THOSE BENEFITS, to the dependents of their employees. So, how is that any different than the dependents of active and retired military getting TriCare?
Once again, this has ZILCH to do with "socialized" healthcare. If you work for an employer, you get the benefits provided by that employer.
-
What do orphans have to do with this silliness you keep spouting?
I realise, you suffer with cognitive dissonance, but you are actually asking a question and then answering yourself in the next line:
In case you missed it, many private companies that offer health insurance ALSO EXTEND THOSE BENEFITS, to the dependents of their employees. So, how is that any different than the dependents of active and retired military getting TriCare? Once again, this has ZILCH to do with "socialized" healthcare. If you work for an employer, you get the benefits provided by that employer.
...so if kids are covered by their parents, who covers orphans? See the fault in your thinking?
I know from some of the Religious Board threads that you are an Evangelical fundmetalist who believes children should suffer on behalf of their parents (presumably you were righteous enough even as a foetus to deserve decent parents yourself), and that you fervently support Yahweh killing cities full of children and babies to punish the sins of wayward parents... but it's 2010.
Your argument belongs in the Bronze Age. Sorry.
The Luke
-
I realise, you suffer with cognitive dissonance, but you are actually asking a question and then answering yourself in the next line:
...so if kids are covered by their parents, who covers orphans? See the fault in your thinking?
Fault in thinking that PARENTS should care for their own children? It appears you're the one doing the crack, here.
For those without parents, we have these things called orphanages. If they're run by the government, the government covers their care. If run by a private organization (i.e. a church), that organization covers their healthcare. Why are you asking such silly questions?
BTW, I don't see YOU, coughing up any cash to take care of any orphans. Yet, you want to dictate to others what they should do with their own money.
The point, of course, is that employers that offer health benefits usually allow for such benefits to cover dependents. And that's also true of the military. Active and retired members can extend their benefits to their spouses and children. That is NOT "socialized" healthcare.
I know from some of the Religious Board threads that you are an Evangelical fundmetalist who believes children should suffer on behalf of their parents (presumably you were righteous enough even as a foetus to deserve decent parents yourself), and that you fervently support Yahweh killing cities full of children and babies to punish the sins of wayward parents... but it's 2010.
So, instead, leave the babies to starve and die. ::)
Your argument belongs in the Bronze Age. Sorry.
The Luke
And yours belongs in a kindergarten class. First, in life, children pay for the sins of their parents. That's as true in 2010 A.D. as it was in 2010 B.C. You mentioned a 5-year-old crack baby. Guess what!! That child has afflictions BECAUSE OF THE SINS OF HIS MOTHER. Because Mama is strung out on crack, that kid is suffering from health problems (among other items).
That's how this sinful world is. Depending on how much authority you have, if you do something stupid, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE who suffers for it. If you're a father, you know that firsthand. My kids will starve if I do something dumb that costs me my job and I can't pay the bills or the rent. ALL OF US are out on the street, not just me. But, NOBODY is obligated to take care of my family, simply because I screwed up.
Of course, my being a "fundamentalist" doesn't have a thing to do with your paper-thin arguments getting ripped to pieces. But, that's another tale.
-
That's quite a dog-eat-dog Christianity you subscrie to McWay.
The Luke
-
That's quite a dog-eat-dog Christianity you subscrie to McWay.
The Luke
How are parents caring for their respective children and orphanges caring for the fatherless (and motherless) "dog-eat-dog"?
As I said, parents use their healthcare on their children. That's standard procedure. And there's little difference between a guy working for a corporation, getting benefits from his employer, and a serviceman getting TriCare from DoD.
All are based on their being EMPLOYED by those respective entitites, which does not make their healthcare "socialized".
Nothing in Christianity mandates that I care of someone's else children, when their parents are capable of doing so themselves, or that a government entity should force me to do so, via excessive taxation.
-
Nothing in Christianity mandates that I care of someone's else children, when their parents are capable of doing so themselves, or that a government entity should force me to do so, via excessive taxation.
...epic selective reading of the New Testament.
The Luke
-
...epic selective reading of the New Testament.
The Luke
I'm sorry! Where in Scripture is someone mandated to care for someone's else children, with their parents capable of doing such, or that others be savagely taxed to care for them?
Chapter and verse would be nice.
If ANYTHING, Scripture spoke AGAINST money being used improperly by Christians, as it related to caring for widows. Peter emphasized that widows with children got first priority over those without kids (as they could be redeemed by unmarried in-laws).
-
I'm sorry! Where in Scripture is someone mandated to care for someone's else children, with their parents capable of doing such, or that others be savagely taxed to care for them?
Chapter and verse would be nice.
McWay: its human decency remember? ::) ::) ::)
-
McWay: its human decency remember? ::) ::) ::)
As you just missed, due to my recent edit, people of faith took care of widows and orphans. Widows with kids were to receive care, FIRST. There were childless widows, who were abusing the funds of early churches. They DIDN'T NEED IT. Per Jewish law, an unmarried male relative of childless widow's dead husband was to REDEEM that widow and marry her, producing a child that would count as that of the deceased.
The point, of course, is that nothing mandates caring for someone else's offspring via fiscal sodomy by the government.
-
Forgive me guys, but I'm a realist with a tendency to think for myself.
Explain to me how everyone chipping in together (according to their ability) to pay the true cost of healthcare without profitering is such a bad thing...?
If you don't like government run healthcare... then adopt the French system.
But why pay $7k each per year for a shitty system with 50 million uninsured, 15% denial of service and serious risk of bankruptcy for everyone involved... that only enriches non-productive insurance companies?
The French pay $3k per year for a much better, universal system.
Why are you so eager to pay retail, when wholesale is so much better? It's like you rubes WANT to be ripped off.
The Luke
-
Forgive me guys, but I'm a realist with a tendency to think for myself.
Explain to me how everyone chipping in together (according to their ability) to pay the true cost of healthcare without profitering is such a bad thing...?
It's a bad thing, because such is FORCED by the government, which we don't want. Neither you nor the government determines the "ability" to pay for someone else's bills or healthcare.
If you don't like government run healthcare... then adopt the French system.
But why pay $7k each per year for a shitty system with 50 million uninsured, 15% denial of service and serious risk of bankruptcy for everyone involved... that only enriches non-productive insurance companies?
The French pay $3k per year for a much better, universal system.
Why are you so eager to pay retail, when wholesale is so much better? It's like you rubes WANT to be ripped off.
The Luke
Once again, where in Scripture am I (or any other professed Christian) mandated to care for someone else's kids, or being severely taxed to do such?
BTW, the French don't have nearly as many people as we do. And the cost of healthcare is what's driving opposition to ObamaCare.
-
Forgive me guys, but I'm a realist with a tendency to think for myself.
Explain to me how everyone chipping in together (according to their ability) to pay the true cost of healthcare without profitering is such a bad thing...?
If you don't like government run healthcare... then adopt the French system.
But why pay $7k each per year for a shitty system with 50 million uninsured, 15% denial of service and serious risk of bankruptcy for everyone involved... that only enriches non-productive insurance companies?
The French pay $3k per year for a much better, universal system.
Why are you so eager to pay retail, when wholesale is so much better? It's like you rubes WANT to be ripped off.
The Luke
Sources for your "stats"
-
Sources for your "stats"
And, while you're at it, we're still waiting for the "Yea" and "Amen" from Scripture, regarding your previous claims that I'm selectively reading Scripture, when it comes to how Christians are supposed to help the less-fortunate.
