While some conservatives claim that Obama wants to kill your granny I hesitate to accept that as Obamas sole reason for pushing the health care reform.
From the private insurers point of view it makes perfect sense to oppose the reform ... if they didn't, they'd face an immense decline in profits if either the government option provides better care or if regulations bar insurers from avoiding costs by their current methods.
But it's a bit too simplicistic to merely claim that one party acts out of altruism (or a loathing of old ladies) and the other out of greed.
So, what do you think are the driving motives in this dispute ?
(Note that I don't ask you what you think is the better solution.)
Pro (Motives of the health care reform advocates):
Con (Motives of the health care reform opponents):
Two key issues that make the health care reform necessary in the eyes of the proponents are quailty and cost.
Quality has been discussed to death and information (and misinformation) is freely available.
Cost is harder to estimate - one simply can't understand what estimated costs of trillions of dollars over decades means for your paycheck. So I started a different thread where I want to compare the personal average cost of health care in different countries.
For example: German average gross income is about €2,500. After deductions (including health insurance) a single person without kids gets to keep about €1,500.
And what can germans do with that money in germany? Why, buy beer, of course. €1,500 get you 1,200 litre of high quality Pilsener beer - twice as much if you don't care about quality and go for the cheap labels.
Health care costs: €185 per month (currently $264)
Cheers!
You realize you are rewarding the rapist?
No. Please explain.
Do you think the rapist wants the child to be born or in any way benefits from the existence of his biological child?
It seems logical to me that the rapist would want the child to be aborted.
Actuly no some rapist rape for the thrill to rape others are turned on even more by knowing that their act will bring forth a child. You can't think logicaly with criminals they ahve a twited midn that is why they do twisted things. Indeed it does nto mean that teh child of a rapist will be a bad person. However it forces the persont hat was raped to bear the child of the person that caused them greta harm. To bear the child of the person that witch you hate the most in the world.
If your a women it's easy to imagine would you want to bare the child of the man you hate the most?If your a man imagine would you want your gf/wife to bare the child of the man you hate teh most?
The answer to booth of those questions is obviusly NO ! So any woment hat gets rape should have the right to abortion.
But we are gettign off track here. This is about universal health care for all. Note that nothing is free int his world one way or and other you pay for it.
I can only tell you that having a health care system that will treat everyone and treat them all the same will more greatly benifit the U.S. then sytem that si for profit like the current one. Weatehr it should be federaly or state ran I don't know. I just know the Federal level seems to eb the only place where their is will. To that just means your federal gouvernemnt cares more for you then you private healt insurance witch they just want more of your money. The fed will probably need to raise taxes for the healt care but in general it will be cheaper per capita so if you have private health insurance the federal oen should be cheaper. But that all depend son how it is managed and on how the privite sector will try to undermine the system.
Because one thing is for sure the private sector will do all it can to make the plan fail to satisfy their own greed.
You tell me that one cannot think logically with criminals and then you proceed to think logically about it and focus on the criminal and what he might want or not want.
I pretty much ignored the criminal in my reasoning and focused on the child.
The point is that the child is innocent. The decision shouldn't have anything to do with the rapist but only with the child and the mother. I already said that I agree that an abortion would be fully justified. But I'd still prefer the child to live.
Focusing logically on the rapist and figuring out what his opinion is contradicts not only your claim that one cannot think logically with criminals but it also ignored the subject, namely whether or not the child should live. And it should.
Remove the rapist from the equation and think of another situation where the killing of one might be justified. For example think of a situation where someone accidentally kills another trying to save himself. Would you not agree that while the killing would be justified (in the sense that it shouldn't be punished) buit that it would be better if it hadn't happened?
What i said that you can think logicaly about what a criminal will do since their behavior rarely has any logic bassing it. were logic comes in in ont eh side fo the victim and what the victim feels and what is only natural. I for one know a rape vcitime that got rape (evidently) and decided to keep the child till term. But she gave it up to adoption. Today she did take contact witht hat child again 25 years later but she stilld oesn't know if keeping it was a good choise. She doesn't hate him for the kid is a greta guy, but she doesn't love him either because of what he represents.
One I think I'll say abortion should not be mandatory but should be available for any rape victim. It's a hard choise to take indeed and yes teh child is innocent. But still even if it is the life the child will have will not be the best of lives. More othen then not that childs life will not be a happy one.
I for one weiv my blood children that I,ll have as my form of imortalaty if you wish. I live on in them after I die if you want to phrase it like that. So for me for a rapist to gain that "Immortalaty" througth a voilent act liek that is unacceptable for me. Witch si why I will always support rape victims to ahve the right to abortion.
