cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68 
|
Post by cm on Jan 22, 2008 23:10:47 GMT -5
I've gotten 1000 dollars from 'private mercy' my whole collegiate career. When it's all said and done, I'll get a total of almost 20K in grants for college from the government as well as 11,000 in a loan that I will pay back right away, and have a little earned interest for keeping it in the bank and not using it.
I can't say the same thing would happen under Paul's let Rich people take mercy for the poor appraoch.
-------------------
All politicians who have a chance to win it all use rhetoric. Many are great lawyers and can't help it. I don't care if he's a liar and a cheater. He got the results done. California democrats have gotten me their vote by continuing to fund colleges and fund me to go to school. I'm not going to vote for somebody who wants to take my education away.
--------------------
The US needs to redo the education system not by privatizing it but by allowing kids to take vocational emphasis's in high school. That is done in every industrialized country except the US.
You don't need to privatize US education to make it better.
---------------------------
We had those trillions of dollars under Clinton and then some.
-------------------------
Here's the problem with letting people 'invest' their own money.
There is bound to be those who can't make ends meat, and you know what they will do? They'll take the social security money and use it to survive. So retirement comes, and they have nothing because they didn't 'invest' it well. Should the government let them rot on the streets?
---------------------
Why did you link me to Ron Paul's stance on minimum wage? He wants corporations to pay workers money they can't live on and have workers work 15 hour days just like they do in China.
The guy is for corporate owner rights, not worker rights.
----------------------------
Foreign policy isn't simple. You have to look into every situation as a new one with an open mind. You can't always take a 'non-interventionist' stance, and say it will work every time.
--------------------------
You didn't answer my question. Have you ever been to government run clinics or hospitals?
By Paul's logic, we should get rid of regulation in the medical community. Lack of regulation gives doctors the right to refuse to serve patients who can't pay.
Denying somebody their health is denying somebody their right to live, and is murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by SecretAsianMan on Jan 22, 2008 23:53:22 GMT -5
^Umm, that's fairly common around the country...
You might also be interested to know that healthcare providers in the U.S. are now working to gain access to people's FICO credit scores -- medFICO is what it's called...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ajeno on Jan 23, 2008 0:01:27 GMT -5
___________
I've gotten 1000 dollars from 'private mercy' my whole collegiate career. When it's all said and done, I'll get a total of almost 20K in grants for college from the government as well as 11,000 in a loan that I will pay back right away, and have a little earned interest for keeping it in the bank and not using it.
I can't say the same thing would happen under Paul's let Rich people take mercy for the poor appraoch.
_________
You missed the point entirely. You cant always trust the Gov to manage money well because look how that turns out. Thats why so many foundations exist, to cut out the Gov. Pauls looking out for the poor by protecting there money in congress.Under someone like Obama the poor-uninsured would be overcharged and left with no other options.
________
________
All politicians who have a chance to win it all use rhetoric. Many are great lawyers and can't help it. I don't care if he's a liar and a cheater. He got the results done. California democrats have gotten me their vote by continuing to fund colleges and fund me
to go to school. I'm not going to vote for somebody who wants to take my education away.
Do you understand his stance on the IRS now?
Democrats are also stealing money in Washington. Im not voting for people whos agenda it is to keep people poor for their own gain and uphold a failing system just to save face. Nor do i want Government to continue to rob people of their earnings and think they know whats best. Weve already turned ourselves over to privitization.
_____________
The US needs to redo the education system not by privatizing it but by allowing kids to take vocational emphasis's in high school. That is done in every industrialized country except the US. You don't need to privatize US education to make it better.
Maybe not but, the D.O.E is what it is due to Democrats and Republicans with too much power who dont know what their doing. They might aswell be a private industry. At the end of the
day its not what you want, its what people want to do with their money and people want options.
______________
We had those trillions of dollars under Clinton and then some.
Clinton also messed up by further messing up things he inherited from the previous idiots by expanding it and making it worse, like the jailsystems. So i dont belive those figures. My original post still stands.