-
BTW, the French don't have nearly as many people as we do. And the cost of healthcare is what's driving opposition to ObamaCare.
France has 65 million people, with 8% of it's population being foreign born.
America should be able to get healhcare for even less than France pays:
-larger population
-more urban living
-better infrastructure
...if you don't understand that, you need to Google: "economies of scale"
The Luke
-
Forgive me guys, but I'm a realist with a tendency to think for myself.
Explain to me how everyone chipping in together (according to their ability) to pay the true cost of healthcare without profitering is such a bad thing...?
If you don't like government run healthcare... then adopt the French system.
But why pay $7k each per year for a shitty system with 50 million uninsured, 15% denial of service and serious risk of bankruptcy for everyone involved... that only enriches non-productive insurance companies?
The French pay $3k per year for a much better, universal system.
Why are you so eager to pay retail, when wholesale is so much better? It's like you rubes WANT to be ripped off.
The Luke
The Luke bitchslapping.....as usual. :D :D :D
-
The Luke bitchslapping.....as usual. :D :D :D
Nice to be appreciated.
The Luke
-
France has 65 million people, with 8% of it's population being foreign born.
America should be able to get healhcare for even less than France pays:
-larger population
-more urban living
-better infrastructure
...if you don't understand that, you need to Google: "economies of scale"
The Luke
Yet, nobody here is flying to France for healthcare. We like our healthcare system and DO NOT WANT socialized healthcare. Plus, lest you forget, the reason their healthcare is so "cheap" is because they get bled dry via their tax system. So, really, they ain't getting the bargain that you claim.
Plus, there's still the little matter of those Bible verses you've yet to produce. Or the source of those questionable numbers for which 333386 asked (which I'm sure he'll be able to rip apart, with some actual facts).
-
Yet, nobody here is flying to France for healthcare. We like our healthcare system and DO NOT WANT socialized healthcare. Plus, lest you forget, the reason their healthcare is so "cheap" is because they get bled dry via their tax system. So, really, they ain't getting the bargain that you claim.
France spends $3,000 per capita for healthcare... that's $3k in taxes per person. For that they get 100% unlimited access to the very best healthcare system in the world.
America spends $7,500 per capita for healthcare... approx $3k in premiums per person and $4,500 in taxes/salary levies.
So the average American is ALREADY paying more in taxes for his healthcare than the French do... it's just that you guys aren't savvy enough to know when you're being ripped off, and so you pay even more directly out of your own pocket for 85% access (15% denial rate) to the 37th best healthcare system in the world.
Maybe the French are just smarter and more capitalist than you guys.
...and Americans don't "like" their healthcare system; a third of them opt for socialisd care (Medicare; Tricare; government employees etc) and a sixth of them have no coverage. That's 150 million people.
Why not ask one of the 50 million uninsured what they think of your healthcare system?
Why not ask one of the 15% who are denied catastrophic coverage what they think of your healthcare system?
Why not ask a bankrupt their opinion? Most bankruptcies are due to medical bills and most of those bankrupted by medical bills had full coverage.
Sorry to sound so aggressive, but...
You don't know the denial-of-coverage rate.
You don't understand the impact of insurance company profiteering.
You don't know anything about any other healthcare system, or how they are funded.
You don't undrstand how socialised medicine works.
You don't even understand what the word "socialised" means.
You just unquestioningly parrot corporate propaganda.
Seriously, you're just arguing your own ignorance... and embarrassing yourself.
The Luke
-
France spends $3,000 per capita for healthcare... that's $3k in taxes per person. For that they get 100% unlimited access to the very best healthcare system in the world.
America spends $7,500 per capita for healthcare... approx $3k in premiums per person and $4,500 in taxes/salary levies.
So the average American is ALREADY paying more in taxes for his healthcare than the French do... it's just that you guys aren't savvy enough to know when you're being ripped off, and so you pay even more directly out of your own pocket for 85% access (15% denial rate) to the 37th best healthcare system in the world.
Maybe the French are just smarter and more capitalist than you guys.
...and Americans don't "like" their healthcare system; a third of them opt for socialisd care (Medicare; Tricare; government employees etc) and a sixth of them have no coverage. That's 150 million people.
Why not ask one of the 50 million uninsured what they think of your healthcare system?
First, we don't have 50 million uninsured. That estimate is, at best, 30 million (and there's way too much debate about that, namely as it relates to people who have no business here, in the first place).
Second, as has been explained to you, working for the government (i.e. DoD) is NOT socialized healthcare. Those people simply get benefits from their employer, just like everybody else. When they STOP working for the government, they STOP getting the benefits (unless, it's a compensation package).
Why not ask one of the 15% who are denied catastrophic coverage what they think of your healthcare system?
Why not ask a bankrupt their opinion? Most bankruptcies are due to medical bills and most of those bankrupted by medical bills had full coverage.
Or, I can ask the 85% (at least) of Americans who like their healthcare.
Sorry to sound so aggressive, but...
You don't know the denial-of-coverage rate.
You don't understand the impact of insurance company profiteering.
You don't know anything about any other healthcare system, or how they are funded.
You don't undrstand how socialised medicine works.
You don't even understand what the word "socialised" means.
You just unquestioningly parrot corporate propaganda.
Seriously, you're just arguing your own ignorance... and embarrassing yourself.
The Luke
The only person I'm embarrassing is YOU, namely because you made a claim about military being on "socialized" healthcare, which is categorically FALSE.
The only people that get TriCare are active duty and retired military (and their families). Again, that's simply because the active duty and retired guys WORK for the DoD. When that STOPS, so does the TriCare benefits.
And, you've YET to produce the source of your questionable (to say the least) number, let alone those mysterious Bible verses that mandate Christians caring for children, whose parents are capable of taking care of them or being taxed excessively to care for them.
-
First, we don't have 50 million uninsured. That estimate is, at best, 30 million (and there's way too much debate about that, namely as it relates to people who have no business here, in the first place).
...the BBC reported 46 million this time last year.
Or, I can ask the 85% (at least) of Americans who like their healthcare.
...that would be 85% of the half of Americans with private coverage. That's 43% of Americans.
I know maths is difficult... but if you think it through.
The only person I'm embarrassing is YOU, namely because you made a claim about military being on "socialized" healthcare, which is categorically FALSE.
...healthcare paid for by the taxpayer is "socialised healthcare" by definition.
Get a dictionary, or ask someone who understands these words used in politics.
And, you've YET to produce the source of your questionable (to say the least) number, let alone those mysterious Bible verses that mandate Christians caring for children, whose parents are capable of taking care of them or being taxed excessively to care for them.
"What you do for the least among you, you do for me" ...translation: Help the needy and the poor.
"Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ...translation: Pay your taxes.
I think your boyfriend Jeebus said both of those things, but I'm not religious... maybe the Bible is against the kind of socialism that the communist early Christians adopted.
Maybe Jesus hates the poor... he never spoke out against the rape and slavery endemic in his society, shitty human being that he was.
The Luke
-
...the BBC reported 46 million this time last year.
...that would be 85% of the half of Americans with private coverage. That's 43% of Americans.
I know maths is difficult... but if you think it through.
That number is bogus, as it fails to account for illegal aliens. It also forgets that are people who are uninsured BY CHOICE.
...healthcare paid for by the taxpayer is "socialised healthcare" by definition.