But still even if it is the life the child will have will not be the best of lives. More othen then not that childs life will not be a happy one.
The mother could (and probably should) give the child up for adoption. There are so many couples who want a child and can't get one.
I for one weiv my blood children that I,ll have as my form of imortalaty if you wish. I live on in them after I die if you want to phrase it like that. So for me for a rapist to gain that "Immortalaty" througth a voilent act liek that is unacceptable for me.
The rapist won't get the imortality, only the real father, the one who raises the child and fills his or her brain with information will. It is a fallacy to assume that what we are is defined by our genes. It isn't. And it is only genes that the child will get from his biological father.
What I am is not my genes but my worldview. I'd rather have my worldview spread than my genes. Having children should be for the benefit of the children, not for the benefit of some mythical idea of imortality by spreading your genes.
This thread shouldn't be about rape. Keep it workplace safe.
The prison industry of america is an interesting topic, too, but I only mentioned that to exemplify the paradoxical relation between american values and policies. We can gladly talk about this in another thread - the topic is hilarious. E.g. did you know that the worth of a prison company's stock is measured by the amount of prisoners?.
So, let's get back to topic.
1) The cereals bowl you just ate this morning was a result of someone else caring for you. If you stop feeding you'll get sick and as a result;
2) But lucky you, Doctors (and plenty more, btw) have such concerns for anyone.
Zyx, you're a lunatic. The procession of people that made the cereal, bowls, milk, fork, and everything else along the way, didn't give two shits about him. They were working in return for compensation, just like every one else. Even if there are people in that chain thinking about how people will benefit from their product, there still isn't some selfless act. Ego stroking is a form of compensation too.
All hail the compassionate cereal bowl makers!
You still don't get it do you... society is a collaborative medium. It's a coordinated attempt at providing the essentials to ALL by ALL.
Zyxp,
I fear you're wasting your breath. I believe this may be a result of the obvious cultural differences between Canada and the US (some cited quite well by Frogboy earlier).
In the US (in general) it seems to be all about the individual. What the individual can accomplish and what wealth/prosperity he/she can amass. In Canada (also in general) we tend to work toward the collective good. I can see how that would make for vastly differing points of view.
the Monk
Zyx, in America, the individual works for the benefit of the individual. By everyone working for their own benefit, they improve their own lives, and since society is comprised of all those individuals, society benefits as well. You can't have a society or collective without the individuals who comprise it.
What the individual can accomplish and what wealth/prosperity he/she can amass. In Canada (also in general) we tend to work toward the collective good. I can see how that would make for vastly differing points of view.
It was a British economist who figured out that work done for oneself ultimately benefits the collective good.
I have read of experiments that showed that if players compete rather than co-operate (i.e. work for the collective good) they will ultimately get more points.
And in fact, in our world, the more competitive a society is, economically, the better off even the poorest member of it becomes.
Lol, that very thing you talk about is also the number 1 reason your contry has the highest crime rate of the developed world. A system like that also might int he short term bring benefits tot he comunaty indeed but int he long term it means lots of people lose out. When people lose out they get desperate and crime is only 1 hair away, not to mention the 1st reason poor people steal when they were honest before will steal for food.
Take the movie Batman Begins, and watch the part part were calponey talks to Bruce about desperation, were he also talk about rigth and wrong with Raz Al Goul. You might discard those staments as fiction since you will say it's a movie how ever those statements are prety much spot on to the reality of alot of people.
Also in a competive system for markets it means you always have to produce a produc for people at a better price then your competitor. Sounds good at first until you realise that makign stuff cheaper has also made stuff lest durrenble 80% the time were as before it was built to last. This has terrible effects, as it keeps everyone poorer as they constantly have to rebuy somehting that could have lasted them a life time. In addition to that sinc eyour always making new stuff at a great rate it also means you poluted your inviroment with added transportation of good and manufacturing process from start to finish. That does alot fo good for the communaty right? Global Warming, Floods, Droughts, More violent Hurricanes, More Tornados, More wild fires. Very helpfull.
Now I coudl go on and point all of the long term disadvantages that a competition has in every domain you can fraking imagine. In more cooperative societies those problems are still present because humans will be humans, but their impact is lesser.
@zyxpsilon, @the_Monk:
What monk said.
I, too, originally assumed that americans share the same values our "socialist" societies do, but they seem to differ substantialy in some aspects. Generally speaking, of course.
Now, we people here are still relatively civil to each other, despite our obvious differences. Ok, we doubt each others sanity at times, but that's fine. There's even screaming going on when we basically agree with each other but squabble over nuances.