____________
Here's the problem with letting people 'invest' their own money.
There is bound to be those who can't make ends meat, and you know what they will do? They'll take the social security money and use it to survive. So retirement comes, and they have nothing because they didn't 'invest' it well. Should the government let them rot on the streets?
Thats your opinion only.
People can barely make ends meet now and most of them have higher education and good paying jobs. Look at the studies, Government has bit off more than it can chew. Those Trillions in obligations dont lie. People will be out on the streets now if something isnt done. Like i said its not what you want, its what the people want. let them decide whether they want to invest or not, because later on they may end up with nothing under the current system.
__________
Why did you link me to Ron Paul's stance on minimum wage? He wants corporations to pay workers money they can't live on and have workers work 15 hour days just like they do in China.
The guy is for corporate owner rights, not worker rights.
Did you even read it?
So now we want the Gov. pulling the strings calling the shots deciding when to raise and not to raise for their own greedy purposes while they just inflate somewhere else? Pfft.
_________________
Foreign policy isn't simple. You have to look into every situation as a new one with an open mind. You can't always take a 'non-interventionist' stance, and say it will work every time.
No you cant but neither can you be foolish to think that you can operate by fighting a new war every couple years and spending trillions of dollars while people at home go broke. We pay 20+% to the U.N. and they constantly impose their laws on us not too mention we are the muscle. look at our policy now and you tell me what other countries are heavily engaged like we are? Its retarded anyway you slice it.
You didn't answer my question. Have you ever been to government run clinics or hospitals? By Paul's logic, we should get rid of regulation in the medical community. Lack of
regulation gives doctors the right to refuse to serve patients who can't pay.Denying somebody their health is denying somebody their right to live, and is murder.
Of course i have. They should be able to conduct themselves as they want.. Hospitals are shutting down because of problems under the current system. And youre being too extreme. Look at the current system now. Why cant people afford medical care? Look at the so called not for profit hospitals overcharing the poor. Its a disgrace. You want more regulation? No thanx
|
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jan 23, 2008 11:47:00 GMT -5
I read somewhere that here in the US that sick patients who need care but w/o money are dumped onto the streets. I don't remember where it was but I think it's already happening. I'd like to see evidence of that somewhere besides a Michael Moore "documentary". We are required to accept ANY patient, regardless of payment ability, on an emergent basis, and stabilize that person. At that point, if the person is unable to pay for care that can't be labelled as lifesaving, the person is transfered (at public expense) to a facility that will either 1) accept that person's insurance or 2) A county/state facility that provides medical care pro bono. You must define your terms "needing medical care". Does this include the person that "needs" a penile implant for adequate sexual function? The person that "needs" cutting edge prosthetics for an amputated limb? A person that "needs" radical reconstructive surgery to appear more "normal"? A person that "needs" is a difficult thing to define, and I just want to know where you draw the line as to "need" and "want". I can assure you that at EVERY hospital I have ever worked, no bleeding, supersick individual has been "kicked to the curb". Quite the opposite, in fact, as I have witnessed first hand your tax dollars at work in the form of Viagra scripts. That's right. Boner pills for the needy. The system may be "broken", but the thought of it not being at least partially due to massive abuse by consumers is laughable. |
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 23, 2008 20:47:16 GMT -5
I read somewhere that here in the US that sick patients who need care but w/o money are dumped onto the streets. I don't remember where it was but I think it's already happening. I'd like to see evidence of that somewhere besides a Michael Moore "documentary". We are required to accept ANY patient, regardless of payment ability, on an emergent basis, and stabilize that person. At that point, if the person is unable to pay for care that can't be labelled as lifesaving, the person is transfered (at public expense) to a facility that will either 1) accept that person's insurance or 2) A county/state facility that provides medical care pro bono. You must define your terms "needing medical care". Does this include the person that "needs" a penile implant for