The serviceman works for the government (and thus the taxpayer) and gets healthcare only when that remains the case. Again, they don't get that simply for existing. And therein lies the difference. You don't work for Disney. Do you really expect that coporation to cover your healthcare?
Get a dictionary, or ask someone who understands these words used in politics.
"What you do for the least among you, you do for me" ...translation: Help the needy and the poor.
Imposing socialized healthcare IS NOT NECESSARY to do that. Plus, Christians help the needy and poor, ANYWAY, as many humanitarian organizations in this country are religious-based.
"Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ...translation: Pay your taxes.
We already do. That DOES NOT give the government the right to insanely HIKE them to cover someone else's healthcare.
I think your boyfriend Jeebus said both of those things, but I'm not religious... maybe the Bible is against the kind of socialism that the communist early Christians adopted.
Maybe Jesus hates the poor... he never spoke out against the rape and slavery endemic in his society, shitty human being that he was.
The Luke
Wrong again!!! The early Christians adopted no such thing. When they helped the needy, they did so WITH THEIR OWN RESOURCES, not from the government. Again, see the earlier example of how Peter and the early Christians took care of widows and orphans.
-
The serviceman works for the government (and thus the taxpayer) and gets healthcare only when that remains the case. Again, they don't get that simply for existing. And therein lies the difference.
...look I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat with you McWay, because... well, frankly, I think you disagree with the blatantly obvious just to get attention.
But please, how do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when you can't even take the time to check the definition of a word you keep misusing.
The American military is "socialised" by definition; under government control and paid for by taxpayer dollars.
American military healthcare is likewise "socialised" by definition; under government control and paid for by taxpayer dollars.
None of this is debatable... and no one else agrees with your misunderstanding.
You keep bringing this up, arguing that somehow military healthcare only being offered to DoD employees and their dependants negates it being "socialised".
But that's not a condition of a service being socialised. What you are doing is arguing that military healthcare isn't socialised because it isn't UNIVERSAL... because you don't now the difference.
If you don't know or understand the difference between "socialised" and "universal"... if you don't understand that 85% of the Americans who have private healthcare is NOT the same as 85% of ALL Americans... if you believe that Christianity is incompatible with universal or socialised healthcare... if you don't understand that France paying $3k per capita when America pays $7,500 per capita means the French pay LESS, not MORE than Americans for healthcare... if you don't understand that Americans pay more per capita than they pay in premiums MEANS Americans are already paying for most of their healthcare via taxes...
...if you can't understand any of these blatantly obvious uncontested facts, I don't know how to help you.
Maybe put down the Bible and read a second book...?
The Luke
-
...look I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat with you McWay, because... well, frankly, I think you disagree with the blatantly obvious just to get attention.
But please, how do you expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when you can't even take the time to check the definition of a word you keep misusing.
The American military is "socialised" by definition; under government control and paid for by taxpayer dollars.
American military healthcare is likewise "socialised" by definition; under government control and paid for by taxpayer dollars.
And affects only those under government/DoD employ (and their families).....NOBODY ELSE.
You keep bringing this up, arguing that somehow military healthcare only being offered to DoD employees and their dependants negates it being "socialised".
The part you keep leaving out is the rest of my argument, namely that their benefit is a condition of EMPLOYMENT. As stated earlier, I have no problem (and neither do 333386, Billy, or Skip) with the military's healthcare because it's part of their JOB benefits. The operative word, being....JOB.
It's their choice to get it, as part of an employment deal. It's not forced on them by government and nobody (who doesn't work for DoD) gets fined and/or jailed for not using TriCare.
Just as I expect a civilian employer to give me health benefits, if I work for them, I expect the DoD to give me health benefits if I work for it.
But that's not a condition of a service being socialised. What you are doing is arguing that military healthcare isn't socialised because it isn't UNIVERSAL... because you don't now the difference.
What I'm arguing is that your claim about right-wingers (particularly military) not wanting others to have what they have is off-base. Military get that, because they WORK for DoD. Nobody, not me, 333386, or anyone else want to deny people getting health insurance FROM THEIR EMPLOYER.
If you don't know or understand the difference between "socialised" and "universal"... if you don't understand that 85% of the Americans who have private healthcare is NOT the same as 85% of ALL Americans... if you believe that Christianity is incompatible with universal or socialised healthcare... if you don't understand that France paying $3k per capita when America pays $7,500 per capita means the French pay LESS, not MORE than Americans for healthcare... if you don't understand that Americans pay more per capita than they pay in premiums MEANS Americans are already paying for most of their healthcare via taxes...
...if you can't understand any of these blatantly obvious uncontested facts, I don't know how to help you.
I didn't ask for, nor do I need your "help". France has fewer people and Americans are paying (unfortunately) for people who have no business being here (among other things).
As for your blurb about Christianity, again there is NO MANDATE that Christians must care for others via universal healthcare. All the ways in which Christians are directed to help the poor are ALREADY BEING DONE, as again many humanitarian institutions are religious (Christian)-based.
Maybe put down the Bible and read a second book...?
The Luke
I've read plenty of other books, besides the Bible. What does that have to do with your claims about Christianity and healthcare being DEAD WRONG?
-
The Luke.............how is health care in Ireland? Do your parents pay for your health care or do the taxpayers? How much is it per capita?
-
The Luke.............how is health care in Ireland? Do your parents pay for your health care or do the taxpayers? How much is it per capita?
Can his parents still claim him as a dependent?
-
And affects only those under government/DoD employ (and their families).....NOBODY ELSE.
The part you keep leaving out is the rest of my argument, namely that their benefit is a condition of EMPLOYMENT. As stated earlier, I have no problem (and neither do 333386, Billy, or Skip) with the military's healthcare because it's part of their JOB benefits. The operative word, being....JOB.
It's their choice to get it, as part of an employment deal. It's not forced on them by government.
Just as I expect a civilian employer to give me health benefits, if I work for them, I expect the DoD to give me health benefits if I work for them.
What I'm arguing is that your claim about right-wingers (particularly military) not wanting others to have what they have is off-base. Military get that, because they WORK for DoD. Nobody, not me, 333386, or anyone else want to deny people getting health insurance FROM THEIR EMPLOYER.
...so you still don't understand what "socialised" means and you're still conflating it (erroneously) with enforced healthcare; universal healthcare and government monopoly healthcare.
I didn't ask for, nor do I need your "help". France has fewer people and Americans are paying (unfortunately) for people who have no business being here (among other things).
...France has 65 million people with 8% of them being foreign born.
So your population argument (parroted directly from the health insurers propoganda) doesn't hold water as France is equivalent in population to any of the American states.
Almost all of Europe has universal socialised medicine and European citizens can travel to any member state for healthcare and have their own government pick up the tab.
So what you are really doing, is excusing America's failings based on the fact that it has a larger popultion than the EU... but America has 300 million people, and the EU has 350 million people.
Besides, a larger population REDUCES healthcare costs, it doesn't inflate them... again, you are both wrong on the facts and wrong in your reasoning.
I've read plenty of other books, besides the Bible. What does that have to do with your claims about Christianity and healthcare being DEAD WRONG?
...but none of it seems to stick.
Gotta log off now dude, I'll laugh at your delusions again tomorrow.
The Luke
-
...so you still don't understand what "socialised" means and you're still conflating it (erroneously) with enforced healthcare; universal healthcare and government monopoly healthcare.
...France has 65 million people with 8% of them being foreign born.
So your population argument (parroted directly from the health insurers propoganda) doesn't hold water as France is equivalent in population to any of the American states.