If we all sit back a bit and think how it must be like when people with fundamentally different values clash, one can imagine that those clashes won't be solved without fatalities. And america is a melting pot of different cultures, beliefs, values. I sometimes think that's the reason that americans demonstrate such a disturbing patriotism - a common bond to prevent a shattered union.
As foreign observers we have a different perspective of the things that happen in america. And the health reform opposition clearly looks like the exploiters of the current system are doing everything they can to prevent something we take for granted.
Well, if you admit that your perspective is clouded, how can you claim to see this so-called opposition "cleary?" Keep in mind that "health reform opposition" is an inappropriate term, as opponents of HR 3200 most likely want healthcare reform, but not in that particular implementation.
I find it amusing foreigners speak as if American healthcare is somehow lacking. We provide healthcare to the poor (Medicaid) and to the elderly (Medicare). We also provide the best healthcare in the world to those who purchase private insurance, which is affordable to all but a small minority of Americans (this minority being those with costly pre-existing conditions). I do not consider illegal immigrants in my assessment, as they are not entitled to taxpayer-funded healthcare. Our system is not perfect, but considering the talent of our physicians, our wealth of technology, and diversity of care options, I see no reason for foreigners to pity us. I would expect the opposite, really. Perhaps there is some lingering envy for American healthcare, particularly in how we often attract talented physicians from other nations.
As a Canadian and as someone who was married to an emergency physician for 10 years here are my thoughts on health care in the U.S. vs health care in Canada:
-In Canada physicians are well paid but do not earn the exhorbitant salaries of their US counterparts. I believe this helps to keep the profession fairly free of those whose goal is to become a "rich doctor". Most Canadian doctors truly care about advancing medicine and helping their patients. Most are normal, humble people who often do not even use the "Dr." title outside of the medical arena. While they financially enjoy a lifestyle better than most, health care costs are not mired by inflated salaries paid to inflated egos. Until US doctors are prepared to accept more realistic salaries, universal health care will never be a possibility in the US.
-The "sue happy" mentality of the US population (touched on previously I believe). Doctors in the US often pay hundreds of thousands of $$ ANNUALLY for medical insurance (especially specialties like obstetrics). Your baby is born with an extra finger? Sue the doctor! In Canada, insurance is included in the annual fee paid to the medical association of the province in which you are employed. Although it is not unheard of to sue a doctor or hospital in Canada, you must show just cause for your case to be allowed to proceed in the courts. In the US, you can bring any lawsuit you like. I remember reading an article several years ago in a Canadian medical journal that recounted a trial in the US. I don't remember the details but the gist was that a baby had been born with some medical issues and the parents weren't happy. They sued the doctors because "they should have known". The independent medical experts that testified showed without a doubt that no one could have known, the doctors did everything "right" and that it was just one of those unfortunate things that happen in life. But the lawyers played on the emotions of the jury, (poor kid, medical issues for life, etc.) and the jury, ignoring the overwhelming evidence supporting the defense, awarded a settlement of millions of $$. I don't think I have to spell out how allowing frivolous lawsuits and inflated settlements damages the integrity of health care.
In my opinion it boils down to money and attitude. In Canada, we pay a LOT of taxes. We grumble about it but we do it because we know that because of those taxes we recieve top notch medical care, a police force we trust (don't even try to debate me on the gun issue in the US...you will lose...lol), all the services we need to live a good life, financial aid when we are old, welfare for those down on their luck, excellent schools for our children, subsidized universities/colleges so that post secondary education is an option for anyone.
In terms of attitude, not everyone uses or needs the services available. For example, even if you have no children, you pay hefty school taxes. You may have a chronic illness that requires frequent doctor visits or you may get a check-up once a year and be fine. Again, people sometimes grumble about paying for services they may not need or use, but Canadians understand that it is best for all of us to have a population that is healthy, educated, and secure in the knowledge that our government cares about our well being. Perhaps these are the reasons why Canadians seem/are happier, more polite, less sue-happy, less racist, less violent and all round more respectful to each other than Americans.
Until the American social consciousness changes, until the American people are prepared to act in the best interests of the populous and not just themselves, I don't think Universal health care will ever come to fruition in the US.
the Monk's Wife
A hem Best HealthCare in therts to high tech threatmeants ect is Cuba. But foreingers have to pay and that price helps fund the Healthcare system for the cuban people as well.
Wow.
@the_Monk
Good, and please stay where you are. There's a reason why they put loons on your currency. Also, "In Canada physicians are well paid but do not earn the exhorbitant salaries of their US counterparts," is priceless. Those miserly American doctors!
Well said and yes, that is basically the key difference. Americans, culturally, favor the individual. Canadians, are more collectivist.