adequate sexual function? The person that "needs" cutting edge prosthetics for an amputated limb? A person that "needs" radical reconstructive surgery to appear more "normal"? A person that "needs" is a difficult thing to define, and I just want to know where you draw the line as to "need" and "want". I can assure you that at EVERY hospital I have ever worked, no bleeding, supersick individual has been "kicked to the curb". Quite the opposite, in fact, as I have witnessed first hand your tax dollars at work in the form of Viagra scripts. That's right. Boner pills for the needy. The system may be "broken", but the thought of it not being at least partially due to massive abuse by consumers is laughable. Do you know why you have those obligations to carry out? Regulation, which Paul is against. |
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 23, 2008 20:51:04 GMT -5
I read somewhere that here in the US that sick patients who need care but w/o money are dumped onto the streets. I don't remember where it was but I think it's already happening. Those are case studies. Generally all hospitals accept everybody. Whether the quality of care is equal is another story. I had Kaiser insurance for one year and had the highest quality of care ever in my life. I've also experienced health care in other hospitals which sucked. In China's pure capitalist system, which Ron Paul wants which is a deregulated health care system, poor patients are outright rejected and die prematurely because of this. While many are getting more wealthy in China, the trickle down is a myth. The poor are probably getting poorer if anything. In Hungary, everybody was poor but had a roof over their head under communism. Now, some are rich, while up to 100,000 who lived their adult life under Communism and of course have no savings, are homeless and on the street. By the simplistic view of Paul, the free market solves everything. The free market principle is good for your economy but every industrialized nation in the world realizes there needs to be a net to capture the people in the bottom. |
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 24, 2008 2:41:27 GMT -5
You missed the point entirely. You cant always trust the Gov to manage money well because look how that turns out. Thats why so many foundations exist, to cut out the Gov. Pauls looking out for the poor by protecting there money in congress.Under someone like Obama the poor-uninsured would be overcharged and left with no other options.
The very poor are insured with medicare and medicaid, and they do get healthcare. So what you're saying is ridiculous. Paul is looking out for the poor's money? How indoctrinated are you with Paul's beliefs? Poor people have ZERO savings. If they need surgery, the extra couple hundred they get with Paul tax cuts doesn't pay for a 15 thousand dollar surgery. Only nationalized healthcare pays for that. How the hell does Paul improve a poor persons health insurance when he takes away medicare, medicaid, and government insurance programs? That makes zero logical sense.
Do you understand his stance on the IRS now?
Democrats are also stealing money in Washington. Im not voting for people whos agenda it is to keep people poor for their own gain and uphold a failing system just to save face. Nor do i want Government to continue to rob people of their earnings and think they know whats best. Weve already turned ourselves over to privitization.
Those earnings are being used to fund colleges and high paying government jobs. As I said, an extra couple hundred in a poor person's pocket is not Paul protecting money. The bulk of the taxes comes from the rich, and the bulk of them goes towards programs that the poor can never afford. A college education costs 20K a year. Government subsidizes 75% of it, and you only pay 25%. You can get more government grants for the next 25%. Security guards in California jails make 60K-70K a year. Cops make 60-70K a year. Their money comes from...you guessed it, the government. By cutting taxes, the poor and middle class barely see a difference. It's the rich that get the bulk of the benefit since they pay the bulk of the taxes. Therefore, tax cuts only hurt the poor and middle class by taking away funds from programs they enjoy.
Maybe not but, the D.O.E is what it is due to Democrats and Republicans with too much power who dont know what their doing. They might aswell be a private industry. At the end of the
day its not what you want, its what people want to do with their money and people want options.
Should they be in sweat shops?  Should they rely on private industry which heavily favors family members already in positions to choose who gets internships?
Clinton also messed up by further messing up things he inherited from the previous idiots by expanding it and making it worse, like the jailsystems. So i dont belive those figures. My original post still stands.
Your original post doesn't stand. It's a fact.
Thats your opinion only.