Almost all of Europe has universal socialised medicine and European citizens can travel to any member state for healthcare and have their own government pick up the tab.
So what you are really doing, is excusing America's failings based on the fact that it has a larger popultion than the EU... but America has 300 million people, and the EU has 350 million people.
Besides, a larger population REDUCES healthcare costs, it doesn't inflate them... again, you are both wrong on the facts and wrong in your reasoning.
...but none of it seems to stick.
Gotta log off now dude, I'll laugh at your delusions again tomorrow.
The Luke
Why ignore my questions about your own countries health care system ???
-
...so you still don't understand what "socialised" means and you're still conflating it (erroneously) with enforced healthcare; universal healthcare and government monopoly healthcare.
I know what "socialized" means. I also know that your use of such, when criticizing those in the military was off-base. And I explained the reasons why.
Contrary to your claim, right-wingers don't have a problem with other people getting what they have, especially if they're in the military.
But, the average Joe who is not in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard DOES NOT DESERVE TriCare insurance.
...France has 65 million people with 8% of them being foreign born.
So your population argument (parroted directly from the health insurers propoganda) doesn't hold water as France is equivalent in population to any of the American states.
And, those states with "universal health care" are swimming in RED (i.e. Massachusetts), due to certain budget issues.
As is France (which you conveniently left out)
France claims it long ago achieved much of what today's U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics.
In recent months, France imposed American-style "co-pays" on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. "A hospital doesn't need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment," President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors.....
French taxpayers fund a state health insurer, Assurance Maladie, proportionally to their income, and patients get treatment even if they can't pay for it. France spends 11% of national output on health services, compared with 17% in the U.S., and routinely outranks the U.S. in infant mortality and some other health measures.
The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989. This year the annual shortfall is expected to reach €9.4 billion ($13.5 billion), and €15 billion in 2010, or roughly 10% of its budget.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html)
Almost all of Europe has universal socialised medicine and European citizens can travel to any member state for healthcare and have their own government pick up the tab.
So what you are really doing, is excusing America's failings based on the fact that it has a larger popultion than the EU... but America has 300 million people, and the EU has 350 million people.
America hasn't failed in this matter, except in the minds of the left, who are obsessed with government health care. It hasn't needed universal healthcare to this point and it doesn't need it now.
Besides, a larger population REDUCES healthcare costs, it doesn't inflate them... again, you are both wrong on the facts and wrong in your reasoning.
It's inflated, because of other factors, not the least of which is funding illegal aliens. And your so-called lowered healthcare costs are OFFSET by much HIGHER TAXES. Hence, the reason Obama has to HIKE UP TAXES (not just on the "rich") to pay for this mess of his.
...but none of it seems to stick.
Gotta log off now dude, I'll laugh at your delusions again tomorrow.
The Luke
Plenty of it does. We Americans like our taxes low. We rather keep our money and buy private insurance, as we see fit, than have government-run insurance, pure and simple.
-
I know what "socialized" means. I also know that your use of such, when criticizing those in the military was off-base. And I explained the reasons why.
Contrary to your claim, right-wingers don't have a problem with other people getting what they have, especially if they're in the military.
But, the average Joe who is not in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines/Coast Guard DOES NOT DESERVE TriCare insurance.
Plus, those on TriCare don’t necessarily get to go where they want. They MUST go to a military hospital/clinic within 50 miles of where they’re stationed (active duty) or where they live (retired), or to a civilian hospital/clinic after being referred by that military installation. That’s why it’s no/extremely low cost
And, therein lies the rub. If the government foots the bill for your healthcare, it decided what you get, when you get it, how you get it, or IF you get it.
If you work for the government (i.e. DoD), that’s one thing. You know that’s part of the deal. It’s those who DON’T work for the government that are in danger. If you think that Shameka from the ‘hood or Becky from the trailer park is going to get the same care that Nancy Pelosi gets, you’re definitely on that stuff.
-
McWay,
Dude, you just argued that the French (who have a smaller GDP than America and spend 10% of it on healthcare: $3k per capita) PAY MORE for their healthcare than Americans (who have a bigger GDP and spend 17% of it or $7,500 per capita on healthcare).
So nobody who understands anything about the French system is taking you seriously any more.
Everyone who understands that 17% of a big number is more than 10% of a small number is dismissing you.
Even those who only noticed that $3,000 is cheaper than $7,500 are dismissing your argument.
So when you keep re-quoting yourself and bumping this thread, the only person you are convincing is yourself... everyone else has long been convinced you are a fool.
Simple facts: the French have a go-to-the-doctor-YOU-want, get-the-treatment-YOU-want, take-the-medications-YOU-want, abuse-the-system-as-much-as-YOU-want CAPITALIST taxpayer picks up the tab system that's ranked number 1 in the entire world... yet it still only costs $3k per person.
So what would happen if America adopted the French system...?
Well, you'd all pay $3k per year in taxes... rather than the $7,500 per year in premiums AND taxes you all already pay.
There is no way around that simple arithmetic. You anti-socialist morons (who don't understand what "socialist" even means) are getting scammed: you pay double what the French pay, the care you get is ranked 37th, you have a 15% chance of not being covered, you have a 15% of being denied care even if you have coverage.
Plain, simple, facts. Just 'cos you don't understand it, that doesn't change the facts.
And this sort of racist/classist jibe:
If you think that Shameka from the ‘hood or Becky from the trailer park is going to get the same care that Nancy Pelosi gets, you’re definitely on that stuff.
...just shows you for the hypocritical pseudo-Christian you really are.
In disgust,
The Luke
-
McWay,
Dude, you just argued that the French (who have a smaller GDP than America and spend 10% of it on healthcare: $3k per capita) PAY MORE for their healthcare than Americans (who have a bigger GDP and spend 17% of it or $7,500 per capita on healthcare).
So nobody who understands anything about the French system is taking you seriously any more.
Everyone who understands that 17% of a big number is more than 10% of a small number is dismissing you.
Even those who only noticed that $3,000 is cheaper than $7,500 are dismissing your argument.
What you can't dismiss is that, for all your wailing about the greatness of the French system, they're bleeding RED about as much as (if not more than) America's healthcare.
And, when push comes to shove (as we've seen with leaders from Italy and Canada), when the "elite" has THEIR HIDES ON THE LINE, they'll be heading HERE for healthcare (37th-ranked and all).
So when you keep re-quoting yourself and bumping this thread, the only person you are convincing is yourself... everyone else has long been convinced you are a fool.
"Everyone else?" You mean like the guy who asked you to produce your sources for these questionable numbers?
Or the guy who asked about the healthcare system in YOUR OWN COUNTRY?
Guys like that?
Simple facts: the French have a go-to-the-doctor-YOU-want, get-the-treatment-YOU-want, take-the-medications-YOU-want, abuse-the-system-as-much-as-YOU-want CAPITALIST taxpayer picks up the tab system that's ranked number 1 in the entire world... yet it still only costs $3k per person.
So what would happen if America adopted the French system...?
Well, you'd all pay $3k per year in taxes... rather than the $7,500 per year in premiums AND taxes you all already pay.
There is no way around that simple arithmetic. You anti-socialist morons (who don't understand what "socialist" even means) are getting scammed: you pay double what the French pay, the care you get is ranked 37th, you have a 15% chance of not being covered, you have a 15% of being denied care even if you have coverage.
Plain, simple, facts. Just 'cos you don't understand it, that doesn't change the facts.
