PPA Letter McCain vs online poker - Page 6

On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives.

There's a middle point between no control and complete control which we like to refer to as some control. Straw man arguments based around complete control don't really apply.

On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives.

Complete control over our lives?

It is amazing to me how successful the republican campaign has been of instilling fear of socialism in people so that they can continue to fuck over the middle class and the poor.

US medical system in a nutshell:

For the study -- led by Gerard Anderson, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health -- researchers analyzed the health care costs of 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The study found:
The nations examined spend a median of $2,193 per capita on health care;


The United States spent $5,267 per capita for prescription drugs, hospital stays and physicians visits in 2002, compared with $3,446 per capita for Switzerland, the next highest spender;


Health care spending accounted for 14.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2002, a time when only two other nations -- Switzerland and Germany -- spent more than 10% of their GDP on health care;


The United States has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, compared with a median of 3.7 beds per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined;


The United States had 2.4 physicians per 1,000 residents in 2001, compared with a median of 3.1 physicians per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;


The United States had 7.9 nurses per 1,000 residents in the United States in 2001, compared with a median of 8.9 nurses per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;


The United States has 12.8 CT scanners per one million U.S. residents, compared with a median of 13.3 scanners per one million residents among the other nations examined;


The United States appears to have more magnetic resonance imaging machines per capita than many of the other nations examined, but the machines are used only 10 hours daily in the United States, compared with a median of 18 hours daily in other nations

--------------------------------------------------
To sum it up, the US spends far more than anyone else, yet receives below average marks for most metrics that measure quality of care. The US spends twice as much as some countries that have universal coverage but we have 50 million + people without health insurance. Does this make any sense? This is the system that you are defending?

On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives.

omg you cant be serous.... the current administration has been aggressively expanding into any area they can and actually its the most controlling government the united has ever seen in its history.

On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives.

it's ridiculous to claim that any control from the state=socialism/communism etc
if you don't understand that capitalism could never exist without partial control from the state you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
so plz stop making arguments that boil down to "OMG U COMMIES!!!",they may work to 70 year old ladies but this is an internet forum

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/39179-m...utube-problem-just-became-a-nightmare

On September 02 2008 03:00 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives. omg you cant be serous.... the current administration has been aggressively expanding into any area they can and actually its the most controlling government the united has ever seen in its history.

Which I am absolutely not a fan of - the spending by the current administration is absolutely rediculous. Fiscal conservatives are absolutely not happy with the bush administration in so many areas.

On September 02 2008 01:28 KwarK wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives. There's a middle point between no control and complete control which we like to refer to as some control. Straw man arguments based around complete control don't really apply.

Of course. But we are talking about the Canadian system here, can we not agree that it is essentially socialized medicine?

I don't advocate zero government control - but there is a huge difference between regulation, and management.


Edit:

Oh you were probably refering to my last comment - obviously I was exaggerating for effect... My point is simply that we should be able to rely on people to provide for their own *basic* health care. And given the governments track record for essentially everything they touch it is shocking to me that you would so easily hand over the entire healthcare system to these idiots who can't even properly manage a restaurant.

On September 02 2008 10:53 ShaunR wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2008 03:00 Baal wrote:   On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives. omg you cant be serous.... the current administration has been aggressively expanding into any area they can and actually its the most controlling government the united has ever seen in its history. Which I am absolutely not a fan of - the spending by the current administration is absolutely rediculous. Fiscal conservatives are absolutely not happy with the bush administration in so many areas.   On September 02 2008 01:28 KwarK wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2008 01:20 ShaunR wrote: There are plenty of us who hate the idea of socialism, including socialized medicine. So yea, in our opinion, bad idea. It is amazing to me how many people want the government to have complete control over their lives. There's a middle point between no control and complete control which we like to refer to as some control. Straw man arguments based around complete control don't really apply. Of course. But we are talking about the Canadian system here, can we not agree that it is essentially socialized medicine? I don't advocate zero government control - but there is a huge difference between regulation, and management.

Canadian, yes, Obama's plan, no. His plan is NOT the same as the canadian one. Personally I would prefer socialized medicine, but what I like about Obama's plan is it's a middle of the road compromise - those who want to shop around and buy private health care can. those who want to opt into a public system can. Obama's plan is so far from communism.

Personally my feeling is that being a US citizen should be like being in a really awesome club. You pay some membership dues and you get some cool advantages cause you've got that membership card. This club should be providing great infrastructure (streets, sewers, and so on), great education, great health care, and allow you to retire with dignity when you hit the right age. I think all those things should be covered by the membership dues - so I pay my membership fee, those things are automatically covered and I don't have to pay anything extra.

That's not total control of our lives - that's them providing services which I believe should be covered since we're members of this pimpin club. These are the member benefits. I wish the bush administration had been expanding their control by providing this shit rather than stealing our civil liberties, spying on us and making it easier for the gov to invade our privacy.

On health care, I believe that if you're sick you shouldn't have to lose all of your life savings to fix it. At the same time, if you're in alcoholic who drinks himself into sickness and needs a liver transplant, I think you should have some sort of burden, cause that's your own damn fault. But I think if someone is sick and taken to a hospital, no matter what the reason they're that way, we should fix em up without question. Then afterwards if it comes out that they're here because of lung cancer and they've smoked 4 packs a day for 20 years, then when they're healthy they should have to either pay money or (if they're broke) do some sorta community service to return the favor.

Cool idea right?

Do you guys realize that every industrialized country in the world except the US has universal health care?

There are various degrees of government control and while there are differences between the proposed plans of hillary and obama for example, ALL the plans that democrats have proposed come nowhere close to the level of government control of health care as Canada. To compare the democrats plan and Canada and the UK is comparing apples and oranges and shows a fundamental lack of understanding. I consider myself a diehard liberal and even I understand that the UK and Canadian structure will never get implemented in the US. Although I would personally love to see that kind of system here, I'm a realist and I know that there is zero chance of that ever coming to fruition.

There is a middle ground however. The government can act as the insurer of last resort, to guarantee access to health care for all citizens, without shouldering the entire burden. Also, the government can pay for the medical care without having complete control of the system. Of course as the source of money, they will have significant influence. But the medical institutions will be largely private and doctors will NOT be government employees. Japan has a similar system where the government guarantees coverage for all citizens but a significant portion of the care is still paid by private companies and the consumer through co-payments. And the doctors are NOT gov't employees and they operate as private businesses.

Now I completely understand that money is power and being the source of the money allows for significant influence. For example in Japan, the government sets prices on many procedures so this does place limitations on the free market. But the main point that I'm trying to make is that no serious politician in the US even dreams of implementing socialized medicine where the government owns the hospitals and doctors become government employees. Rather, there is a middle ground where the government can offer all citizens access to health care without complete government control.

ok, k2o4 basically beat me to it and said the same thing that I said.

On September 02 2008 11:39 Pacifist wrote: Do you guys realize that every industrialized country in the world except the US has universal health care?

somehow, the republicans have succeeded in making people believe that universal health care = communism.

Obamas plan is basically "I will just hand over health insurance to everyone who doesnt have it, and everyone elses health insurance will drop in price drastically, and all the drugs will be cheaper".

Hehe!

If he does get elected, put me down for some huge prop bets on whether anything close to his plan ever actually occurs.

On September 02 2008 11:53 TenBagger wrote: Show nested quote + On September 02 2008 11:39 Pacifist wrote: Do you guys realize that every industrialized country in the world except the US has universal health care? somehow, the republicans have succeeded in making people believe that universal health care = communism.

I know man, it's pretty sad how far behind we are. And TenBagger is right, the republicans are great at scaring people and they did it again with healthcare. Just look at what eightforu or whatever his name is was saying.

I also gotta say Tenbagger made a great point in how far all the Dem's health care plans are from the UK and Canada. Obama's is actually the furthest from UK/Canada out of all the Dem's proposals. It's the most middle of the road approach by far, cause Obama is really pretty much a centrist who believes in compromise. He's not some sorta super crazy liberal like the republicans want people to think.

On September 02 2008 12:05 ShaunR wrote: Obamas plan is basically "I will just hand over health insurance to everyone who doesnt have it, and everyone elses health insurance will drop in price drastically, and all the drugs will be cheaper". Hehe! If he does get elected, put me down for some huge prop bets on whether anything close to his plan ever actually occurs.

Find me after he's elected and we'll put some prop bets together =)

I like how I proposed to ShaunR that we should discuss specific points after he accused me of being ignorant of the issues and in his numerous following posts he has yet to produce a single concrete debateable point.

What specific points about obama's plan do you disagree with? Maybe then we can start to have a constructive conversation. Oh wait, you actually have to know the plan to discuss it. ShaunR, since it is painfully obvious that your knowledge is limited to little tidbits that you've picked up on FOX news, go do some homework and read up and come back and maybe then we can carry on an intelligent conversation.

There's a reason I'm voting Libertarian this year. At their core, both major party candidates just want to find new ways to intrude in your life.

BTW, here's exactly what the Republican platform says:

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

I like how they combine the "all gambling is addictive" and "we must protect families" angles. I guess protecting families by not wasting their tax dollars on this kind of shit doesn't pander to the religious fundamentalists enough to be included on the platform.

On September 02 2008 15:25 Heero wrote: There's a reason I'm voting Libertarian this year. At their core, both major party candidates just want to find new ways to intrude in your life. BTW, here's exactly what the Republican platform says: Show nested quote + Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet. I like how they combine the "all gambling is addictive" and "we must protect families" angles. I guess protecting families by not wasting their tax dollars on this kind of shit doesn't pander to the religious fundamentalists enough to be included on the platform.

What i don't understand is how republicans are all about "It's your money, do what you want with it"...hence the decrease in taxes, the no gov't programs, etc etc. Why the hell wont they let me spend my money how i want to then?? stupid hypocrites...

k2o4... Thanks for actually aguing your case in a sensible way. I am going to do more research on the topic. If all you're points are correct, the only problem i would have would be how to pay for it... I don't recall you saying anything about that.

oh the whole reason i quoted you herro...i was going to ask...libertarian as in write in for ron paul??

i was voting for him but i heard he dropped out and wasn't running after he dropped from the rep. ballot

I'm voting Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate.

Ron Paul was a nutjob.

GO MCCAIN