People can barely make ends meet now and most of them have higher education and good paying jobs. Look at the studies, Government has bit off more than it can chew. Those Trillions in obligations dont lie. People will be out on the streets now if something isnt done. Like i said its not what you want, its what the people want. let them decide whether they want to invest or not, because later on they may end up with nothing under the current system.
Wrong. People who barely make ends meat have low paying jobs with high healthcare costs, and rising cost of living costs. Those with higher paying jobs only need to adjust their lifestyle accordingly, and stop living beyond their means. If you want to live your life in luxury driving an SUV, then don't complain about gas prices. The government has bitten off more than they can chew. Hilary with the help of Bill can solve that because they did it in the 90s.
Did you even read it?
So now we want the Gov. pulling the strings calling the shots deciding when to raise and not to raise for their own greedy purposes while they just inflate somewhere else? Pfft.
Rising the minimum wage is greedy? Not says the single mother working in Taco Bell who sees an increase in her wages. Only corporations don't want this.
No you cant but neither can you be foolish to think that you can operate by fighting a new war every couple years and spending trillions of dollars while people at home go broke. We pay 20+% to the U.N. and they constantly impose their laws on us not too mention we are the muscle. look at our policy now and you tell me what other countries are heavily engaged like we are? Its retarded anyway you slice it.
Last time I checked, Obama's and Hilary's stances are not that of warhawks. I'm not going to vote for somebody just because they are even more of a peace dove to sacrifice my education and social security.
Of course i have. They should be able to conduct themselves as they want.. Hospitals are shutting down because of problems under the current system. And youre being too extreme. Look at the current system now. Why cant people afford medical care? Look at the so called not for profit hospitals overcharing the poor. Its a disgrace. You want more regulation? No thanx
The problem is health insurance companies are deregulated, and pick and choose how much to pay hospitals for certain procedures. The government needs to regulate how much gets paid per procedure so hospitals get enough. Those non-profit hospitals you talk about are a prime example of how privatized charity doesn't help the poor. Only the government does. Nobody should have to pay to stay healthy. It should be your right to receive care and the government should provide it. That's why France has the number one healthcare system in the world and the US is ranked 37th. It's been proven that privatization of your life and health doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jan 24, 2008 11:37:46 GMT -5
I'd like to see evidence of that somewhere besides a Michael Moore "documentary". We are required to accept ANY patient, regardless of payment ability, on an emergent basis, and stabilize that person. At that point, if the person is unable to pay for care that can't be labelled as lifesaving, the person is transfered (at public expense) to a facility that will either 1) accept that person's insurance or 2) A county/state facility that provides medical care pro bono. You must define your terms "needing medical care". Does this include the person that "needs" a penile implant for adequate sexual function? The person that "needs" cutting edge prosthetics for an amputated limb? A person that "needs" radical reconstructive surgery to appear more "normal"? A person that "needs" is a difficult thing to define, and I just want to know where you draw the line as to "need" and "want". I can assure you that at EVERY hospital I have ever worked, no bleeding, supersick individual has been "kicked to the curb". Quite the opposite, in fact, as I have witnessed first hand your tax dollars at work in the form of Viagra scripts. That's right. Boner pills for the needy. The system may be "broken", but the thought of it not being at least partially due to massive abuse by consumers is laughable. Do you know why you have those obligations to carry out? Regulation, which Paul is against. The argument here is actually quite simple. It boils down to whether you see healthcare as a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE. Somewhere in between is where we are at now, a certain, basic, lifesaving level of care is a right, and it is privilege that dictates top-of-the-line care. An interesting example of this can be found right here in Chicago, where prominent politician John Stroger, who recently died after being ill for awhile. Mr. Stroger had the brand new state of the art Cook County hospital named after him. He NEVER went there for care. He passed away at Northwestern. County asked, practically pleaded to have the man get his care done there at his namesake. Nope. My point is simply if a bleeding heart liberal like Stroger didn't want to "slum it".....who exactly are you asking to pay the bill? No worries buddy, your precious socialized medicine will be delivered to you in the not too distant future. Remember where you heard it first.....careful what you wish for. Take a little spin around your local VA hospital and prepare for the future. And don't blame me, since I told you so before it happened. Just like Dr. Paul told everyone before the Iraq war started. |
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 24, 2008 13:28:30 GMT -5
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
France's socialist system is number one in the world. I know what I'm wishing for. That's the best medical system in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Jan 24, 2008 13:32:00 GMT -5
It's all about how it is executed.