And, as stated earlier, "Plain, simple facts" are that, when foreign leaders have their hides on the line (for some STRAAAAAANGE REASON), they come NOT TO FRANCE, but to the USA.
Why didn't that Canadian premier go to France, for his heart thing? What about the Italian PM? I didn't see him singing, "Viva la Francais", when he needed treatment.
Foreign politicians (WITH SOCIALIZED/UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, the be-all-to-end-all on the left) coming to the "37th-ranked" USA to save their behinds. Go figure.
We pay more (notwithstanding that such is due to subsizing illegals, among other factors), because we can GET THE HEALTHCARE WE WANT, NOT what the government decides to ration to us.
If you don't believe me, as the aforementioned political bubbas from Italy and Canada. They PAID MORE to get our "37th-ranked" healthcare, instead of paying less to receive that of their own respective countries, or that of the alleged #1-ranked French.
I wonder why ::) .
BTW, you didn't bother to mention that this ranking list is over TEN YEARS OLD, and has since been DISCONTINUED!
I quoted myself, simply because I wanted to further emphasize my point by using, as an example, TriCare and military personnel.
They MUST go to a military hospital/clinic, end of story. They can only go elsewhere with that military installation's approval. Otherwise, they aren't covered and have to pay out of pocket. And, if they get jacked up, because they went to an unapproved doctor, Uncle Sam AIN'T FOOTING the bill.
And this sort of racist/classist jibe:...just shows you for the hypocritical pseudo-Christian you really are.
In disgust,
The Luke
Hypocritical in what matter? You're the one that brought up the "ghetto-crack baby" thing. So be disgusted with yourself.
Of course, you missed the point (or ran from it, as usual). Folks like that WILL NOT get the same care that Nancy Pelosi gets, bottom line.
-
Lol! McWay entertains again...
Some politicians go to Cedar Sinai for specialist care... so what? Palin used to sneak into Canada for free care:
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:95ec266b244de718b80c652a 08af06fa:4cb90693bcc6afcb65c6b89c 9ab9f85d/Palin-Crossed-Border-For-Canadian-Health-Care
But rather than argue the silliness of the French system being in the red (demographics mean they'll soon have to pay $3,500 per person rather than $3,000... but Americans pay $7,500 per person increasing at 10% per year)... rather than argue over that, I'd rather ask a very simple question:
McWay, why do YOU only have 85% coverage?
Why take a 1 in 6 chance of bankrupting you family in the case of catastrophic illness?
...seems pretty irresponsible.
The Luke
-
Lol! McWay entertains again...
Some politicians go to Cedar Sinai for specialist care... so what? Palin used to sneak into Canada for free care:
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:95ec266b244de718b80c652a 08af06fa:4cb90693bcc6afcb65c6b89c 9ab9f85d/Palin-Crossed-Border-For-Canadian-Health-Care
Boy, are YOU high today or what? Again, did you bother reading the details?
Palin was a CHILD (abou SIX YEARS OLD), when her parents took her over to Canada for heatlh care.
Furthermore, the Heath family lived in a remote part of Alaska, where they could hardly get constant access to the "lower 48", as it were, especially in cases of inclement weather.
Now that they live in a different part of Alaska, why don't you ask how much they go to Canada NOW (or how much they've gone, since moving to Wasila).
But rather than argue the silliness of the French system being in the red (demographics mean they'll soon have to pay $3,500 per person rather than $3,000... but Americans pay $7,500 per person increasing at 10% per year)... rather than argue over that, I'd rather ask a very simple question:
McWay, why do YOU only have 85% coverage?
Why take a 1 in 6 chance of bankrupting you family in the case of catastrophic illness?
...seems pretty irresponsible.
The Luke
What makes you think I have "85% coverage"? Once again, it appears you're pulling numbers out of your backside, not citing your sources, which you were asked to do several days ago.
In case of catastrophic illness, I and my family are COVERED. And I don't need French-style healthcare to make that possible.
-
What makes you think I have "85% coverage"? Once again, it appears you're pulling numbers out of your backside, not citing your sources, which you were asked to do several days ago.
In case of catastrophic illness, I and my family are COVERED. And I don't need French-style healthcare to make that possible.
...if you have private health insurance, there is an 15 to 17% chance that you will be denied coverage in the instance of catastrophic illness.
So, you only have 85% coverage.
The Luke
-
...if you have private health insurance, there is an 15 to 17% chance that you will be denied coverage in the instance of catastrophic illness.
So, you only have 85% coverage.
The Luke
No system can be sustained where everyone gets everything at any cost all the time no matter what.
-
No system can be sustained where everyone gets everything at any cost all the time no matter what.
The 36 countries ranked above the US in that 2001 UN study ALL operate such a system.
In the French system (the best in the world), you get a swipe card/credit card. Then you go to whichever self-employed private (capitalist) doctor you want... or a state doctor... you go to whichever privately run (capitalist) hospital you want... or a state run hospital if you'd prefer... you get whatever treatment you want... and you pay for all of it with your government credit card; which means the taxpayer picks up the tab.
You still have to pay for initial consultations (local doctor visits), but that is reimbursed directly into your bank account within the hour. But you guys probably think that's "socialist" or "communist".
The cost of everyone getting whatever they want, whenever they want it...?
Due to the government getting discounts as a bulk buyer, the cost is $3,050 per person, all raised from taxes and salary levies.
But the cost of healthcare in the US is $7,500 per person (that's per person, not per citizen, not per premium payer).
So, taking the very worst case scenario using the very worst figures available for the cost of the average family healthcare premium: $10,000 per family, per year (officially the average family premium is $6,500) and assuming the smallest possible family (Mommy, Daddy and one baby), the MOST the average American could end up paying is $3,500 each (a third of ten grand)... which is already more than the French pay overall.
But $3,500 in premiums is still way below the $7,500 per person cost of American healthcare... so how is the difference made up?
Answer: through taxes and salary levies, just like in the French system.
So this is the stupidity of the situation... the French pay $3,050 in taxes and salary levies for all-in; all-you-want; no-waiting-list healthcare.
Americans pay AT LEAST $4,000 in taxes and salary levies for healthcare, but then have to pay a premium of up to $3,500 dollars each for access to partial coverage care...?
The French system is universal... 50 million Americans have no coverage.
The French system has no waiting lists... poor Americans are queuing up overnight for Doctors Without Borders.
The French system is ranked #1 in the world... America ranks 37th.
The French system is a single payer but capitalist... Americans are frightened of "socialism" but don't mind paying out to an abusive insurance cartel.
Bottom line: You guys ALREADY pay 50% more than the cost of the French system in taxes and salary levies before you even buy a health insurance policy. But having been scammed like this, you then defend your RIGHT to pay more than the cost of the French system in premiums out of your own pockets... only to be at the mercy of amoral insurers.
That's just fucken stoopid.
The Luke
-
The 36 countries ranked above the US in that 2001 UN study ALL operate such a system.
In the French system (the best in the world), you get a swipe card/credit card. Then you go to whichever self-employed private (capitalist) doctor you want... or a state doctor... you go to whichever privately run (capitalist) hospital you want... or a state run hospital if you'd prefer... you get whatever treatment you want... and you pay for all of it with your government credit card; which means the taxpayer picks up the tab.
You still have to pay for initial consultations (local doctor visits), but that is reimbursed directly into your bank account within the hour. But you guys probably think that's "socialist" or "communist".
