Yossarian, don't you bring pragmatism into this. This is an ideological debate, dammit.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sure would love national health care
Sure would love national health careFollow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
yossarian wrote:
..and they pay less per person per year and have better benefits.
Some figures :
Spend per head of state funding (as % of GDP), and population coverage:
UK 5.8%GDP - 100% coverage
Japan 5.7%GDP - 100% coverage
Italy 5.3%GDP - 100% coverage
Denmark 6.7%GDP - 100% coverage
Australia 5.6%GDP - 100% coverage
etc etc
USA 6.5%GDP - 45% coverage
So USA spends more tax money on healthcare, yet covers less than half the population.
Q: How come?
A: (Clue: Think about skin color and income)
And for those arguing for Private funding making up the difference, if you add state and private healthcare funding as % of GDP, USA spends at least double the amount of nations whio offer 100% coverage, while still covering fewer than 1 in 2 citizens.
USA: You suck at teh Healthcare
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#54REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 1:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nazification of words, nazification of violent action. It's clear liberals are violent and stupid. Their violence by definition destroys society, by definition destroys the process that creates wealth. Rather than form their own private charities or go get educated to voluntarily provide medical care, they resort to democratic mob violence, and put on airs of compassion even though they have left society by definition worse off. It's the same Marxist bullsh1t: they prefer a society where everyone has an equal slice of pie to a society where everyone has an unequal slice even if in that unequal slice society the smallest slice is a hundred times larger than the same equal slice society. They're violent barbarians. And they're so blind to see the simple proof even when you slap them across the face with it.
#55REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 1:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nobby, you're a moron. We can cut the %GDP of healthcare in socialist countries by duuuhhhhh voting for to ban any spending on health care after 1% of GDP. It's called rationing, restricting the right of people to voluntarily pay for what they are able to voluntarily pay for. USA doesn't spend anything on healthcare; individuals spend on health care. USA is not an acting sentient being, but a nominal name for an aggregation of acting individuals.
I don't think "****" is supposed to be used as a verb.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
You people are ignorant baboon who can't even comprehend the simplest of economics. And because of that, government interference with health care, universal health care is by definintion leaving society with far less quality for a far higher price. It's irrefutable logic.
Not really. Basically universal healthcare provides consistent and preventative healthcare which is generally a lot cheaper than treating people on an emergency basis. Anyone who knows much about the medical system knows that many costs are wasted because the only free care often available is the more costly ERs and often when the situation has become grave.
Basically, it becomes a ripple effect and hospitals usually blow out their free care budget very quickly. They have to cover costs for people who cannot pay. They do it by charging more on insurance premiums. If they are stuck with low pay-out rates from insurance companies, that is when you see every little thing charged, so you feel nickle and dimed.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Jophiel wrote:
He's harmless. Someone whose entire repertoire consists of typing out nonsensical statements and/or horrendeously poor arguments followed by "OMG I just sooooo pwnt you!" isn't exactly someone I feel worried about enough to rate-camp.
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 12:58pm by Jophiel
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 12:58pm by Jophiel
Once he started with the misogyny and stopped with incomprehensible spam posts I stopped rate camping him. He is now ammusing in the same sense as Varass is. Actually I'm kind of ashamed I even bothered. The Asylumm always prevails. Or some **** like that.
#59REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 2:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You just get silent when I lay the pwn down. Or skip the meat and gravy to complain about a hair in your peas and carrots: "I don't think **** is supposed to be used ..."
MonxDoT wrote:
Yup, the pwn has been layed down, hard.
Needed more /slashes in /front of words /though for /maximum/eff/ec/t.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
MonxDoT wrote:
Nobby wrote:
Some figures :
Spend per head of state funding (as % of GDP), and population coverage:
UK 5.8%GDP - 100% coverage
Japan 5.7%GDP - 100% coverage
Italy 5.3%GDP - 100% coverage
Denmark 6.7%GDP - 100% coverage
Australia 5.6%GDP - 100% coverage
etc etc
USA 6.5%GDP - 45% coverage
So USA spends more tax money on healthcare, yet covers less than half the population.