History of failed social programs in the US of A is long and not so distinguished.
Hope you enjoy.
I'll be waiting outside the system for you when you need something done right and in a timely manner.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 24, 2008 13:34:47 GMT -5
Exactly. So hire some consultants from the French system and help us implement it here.
The wealthiest country in t he world and we're ranked 37th. Also one of the only industrialized countries to have a privatized system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ajeno on Jan 24, 2008 14:07:08 GMT -5
Me, an Independent whos seeing things from the middle being called indoctrinated by someone who worships Billary? Someone who said the problems with SS and our obligations are a myth, that people need to live within their means but cant address a whole country thats living outside its means with its messed up tax-system and its promises? huh. Bill thinks a Fed system operating outside the bounds of government doesnt need to be audited but the poor guy down the street whose house is being foreclosed on does. huh. This debate is going nooowhere fast. Whats the ratio of Gaurds to prisoners? How much does it cost to house them? Thought so. Lemme know when Billary can tackle fiscal responsibility and racial issues on things like the drug war in one shot or when she can make sense like Paul: youtube.com/watch?v=vKi8SSkyI2o |
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 24, 2008 21:05:58 GMT -5
Me, an Independent whos seeing things from the middle being called indoctrinated by someone who worships Billary? Someone who said the problems with SS and our obligations are a myth, that people need to live within their means but cant address a whole country thats living outside its means with its messed up tax-system and its promises? huh. Bill thinks a Fed system operating outside the bounds of government doesnt need to be audited but the poor guy down the street whose house is being foreclosed on does. huh. This debate is going nooowhere fast. Whats the ratio of Gaurds to prisoners? How much does it cost to house them? Thought so. Lemme know when Billary can tackle fiscal responsibility and racial issues on things like the drug war in one shot or when she can make sense like Paul: youtube.com/watch?v=vKi8SSkyI2o'Billary' is the reason why I'm going to college for free and have opportunity for a great career ahead of me. I could never afford to go to school without them. Billary DID tackle the fiscal problem. They had a surplus. Stop denying facts, you are looking silly. Paul makes sense if you are rich. If you are rich and want tax cuts, go ahead and vote for Paul. I'm not rich. I'm not going to vote for somebody who would take my free higher education away. |
|
|
|
Post by Ajeno on Jan 27, 2008 16:56:49 GMT -5
@cjf
Ron Paul makes sense if you wanna protect the poor and dependant while digging at the heart of the problems. And he seems to be the only one whos truly ANTI-Establishment.
Whats silly is this talk that Clinton was so great. Show me proof of this supposed "Surplus" that isnt fabricated nonsense.
Hillary is in the pocket of big-business and doesnt have quality experience nor does she understand the core issues. Even if Bill was as good as you say he is (which he isnt) that hardly qualifies HER for office; It just means that she has excess baggage we all have to worry about. Universal healthcare and free education is a joke if you dont understand everything inside out, so tbh her promises are laughable and scary at the same time. Many of the problems this country's in right now is not all Bushs doing even if he is a moron and shes one of many people/politicians who doesnt seem to get that. On top of all that she takes no responsibility for her poor voting record. Imo, shes a neo-con with a socialist-streak who doesnt care about freedom and liberty and just wants a big wasteful government enslaving this nation even further. No thank you to a Bush #2.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Jan 27, 2008 19:59:57 GMT -5
|
|