The cost of everyone getting whatever they want, whenever they want it...?
Due to the government getting discounts as a bulk buyer, the cost is $3,050 per person, all raised from taxes and salary levies.
But the cost of healthcare in the US is $7,500 per person (that's per person, not per citizen, not per premium payer).
So, taking the very worst case scenario using the very worst figures available for the cost of the average family healthcare premium: $10,000 per family, per year (officially the average family premium is $6,500) and assuming the smallest possible family (Mommy, Daddy and one baby), the MOST the average American could end up paying is $3,500 each (a third of ten grand)... which is already more than the French pay overall.
But $3,500 in premiums is still way below the $7,500 per person cost of American healthcare... so how is the difference made up?
Answer: through taxes and salary levies, just like in the French system.
So this is the stupidity of the situation... the French pay $3,050 in taxes and salary levies for all-in; all-you-want; no-waiting-list healthcare.
Americans pay AT LEAST $4,000 in taxes and salary levies for healthcare, but then have to pay a premium of up to $3,500 dollars each for access to partial coverage care...?
The French system is universal... 50 million Americans have no coverage.
The French system has no waiting lists... poor Americans are queuing up overnight for Doctors Without Borders.
The French system is ranked #1 in the world... America ranks 37th.
The French system is a single payer but capitalist... Americans are frightened of "socialism" but don't mind paying out to an abusive insurance cartel.
Bottom line: You guys ALREADY pay 50% more than the cost of the French system in taxes and salary levies before you even buy a health insurance policy. But having been scammed like this, you then defend your RIGHT to pay more than the cost of the French system in premiums out of your own pockets... only to be at the mercy of amoral insurers.
That's just fucken stoopid.
The Luke
As usual...The Luke shooting fish (333's) in a barrel.
-
As usual...The Luke shooting fish (333's) in a barrel.
There were so many stupid lies in that I did not have time to deal with all of that nonsense.
I will later or mcway will.
-
There were so many stupid lies in that I did not have time to deal with all of that nonsense.
I will later or mcway will.
France spends $3,050 per capita (10% of GDP).
America spends $7,500 per capita (17% of GDP).
Not really much interpretation involved in those numbers... $3k in taxes sure beats $7k in taxes and premiums.
The Luke
-
France spends $3,050 per capita (10% of GDP).
America spends $7,500 per capita (17% of GDP).
Not really much interpretation involved in those numbers... $3k in taxes sure beats $7k in taxes and premiums.
The Luke
What is your source? I can't find these numbers you're claiming and since you're fond of using biased UN data, I'd like to know your source.
-
What is your source? I can't find these numbers you're claiming and since you're fond of using biased UN data, I'd like to know your source.
Type "French healthcare" into Google... or try doing a little research on "America" and "France" and you'll usually find healthcare spending in among the GDP breakdown charts.
It's not difficult, just try it... or don't bother and simply rely on FOX News to fill your head with what corporations want you to believe.
Your choice.
The Luke
-
France spends $3,050 per capita (10% of GDP).
America spends $7,500 per capita (17% of GDP).
Not really much interpretation involved in those numbers... $3k in taxes sure beats $7k in taxes and premiums.
The Luke
I was referring to your bogus 50 million number which is absurd.
-
Type "French healthcare" into Google... or try doing a little research on "America" and "France" and you'll usually find healthcare spending in among the GDP breakdown charts.
It's not difficult, just try it... or don't bother and simply rely on FOX News to fill your head with what corporations want you to believe.
Your choice.
The Luke
I have researched it which is why I'm asking. I have a feeling you're using OECD numbers and doing a little padding. The problem is, I highly doubt you understand how those numbers are derived or the biases.
I suppose it's not that important because we still pay significantly more per capita than any other country and I support a significant overhaul of the system moron. Fox News is neither here nor there.
However, we have to maintain quality and get the costs down. The French system was running a 10.3 billion (euros) debt back in 2006 (latest year I could get reliable data for). It does us no good to bankrupt our country to implement Barry's current proposal.
BTW, France's healthcare deficit is the largest single factor to their overall debt.
-
However, we have to maintain quality and get the costs down. The French system was running a 10.3 billion (euros) debt back in 2006 (latest year I could get reliable data for). It does us no good to bankrupt our country to implement Barry's current proposal.
BTW, France's healthcare deficit is the largest single factor to their overall debt.
The $3,050 number is what France SPENDS on healthcare, TOTAL. (private an public spending)
A $10.3 billion deficit means they only taxed the French $2,900 per capita to pay for it (there are 65 million people in France so a $10.3b deficit is only $158 each).
So what?
Whatever article you got that information from has couched it in terms that denigrate the French system unjustly. I see a lot of that corporate mouthpiece bullshit being regurgitated on this board.
"The French system is running a deficit"... yeah, a tiny $150 per person deficit that will be rectified by a $3 a week tax. Everyone forgets to mention that it's still only $3k per person, unlike America's $7k per person padded with profiteering, waste and corporate welfare (subsidies).
"French healthcare spending is the largest part of their deficit"... yeah, because their deficit is tiny (2.5%): about $55b or $850 per person (2007). Whereas America's deficit this year is $1.5 trillion or $5,000 per person. But the insurance companies would prefer the data was presented in a negative light so they can continue swindling gullible miseducated Americans with the horrors of socialised medicine.
"The French system is being bled dry by junkies, immigrants and wasters"... yeah, and it still costs less than half of what Americans pay. Besides, free healthcare rduces crime (an suffering). That's something no one ever mentions, France proves that if America gave free unlimited healthcare to everyone, the average American could keep his monthly premium and still see a two thouand dollar a year tax CUT. The middle class people protesting against "socialised" care would probably save even more.
Yes. The French will have to raise healthcare taxes to roughly $3,500 per person as their population ages... but they'll still be paying less than HALF what Americans pay NOW... and Americans will have to raise their healthcare spending to $10,000 or more per person to treat an aging population who have little access to (money-saving) preventative care.
So tell both sides of the story, rather than cherry-pick facts you can present in such a way as to falsely support your argument.
Regarding the 50 million uninsured figure, the BBC reported 46.6 million uninsured more than a year ago.
The Luke
-
The $3,050 number is what France SPENDS on healthcare, TOTAL. (private an public spending)
A $10.3 billion deficit means they only taxed the French $2,900 per capita to pay for it (there are 65 million people in France so a $10.3b deficit is only $158 each).
So what?
Whatever article you got that information from has couched it in terms that denigrate the French system unjustly. I see a lot of that corporate mouthpiece bullshit being regurgitated on this board.
"The French system is running a deficit"... yeah, a tiny $150 per person deficit that will be rectified by a $3 a week tax. Everyone forgets to mention that it's still only $3k per person, unlike America's $7k per person padded with profiteering, waste and corporate welfare (subsidies).
"French healthcare spending is the largest part of their deficit"... yeah, because their deficit is tiny (2.5%): about $55b or $850 per person (2007). Whereas America's deficit this year is $1.5 trillion or $5,000 per person. But the insurance companies would prefer the data was presented in a negative light so they can continue swindling gullible miseducated Americans with the horrors of socialised medicine.
"The French system is being bled dry by junkies, immigrants and wasters"... yeah, and it still costs less than half of what Americans pay. Besides, free healthcare rduces crime (an suffering). That's something no one ever mentions, France proves that if America gave free unlimited healthcare to everyone, the average American could keep his monthly premium and still see a two thouand dollar a year tax CUT. The middle class people protesting against "socialised" care would probably save even more.