Now it's not as black or white as it might seem. Canada is like many European countries where its demographic is very homogenus compared to the United States (and before we get into a debate on the diversity of Toronto or Vancouver or Paris I am talking about the countries as a whole).
In the United States, we are not, as a practical matter, allowed to discuss American diversity and its consequences because people fear being called a racist. So instead of dealing with the differences between different groups in the US, we instead have evolved a culture of individuals because we cannot, as a practical matter, be collectivists when there are such sharp distinctions between different groups in the US without the ability to constructive discuss those differences.
But it's really the elephant in the room that we Americans aren't allowed to discuss. In Canada or Germany, it's easy to be collectivists when nearly everyone there shares the same values as you do. In the United States, we don't have that. We have different groups with fundamentally different attitudes and I don't mean diversity as in a rich tapestry of life. But like I said, we Americans aren't allowed to discuss it.
Heck, in the US, we can't even object to Obama's policies without people yelling "racist" because Obama is half African (and thus has darker pigment).
The only analogy I could remotely compare the US situation to would be to ask the Germans on the forum to imagine if 12% of their voting population were Turks (instead of 2.4%) and another 14% were Albanian (instead of less than 1%) and imagine how easy it would be to have "collectivism" then.
It's one of the reasons why American politics are so screwed up. Those of us with technical backgrounds (many people reading this discussion for instance) tend to get baffled at seeing the hangups on people's pigment level and wish people could get beyond that and instead look at the very significant cultural differences within the United States and the consequences of them (like murder rates, affect on average lifespan statistic, prison population, health care costs).
But because we don't discuss these things, people simply say "Screw it, let's just keep the government OUT of everything we can."
I think the word you"re looking for Melchiz is "greedy" American doctors....not "miserly"....completely different meaning....I guess the fact that we pay our doctors less but we pay our teachers more shows.....lol...."priceless".
And I am the Monk's wife...not the Monk...although I'm pretty sure he agrees with me. When he gets home I'll ask....lol.
I doubt that you are aware of hyperbole as a form of mockery, or the fact that miserly is a similar, but more insulting, means of calling someone "greedy." If you honestly believe that American doctors as a whole are inspired by greed, you should abstain from this debate entirely.
Frogboy, since you have access to IPs and whatnot (I recall you commenting on the number of Germans complaining about Demigod), should we assume that many of the supporters of HR 3200 on these forums are, in fact, not American? I would not be surprised. The great irony is, of course, that foreigners become extremely agitated when Americans tell them what to do.
I don't think most people here are arguing for or against HR 3200. They are arguing about the concept of tax payer funded universal health care.
The issue, in my view, is just a lot more complex in the US than in other western countries for reasons discussed in this thread.
Well, in order to understand the appropriate way to manage American healthcare, one must understand America. I suppose that this complexity explains the arguments made by many foreign posters.
(this forum software is pure shit when dealing with several nested quotes.)
Quoting Melchiz
Quoting Aroddo, reply 340
Well, if you admit that your perspective is clouded, how can you claim to see this so-called opposition "cleary?"
Well, first of all I didn't admit that my/our perspective is clouded nor did I intend to sound that way. We, of course, think that we see the issue more clearly. There's a german saying (not sure how the english counterpart goes): "You don't see the forest because the trees are in the way."
Your struggle simply looks different from the outside and we see implications you don't. This is by no means meant to sound arrogant - it's a simple fact. I, for example, had to have pointed out to me that our school system is - even though quite efficient - basically discriminating. And before getting told that (by an american, btw.) I never wasted a though on that matter.
I find it amusing foreigners speak as if American healthcare is somehow lacking. ...Our system is not perfect, but considering the talent of our physicians, our wealth of technology, and diversity of care options, I see no reason for foreigners to pity us. I would expect the opposite, really. Perhaps there is some lingering envy for American healthcare, particularly in how we often attract talented physicians from other nations.
That statement sounds to foreigners like a typical display of american arrogance - and I'm not sure anymore if you even meant it like that.
No one doubts that your medical knowhow is top notch - but your system is too focused on profit making to be considered more than average as a system. We simply don't think that private "death panels" should have the power to condemn anyone to death by denying coverage.
I got the impression that we can agree to that, at least. And I concede that you don't need a public option to improve your system. But you definetly need better laws and regulations.
That is not irony. No country likes to be approached with an "if you're not with us, you're against us", "america first" attitude. Your last president managed single-handedly to get billions of people world wide to hate him, and by extension america.
Possibly. In exchange you should consider how strange some of the american comments sound. Especially when making statements about our health care systems that simply are not true, even if cable TV says so.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