Q: How come?
A: (Clue: Think about skin color and income)
And for those arguing for Private funding making up the difference, if you add state and private healthcare funding as % of GDP, USA spends at least double the amount of nations whio offer 100% coverage, while still covering fewer than 1 in 2 citizens.
USA: You suck at teh Healthcare
Spend per head of state funding (as % of GDP), and population coverage:
UK 5.8%GDP - 100% coverage
Japan 5.7%GDP - 100% coverage
Italy 5.3%GDP - 100% coverage
Denmark 6.7%GDP - 100% coverage
Australia 5.6%GDP - 100% coverage
etc etc
USA 6.5%GDP - 45% coverage
So USA spends more tax money on healthcare, yet covers less than half the population.
Q: How come?
A: (Clue: Think about skin color and income)
And for those arguing for Private funding making up the difference, if you add state and private healthcare funding as % of GDP, USA spends at least double the amount of nations whio offer 100% coverage, while still covering fewer than 1 in 2 citizens.
USA: You suck at teh Healthcare
Nobby, you're a moron. We can cut the %GDP of healthcare in socialist countries by duuuhhhhh voting for to ban any spending on health care after 1% of GDP. It's called rationing, restricting the right of people to voluntarily pay for what they are able to voluntarily pay for. USA doesn't spend anything on healthcare; individuals spend on health care. USA is not an acting sentient being, but a nominal name for an aggregation of acting individuals.
But there you have it, if you want free 100% coverage get the fuck out of the USA and go to those socialist countries. Illegal immigrants, move along. U.K. has your solution so GTFO.
Let me type this slowly - USA spends 6.5% of GDP of Public, taxpayers, state money on healthcare.
Geddit yet?
It spends an *additional* 7.4% of GDP in Private money on healthcare.
So you spend a total of 13.9% of GDP (6.5% of which is taxes) on healthcare to cover 45% of the population.
That's the almost all of the US population paying for healthcare through taxes, plus a shedload of privately funded healthcare, and still 55% of yanquis have no health cover.
UK spends 6.8% of GDP (5.8% tax + 1% private funding) and every man woman and child gets free healthcare. Yes some people have to wait a short while if their care is not urgent. QUICK! let me emigrate!
Dammit - we even offer emergency care for foreign visitors free of charge if they're legally within our shores.
Slow version - We pay less than half what you pay and we cover everyone.
I recommend you go back to your non-sequiturs and steroid misuse.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
It seems as though Monx has had a bad day. It's odd, because I think I agree with his point...or at least what I think his point is...or would be if were less like those UNCF spoof commercials on "In Living Color" 12 years ago.
Simplify it man, make it so that we can all understand it, not just those "spesial hier edjumakated" ones.
Simplify it man, make it so that we can all understand it, not just those "spesial hier edjumakated" ones.
So, if I'm understanding his latest spittle-spiced blather, MonkSnot is alleging that Japan, Australia, Denmark, etc. have been utterly destroyed by their socialist ways.
That's too bad, really. I was hoping to go to Denmark someday. Sad to hear it's no longer there.
That's too bad, really. I was hoping to go to Denmark someday. Sad to hear it's no longer there.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's all about the violence.
Which is why I ignore his ramblings about "violence". Sometimes the same old dance can be fun but not when I'm trying to waltz and my partner is throwing some flailing spastic fit.
Which is why I ignore his ramblings about "violence". Sometimes the same old dance can be fun but not when I'm trying to waltz and my partner is throwing some flailing spastic fit.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Monoxdot, in his blind worshipful adoration of the "HOW MANY MEN Theory" and other quasi-Libertarian tomfoolery, has forgotten Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
But he does spice it up with lots of cnuts, b1tches, pwns and other evolved tidbits of language. He's Nazified the shi'ite out of this argument. PwNzOrZ!
But he does spice it up with lots of cnuts, b1tches, pwns and other evolved tidbits of language. He's Nazified the shi'ite out of this argument. PwNzOrZ!