Yes. The French will have to raise healthcare taxes to roughly $3,500 per person as their population ages... but they'll still be paying less than HALF what Americans pay NOW... and Americans will have to raise their healthcare spending to $10,000 or more per person to treat an aging population who have little access to (money-saving) preventative care.
So tell both sides of the story, rather than cherry-pick facts you can present in such a way as to falsely support your argument.
Regarding the 50 million uninsured figure, the BBC reported 46.6 million uninsured more than a year ago.
The Luke
You know Luke, I'm sure you're great in Physics, but you seriously have the reading comprehension skills of a child.
I'll go SLOWLY for you to understand. I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it again. I THINK OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NEEDS SIGNIFICANT OVERHAUL. It's breaking us financially and needs to be reformed. Healthcare inflation significantly outstrips regular inflation. It's a big problem.
^^DO YOU UNDERSTAND TALKING POINT #1???
Second, it was a policy study I was referring to, not an article. Unlike you, I have no desire to make up facts and figures. The real telling issue is % of GDP. The French were hitting about 2.5% while the US was at a staggering 16%.
^^DO YOU UNDERSTAND TALKING POINT #2?
Third, the point is that we are already significantly in debt, even when you exclude healthcare. Frances problem is projected to hit 66 billion by 2020. It's not shrinking, nor can you provide any evidence that it will. Now, we're significantly larger than France and our physicians and healthcare professionals are paid significantly higher. Barry's plan does not control these costs. THE POINT - If we followed the French system, our deficit would still be spiraling out of control.
Again, It does us no good to bankrupt our country to implement Barry's current proposal.
^^DO YOU UNDERSTAND TALKING POINT #3, DUMBASS?
What you've also failed to mention is that France's healthcare system excludes services and that 92% of French purchase supplemental private insurance. That cost IS NOT factored in.
We undoubtedly need massive reform, IMO. But the French way is not ideal for this country. There is no point in following a system that can't manage its own costs and that has a GROWING deficit. We have 300+ million and the system implemented has to be one that does not sacrifice quality or increase our debt. Even a small increase over a large population adds up.
-
So much bullshit... so much regurgitation...
I'll go SLOWLY for you to understand. I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it again. I THINK OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NEEDS SIGNIFICANT OVERHAUL. It's breaking us financially and needs to be reformed. Healthcare inflation significantly outstrips regular inflation. It's a big problem.
...not everything I write is solely in response to just your posts, this an open discussion thread, not a pm back-and-forth. Not everyone posting in this thread agrees that US healthcare needs reform.
Second, it was a policy study I was referring to, not an article. Unlike you, I have no desire to make up facts and figures. The real telling issue is % of GDP. The French were hitting about 2.5% while the US was at a staggering 16%.
...you haven't shown any of my figures to be wrong, and by citing the percentage of GP you have only EMPHASISED the point that I was making:
That point being: 17% of a big number (America's GDP) is bigger than 10% of a smaller number (France's GDP)... therefore universal socialised medicine is significantly cheaper than America's system of insurance cartel profiteering and brutalising the poor.
Third, the point is that we are already significantly in debt, even when you exclude healthcare. Frances problem is projected to hit 66 billion by 2020. It's not shrinking, nor can you provide any evidence that it will. Now, we're significantly larger than France and our physicians and healthcare professionals are paid significantly higher. Barry's plan does not control these costs.
...this just makes my point too. France's deficit is growing because of the global banking collapse, the overspend on healthcare is only a tiny, tiny fraction.
The $66b you quoted is disingenuous as that is France's TOTAL government deficit... the healthcare deficit is only $11b, or about $3 per person per week (easily rectified with a tiny tax increase).
America is broke... time to replace the profitering and cartels with the most efficient; best performig and CHEAPEST system: universal socialised medicine... just like what's working so well in France.
THE POINT - If we followed the French system, our deficit would still be spiraling out of control.
...actually that's another blatant lie.
America would save 7% of it's GDP (going from 17% to at least less than 10% spending on healthcare, France spends 10% and they have smaller overall GDP and smaller GDP per capita).
That's a $994 billion saving (at least)... enough to run those off-books wars you guys so enjoy, or enough to give each and every American a $3,300 rebate each year (that's $13k+ for the average family!)
If Americans adopted the French system, and levied a tax equal to HALF OF THE PREMIUM Americans used to pay, your entire $12.5 trillion dollar debt could be paid off by 2035... and Americans would have more money to spend: stimulating the economy.
So actually your argument is blatantly false... just outright lies.
What you've also failed to mention is that France's healthcare system excludes services and that 92% of French purchase supplemental private insurance. That cost IS NOT factored in.
This is just outright dishonesty...
I recognisd your "fact" because I read the OECD Report from which it originates.
You neglected to mention that although 92% of French people pay supplemental health insurance, it isn't in any way comparable to what Americans understand by "private health insurance"... it's actually very cheap coverage for incidentals (dental work; opticians services; eyeglasses; cosmetic dentistry) it doesnt allow you to bypass the government run system and doesn't allow you to skip waiting lists (if there are any). The private coverage is COMPLIMETARY not primary. It sometimes even covers such privileges as post natal babysitters.
You likewise neglected to mention that only 12% of French healthcare expenditure comes from such private complimentary coverage... a whopping $385 per person, per year. Aren't most Americans paying more than that each month ot of ther own pockets? Even AFTER paying enough healthcare taxes to pay for a French style system nearly twice over?
Despite your assertions, that cost IS included in the $3k per person figure.
Please read what you quote.
Otherwise you just embarrass yourself further. As it is, with the churlish name calling alongside misunderstanding your own arguments and misquoting sources you either didn't read or didn't understand, it's probably best if you just slink away back under the rock you foolhardily crawled out from under.
We undoubtedly need massive reform, IMO. But the French way is not ideal for this country. There is no point in following a system that can't manage its own costs and that has a GROWING deficit. We have 300+ million and the system implemented has to be one that does not sacrifice quality or increase our debt. Even a small increase over a large population adds up.
...more self-embarrassment. Do you think American healthcare DOESN'T have a deficit?
Didn't I already show you that the French system is only over spending by $158 per person per year.
The French are taxing their population $2,900 per person to pay for a Rolls Royce healthcare system that actually costs $3,050 per person.
Yes, that $3,050 per person will be a whopping $3,500 per person by 2030... but America's $7,500 per person is on course to be $10k+ per person by 2030... so what's your point?
The average American is already paying at least $4k+ in taxes and salary levies per year (before paying any premiums) for shitty healthcare ($7,500 in total)... and you're arguing that adopting a system that gets better results; better care; no denial of coverage and all for only $3k per person will bankrupt America...? WTF?
You do understand that $3,050, whether you pay it in taxes or salary levies is a LOT SMALLER than $7,500 even if you pay some of that $7k in premiums, right?
Come on, I've heard of hysterical blindness... but this is just hysterical stoopidity.
Has anyone got a proper argument why America wouln't be better off adopting the French system?
The Luke
-
Type "French healthcare" into Google... or try doing a little research on "America" and "France" and you'll usually find healthcare spending in among the GDP breakdown charts.
It's not difficult, just try it... or don't bother and simply rely on FOX News to fill your head with what corporations want you to believe.
Your choice.
The Luke
We did type "French healthcare". That's how Skip and I (and 333386) can say that you're full of BULL.
...if you have private health insurance, there is an 15 to 17% chance that you will be denied coverage in the instance of catastrophic illness.
So, you only have 85% coverage.
The Luke
WRONG!!! You can easily have your bases covered, depending on the type of private insurance you have, or if you have multiple policies (as some married couples do).
-
So much bullshit... so much regurgitation...
...not everything I write is solely in response to just your posts, this an open discussion thread, not a pm back-and-forth. Not everyone posting in this thread agrees that US healthcare needs reform.
...you haven't shown any of my figures to be wrong, and by citing the percentage of GP you have only EMPHASISED the point that I was making:
That point being: 17% of a big number (America's GDP) is bigger than 10% of a smaller number (France's GDP)... therefore universal socialised medicine is significantly cheaper than America's system of insurance cartel profiteering and brutalising the poor.
...this just makes my point too. France's deficit is growing because of the global banking collapse, the overspend on healthcare is only a tiny, tiny fraction.
The $66b you quoted is disingenuous as that is France's TOTAL government deficit... the healthcare deficit is only $11b, or about $3 per person per week (easily rectified with a tiny tax increase).
America is broke... time to replace the profitering and cartels with the most efficient; best performig and CHEAPEST system: universal socialised medicine... just like what's working so well in France.
...actually that's another blatant lie.
America would save 7% of it's GDP (going from 17% to at least less than 10% spending on healthcare, France spends 10% and they have smaller overall GDP and smaller GDP per capita).
That's a $994 billion saving (at least)... enough to run those off-books wars you guys so enjoy, or enough to give each and every American a $3,300 rebate each year (that's $13k+ for the average family!)
If Americans adopted the French system, and levied a tax equal to HALF OF THE PREMIUM Americans used to pay, your entire $12.5 trillion dollar debt could be paid off by 2035... and Americans would have more money to spend: stimulating the economy.
So actually your argument is blatantly false... just outright lies.
This is just outright dishonesty...
I recognisd your "fact" because I read the OECD Report from which it originates.
You neglected to mention that although 92% of French people pay supplemental health insurance, it isn't in any way comparable to what Americans understand by "private health insurance"... it's actually very cheap coverage for incidentals (dental work; opticians services; eyeglasses; cosmetic dentistry) it doesnt allow you to bypass the government run system and doesn't allow you to skip waiting lists (if there are any). The private coverage is COMPLIMETARY not primary. It sometimes even covers such privileges as post natal babysitters.
You likewise neglected to mention that only 12% of French healthcare expenditure comes from such private complimentary coverage... a whopping $385 per person, per year. Aren't most Americans paying more than that each month ot of ther own pockets? Even AFTER paying enough healthcare taxes to pay for a French style system nearly twice over?
Despite your assertions, that cost IS included in the $3k per person figure.
Please read what you quote.
Otherwise you just embarrass yourself further. As it is, with the churlish name calling alongside misunderstanding your own arguments and misquoting sources you either didn't read or didn't understand, it's probably best if you just slink away back under the rock you foolhardily crawled out from under.
...more self-embarrassment. Do you think American healthcare DOESN'T have a deficit?
Didn't I already show you that the French system is only over spending by $158 per person per year.
The French are taxing their population $2,900 per person to pay for a Rolls Royce healthcare system that actually costs $3,050 per person.
Yes, that $3,050 per person will be a whopping $3,500 per person by 2030... but America's $7,500 per person is on course to be $10k+ per person by 2030... so what's your point?
The average American is already paying at least $4k+ in taxes and salary levies per year (before paying any premiums) for shitty healthcare ($7,500 in total)... and you're arguing that adopting a system that gets better results; better care; no denial of coverage and all for only $3k per person will bankrupt America...? WTF?
You do understand that $3,050, whether you pay it in taxes or salary levies is a LOT SMALLER than $7,500 even if you pay some of that $7k in premiums, right?
Come on, I've heard of hysterical blindness... but this is just hysterical stoopidity.
Has anyone got a proper argument why America wouln't be better off adopting the French system?
The Luke
The Luke slices, dices and filet's GB's political 'intellectuals'
These beatdowns MUST STOP! :D :D :D
-
The Luke slices, dices and filet's GB's political 'intellectuals'
These beatdowns MUST STOP! :D :D :D
In your dreams. Luke's numbers have been shown to be, shall we say, questionable. Not to mention, he left out all the red ink that France has, due to their healthcare system.
To say nothing of his foolish statements of America having a crappy system, when the overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with their healthcare.
Skip also lined out another of items that Boy Genius missed by a country mile.
So, you two brothers in buffoonery can continue the slapstick.
-
In your dreams. Luke's numbers have been shown to be, shall we say, questionable. Not to mention, he left out all the red ink that France has, due to their healthcare system.
To say nothing of his foolish statements of America having a crappy system, when the overwhelming majority of Americans are happy with their healthcare.
Skip also lined out another of items that Boy Genius missed by a country mile.
So, you two brothers in buffoonery can continue the slapstick.
Remember: we are talking about a person who made up a phoney war record here.
-
You know Luke, I'm sure you're great in Physics, but you seriously have the reading comprehension skills of a child.
I'll go SLOWLY for you to understand. I've said this many times to you, and I'll say it again. I THINK OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM NEEDS SIGNIFICANT OVERHAUL. It's breaking us financially and needs to be reformed. Healthcare inflation significantly outstrips regular inflation. It's a big problem.
^^DO YOU UNDERSTAND TALKING POINT #1???
Second, it was a policy study I was referring to, not an article. Unlike you, I have no desire to make up facts and figures. The real telling issue is % of GDP. The French were hitting about 2.5% while the US was at a staggering 16%.
^^DO YOU UNDERSTAND TALKING POINT #2?
Third, the point is that we are already significantly in debt, even when you exclude healthcare. Frances problem is projected to hit 66 billion by 2020. It's not shrinking, nor can you provide any evidence that it will. Now, we're significantly larger than France and our physicians and healthcare professionals are paid significantly higher. Barry's plan does not control these costs. THE POINT - If we followed the French system, our deficit would still be spiraling out of control.
Again, It does us no good to bankrupt our country to implement Barry's current proposal.
^^DO YOU UNDERSTAND TALKING POINT #3, DUMBASS?
What you've also failed to mention is that France's healthcare system excludes services and that 92% of French purchase supplemental private insurance. That cost IS NOT factored in.
We undoubtedly need massive reform, IMO. But the French way is not ideal for this country. There is no point in following a system that can't manage its own costs and that has a GROWING deficit. We have 300+ million and the system implemented has to be one that does not sacrifice quality or increase our debt. Even a small increase over a large population adds up.
Damn!!! The Luke getting bitch slapped left and right.
The Luke take some notes from Skip. This is how to argue a point without having to resort to lies and made up statistics.
Thanks for playing but you can run along now little guy.
-
Damn!!! The Luke getting bitch slapped left and right.
The Luke take some notes from Skip. This is how to argue a point without having to resort to lies and made up statistics.
Thanks for playing but you can run along now little guy.
I forgot to add Luke's "convenient" omission that the WHO ranking of France's healtcare is TEN YEARS OLD and has been DISCONTINUED.
Of course, my initial dismantling of his take dealt with his claim about certain posters (who are in the military), having a problem with the average Joe Blow getting "socialized" healthcare, while they get such themselves.
Nobody has a problem with ANYONE getting healthcare from HIS EMPLOYER (in the case of the military, that's the DoD). But military folks have certain limitations on healthcare.