Nobby wrote:
I just"PWNT" Monx's arguments
While I agree that it'd be cheaper overall to move to this system and the benifits for those that can't afford it now are better, from my studies, it's not the feds' place to get into healthcare.
I'd almost support an effort from the states to do this, but after looking at California's foul-ups, I'm hesitant to let ANY government agency to do anything more than they do now, when in fact they should be doing less.
Were the fed doing only what it was supposed to, the majority of issues that we have in this country (including the Iraq war) wouldn't exist. Since the feds can't keep thier hands in their own pockets, people start getting screwed with no lube.
I suppose what it comes down to for me is this: Were I able to trust my government to not fUck up, I'd be willing to let them suggest ways to fix things. As it stands now, the fed has dropped the ball for decades now, so I don't feel that they will ever earn my trust, thus any solution that is put forth by the government is automaticly discounted as a way to take more of my money and give it to people that haven't gotten off their asses in years, because they're lazy mooglefUckers.
#67REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 2:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're an idiot. A system with thousands of bureacratic middlemen making decisions for others will never come anywhere close in efficiency to a system where buyers deal directly with sellers in millions and millions of instances of trade, which is by definition in every instance increasing wealth. You're just a dumbsh1t sucker who falls to account for the government paying 10% of GDP to bureacratic middlemen as not part of "healthcare costs". Who the fuck are you to tell another how much they can or can't spend on their own healthcare? And who the fuck do you think you are to take the means to pay for their own healthcare away from people, so that they can be forced to bow in subserviance to the political class for healthcare favors?
Well, the other argument that I haven't seen from anyone is that the difference in scale might make universal health care unmanageable in the U.S. The larger the program, the more chances there are on all levels for mismanagement.
Probably not a good reason not to try.
Probably not a good reason not to try.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#69REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 2:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're full of ****, plain and simple. Healthcare is not some unit per person good which is measured as a percentage of GDP. Individuals by definition voluntarily spend their own money on that which gives them the greatest increase in satisfaction, in wealth, whether it's healthcare, entertainment, food, or whatever. You can never ever no matter how hard you might wish, forcefully take away someone's money and spend it better than they themselves can spend it, by definition dumbfuck.
Sammy - the larger the demographic, the lower the cost-per-case.
Monx.
You pay 6.5 cents of every dollar u earn on healthcare. Whether you like it or not. Whether you use the health system or not. You are already paying it. Hahahaha!
You have a 45% chance of having your healthcare made free to you.
I pay 5.8 cents in the dollar and my entire family is covered.
I am awesome.
You are an pleb.
I win
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:33pm by Nobby
Monx.
You pay 6.5 cents of every dollar u earn on healthcare. Whether you like it or not. Whether you use the health system or not. You are already paying it. Hahahaha!
You have a 45% chance of having your healthcare made free to you.
I pay 5.8 cents in the dollar and my entire family is covered.
I am awesome.
You are an pleb.
I win
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:33pm by Nobby
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Wow. Nobbs, you're great. You win the internets.
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:33pm by Metastophicleas
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:33pm by Metastophicleas
#72REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 2:34 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nah, I'm gonna pretty it up on the way, Asylum style, so that in the end the pwn is sweeter and juicier. Ronald Reagan saw Rambo. I saw Bring It On. The pwning begins in 10 minutes. :P
Ummm...what the fUck?
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:36pm by Metastophicleas
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:36pm by Metastophicleas
#74REDACTED,
Posted: Feb 28 2007 at 2:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Every time you take someone's money and spend it differently than they themselves would spend it, you are by definition creating poverty.
Metastophicleas wrote:
Ummm...what the fUck?
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:36pm by Metastophicleas
Edited, Feb 28th 2007 5:36pm by Metastophicleas
Yeah, sometimes it's like he's almost speaking a human language of some sort, but he always reverts back to grunting and pointing.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
MonxDoT wrote:
Every time you take someone's money and spend it differently than they themselves would spend it, you are by definition creating poverty.
Got that?
Got that?
Recent Visitors: 262
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (262)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sure would love national health care
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC