Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Verification
Get a new challenge Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge Help
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • File : 1293989792.jpg-(140 KB, 619x500, trollthevote.jpg)
    140 KB BREAKING NEWS: ACTUAL NEWS ON /NEW/ Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:36 No.3434674  
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1231/Health-care-reform-101-What-will-kick-in-Jan.-1

    >The “medical loss ratio” provision. Health-insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvements for patients, rather than on administrative costs.The “medical loss ratio” provision. Health-insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvements for patients, rather than on administrative costs.
    >Closing the Medicare drug coverage “doughnut hole.”
    >Preventive care for seniors
    >Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
    >Community Based Care Transitions Program
    >Changes to Medicare Advantage payments
    >Incentives in Medicaid for prevention of chronic disease
    >New rule for tax-free savings accounts
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:39 No.3434700
    sage for news on /new/
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)12:40 No.3434703
         File1293990009.jpg-(90 KB, 630x454, 110910_Shellacking.jpg)
    90 KB
    >What /new hears
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:43 No.3434723
    posting actual news on /new/, how silly of me
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:43 No.3434728
    >>3434703
    >Democratic cock is so delicious!
    Seriously, you're a party shill and have no place on /new/, get the fuck out.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:44 No.3434737
         File1293990286.jpg-(57 KB, 416x431, trollthread.jpg)
    57 KB
    >>3434728
    >partisan shill
    >no place on /new/

    pick one
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)12:45 No.3434742
         File1293990305.gif-(67 KB, 350x287, john-boehner.gif)
    67 KB
    When Boehner says he will repeal the harmful parts of healthcare reform, that medical loss ratio is what he's referring to.
    Evil, evil stuff.

    As Boehner said just last week, America has the finest health care system in the world. And by America, he means himself.
    >> republican !WIYLEOZoXU 01/02/11(Sun)12:45 No.3434743
    >The “medical loss ratio” provision. Health-insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvements for patients, rather than on administrative costs.The “medical loss ratio” provision. Health-insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvements for patients, rather than on administrative costs.

    It's funny why people think their premiums are going up now.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:46 No.3434758
    >>3434700
    >age
    I see what you did there
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:48 No.3434776
    inb4 executive bonuses of millions of dollars worth of vacations spent at spas and resorts qualify as "medical care" spending
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)12:51 No.3434798
         File1293990679.jpg-(37 KB, 450x515, mitch-mcconnell1.jpg)
    37 KB
    Forcing insurance companies to spend that much on providing insurance is Unamerican.
    It's like asking a Plumber to come to your house and spend 85% of his time fixing your pipes, instead of watching cable and raiding your refrigerator on the clock.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:53 No.3434823
    people should not have insurance for routine medical care, even heart surgery and broken bones are routine. do you have food insurance? no you go to the store and buy food with cash.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:55 No.3434837
    >>3434798
    OP here, I hate when people say things like 'All liberals X' or 'All republicans Y'
    But I got to say, liberals almost always have a better handle on satire.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)12:55 No.3434838
         File1293990949.jpg-(23 KB, 411x500, cantor.jpg)
    23 KB
    >>3434823
    If a ham sandwich had the potential to cost me $10,000, I'd probably take out some food insurance.

    On the bright side, they can still deny claims......oh wait.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)12:56 No.3434849
    >give a rich jew exorbitant amounts of money for insurance
    >or else
    >he buys nice things for his family
    >he tells you to get lost and go die in a ditch when you get cancer
    >best healthcare system in the world
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)12:59 No.3434876
         File1293991182.jpg-(19 KB, 362x431, haley-barbour.jpg)
    19 KB
    What if this Evil spreads to other insurance industries?

    Can you imagine what would happen if your house was "flooded" in a hurricane, and Big Insurance was unable to deny your claim on your flood insurance on the basis of it being "wind-driven water"?

    The Founders would weep.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:02 No.3434897
    >>3434849
    this

    It's only the best healthcare system in the world if you can afford to go to the expensive hospitals and get the expensive treatments. Being able to afford good treatment is often the difference between living and dying.

    And for the social darwinists, keep in mind that most wealth in America is inherited and economic mobility is lower here than in most developed countries.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:02 No.3434902
    >>3434742
    >>3434798
    >>3434838
    >>3434876
    So how do you justify forcing people subsidize private corporations? Or do you not care, since republicans don't support that?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:04 No.3434923
    >>3434902
    You can't just switch the argument to something totally different and expect to feel better about yourself.
    You lost this one, just shut up and take it like a good whore.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:07 No.3434947
    >>3434923
    I didn't switch the argument to anything. This is a part of the healthcare reform that Old /co/ldier is demonizing conservatives for not supporting.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:08 No.3434955
    >>3434897
    keep in mind that most wealth in America is inherited

    >exceptthatswrongyoufuckingretard
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:10 No.3434965
         File1293991847.jpg-(27 KB, 413x310, Mitt-Romney-Mormon.jpg)
    27 KB
    >>3434902
    I myself support a tightly government-regulated, privately run health insurance industry like that of the Japanese. Which keeps costs very low, but provides best-in-class healthcare to everyone in the country. Of course, this would hurt the Yacht-class.

    But then, I see the difference between serving you a Starbucks latte and saving your wife's life from cancer.

    >>3434897
    To be fair to him, The Boehner has the best healthcare taxpayers can shell out for. Emergency evac on a moment's notice, a private room at a luxe super-hospital, millions of dollars worth of specialists on call.
    He'd thank you, but he deserves it.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:13 No.3434980
    >>3434955
    >money is made as well as inherited
    The status and position that allows one to accumulate wealth is primarily inherited in America.

    But at this point, we're just splitting hairs. The poor get shut out, and the middle class go into crippling debt to attempt to get the same care as the rich.

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:14 No.3434988
    >>3434965
    >I myself support a tightly government-regulated, privately run health insurance industry like that of the Japanese. Which keeps costs very low, but provides best-in-class healthcare to everyone in the country. Of course, this would hurt the Yacht-class.
    Which has nothing to do with my point.

    >But then, I see the difference between serving you a Starbucks latte and saving your wife's life from cancer.
    Which again has nothing to do with my point.

    Please point out to me where in my post I criticized tight government oversight of the health care industry.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:14 No.3434991
    >>3434980
    >The status and position that allows one to accumulate wealth is primarily inherited in America.


    First

    You just changed your position

    Second

    You changed it to a position that is still wrong, you fucking retard

    Most wealth in America is FIRST GENERATIONAL. PERIOD. Not inherited. And your semantics games and goal post shifting aren't gonna stand around here, get the fuck out with them

    Deal with it.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:15 No.3434994
    >>3434988
    Once you ignored my point, I felt free to skirt around yours.

    Annoying, isn't it?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:16 No.3435002
    >>3434994
    Have you taken your heart medication and changed your diapers yet today?

    Just want to make sure your caretaker isn't mistreating you
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:17 No.3435007
    We pay more and get worse healthcare.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:19 No.3435025
         File1293992372.jpg-(21 KB, 410x379, bush_smiling_2004_11_04.jpg)
    21 KB
    >>3434902
    Btw, if you are talking about bailout packages, I clearly remember the GOP falling over themselves to hand out truckloads of tax-money (or as they refer to it when THEY spend it, government money) on a generous bailout right at the end of George's term.
    It only became an Evil act the moment Obama sat in the oval office. Plus, Obama had the temerity to keep reciepts, and expect the money to get paid back. What a dickface.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:20 No.3435030
    >>3434991
    >didn't read the source that shows a lack of social mobility in America as compared to other developed nations
    When you're born rich, you have an infinitely higher chance of getting good health care than people who are born poor. That has always been my point.

    You're arguing semantics and not even trying to back up your assertion that modern America provides a level economic playing field and, by extension, equal health care to all, which is patently absurd.

    But please, keep getting mad and making sweeping, unfounded assertions in defense of bankers and insurance executives.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:21 No.3435038
         File1293992491.jpg-(152 KB, 674x770, 1286982959974.jpg)
    152 KB
    >>3435025
    If you aren't referring to the bailout, I'd ask you to clarify your point.
    >>3435002
    This is why they still make you sit at the small table at on the holidays.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:22 No.3435042
    >>3435025
    >Btw, if you are talking about bailout packages,
    I'm not, I'm talking about the provision of the healthcare bill that forces people to buy insurance.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:22 No.3435046
    >>3434674
    ALL RIGHT MORE HANDOUTS TO OLD FUCKS!
    also
    >healthcare
    >christian science
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:23 No.3435056
    >>3435030
    I don't need to read your source to know for a fact that the majority of wealth in America is first generational. This is a fact. The economic crisis may have messed with the actual numbers a bit, but the fact is that studies have been done that show that most wealth in America is first generational.

    You do not need to be rich to go to good colleges and get good careers and make money in this nation, you can keep shoving your 18th century class warfare garbage all day but you are wrong, and you've had to change your argument more than once now to try and buttress your argument, which is based in a FLAT OUT LIE

    Deal with it faggot

    >But please, keep getting mad and making sweeping, unfounded assertions in defense of bankers and insurance executives.

    I'm completely new to this conversation, I've made two posts before this one, your strawman doesn't work on me you facepalming mouth breathing dipshit
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:24 No.3435063
    in b4 all medical care outsourced to India via Skype.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:25 No.3435072
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

    Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?(*)

    * I am a fifty-seven-year-old male, married with three children. About 70 percent of us earn 80 percent or more of our household's income.

    * About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires. Also, three out of four of us who are self-employed consider ourselves to be entrepreneurs. Most of the others are self-employed professionals, such as doctors and accountants.

    * Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull/normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.

    * Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.

    * We have an average household net worth of $3.7 million. Of course, some of our cohorts have accumulated much more. Nearly 6 percent have a net worth of over $10 million. Again, these people skew our average upward. The typical (median, or 50th percentile) millionaire household has a net worth of $1.6 million.

    * On average, our total annual realized income is less than 7 percent of our wealth. In other words, we live on less than 7 percent of our wealth.

    * Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:25 No.3435073
    >>3435056
    >know for a fact
    >no source
    >facts
    >sources
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:26 No.3435079
    >>3435072
    >* Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

    >>3435073
    >makes a post after source has been sited because he's a slow posting dumbass butthurt who can't handle facts or reality
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:27 No.3435085
    Oh and here's more dipshit

    http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

    1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

    2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.

    3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

    Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.

    So it’s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:27 No.3435087
    >>3435072
    >median $131,000 income
    >rich
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:27 No.3435089
         File1293992857.jpg-(36 KB, 346x440, john-mccain.jpg)
    36 KB
    >>3435042
    It smacks of "evil Government" on the surface, but getting everyone into the system is the only feasible way to establish system that works for everyone.
    Using reform like the OP mentioned, it's possible to engineer the system to provide cost-effective coverage to everyone.
    If the EMT was able to check your pockets for an insurance card when you get hurt imitating Jackass, and leave you in the ditch when you don't have one, then your system would work, and I'd have no problem with you running around insurance-free.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:28 No.3435106
    >>3435087
    >
    1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

    Deal with it faggot

    And according to the left anything over 100,000 is rich
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:30 No.3435115
    http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/

    >Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”

    Liberal faggots can't handle facts though
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:30 No.3435119
    >>3435085
    >WSJ
    >unbiased
    Anything you use as a citation should not be owned by Rupert Murdoch.
    Look buddy you can keep a-tryin but you're just ignoring facts. A median income of $131,000 is in no sense rich. That's upper-middle-class maybe, but not rich. So keep dumping your newspapers, but none of use are buying it.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:31 No.3435124
    >>3435063
    they could manage it with those surgery robots that you control remotely.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:31 No.3435126
         File1293993082.jpg-(16 KB, 320x245, GrammMcCain.jpg)
    16 KB
    >>3435106
    >And according to the left anything over 100,000 is rich
    Which is why they propose to tax the wealthy at the 250k+ level constantly.
    Remember when McCain referred to the middle-class as making up to 500k a year? Bet ya don't.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:32 No.3435131
    >>3435056
    >By international standards, the US has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility
    >a child born into poverty has only a 1/100 chance of reaching the top 5% of income distribution
    Don't you just hate the liberal bias in facts and statistics?

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:32 No.3435132
    >>3435119
    >can't argue with the facts?
    >cry about the source!

    Well you're done here. Brotip retard if you learned how to read:

    >According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff
    >Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like

    Independent studies are independent, cry harder faggot you just got your ass handed to you on a platter if the only comeback you got is "BAWWW WALL STREET JOURNAL BAWWWW"
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:32 No.3435138
         File1293993167.jpg-(265 KB, 612x792, lolwut.jpg)
    265 KB
    >>3435115
    in b4 temper tantrum
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:34 No.3435151
    >>3435131
    See, here's the thing. You've now shifted your argument again.

    First it was "All wealth in the US is inherited"

    Then it was "Well the social status required to become wealthy is what is inherited"

    Now its "The poor don't have enough upward mobility rich people keep them from getting rich"

    None of this, unfortunately for you, negates the fact that...of the rich people in America right now...only 6% of them....got their wealth as an inheritance

    The rest worked

    Which means that people who work hard

    Can find success

    And your crying the the lowest classes don't make enough rich people is meaningless because the lowest classes are all...say it with me...beaners and blacks who DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT CONTRIBUTING TO A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY THEY DESPISE

    Thanks for playing
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:35 No.3435158
         File1293993343.png-(14 KB, 300x330, internetargumentDutycalls.png)
    14 KB
    >>3435132
    >>3435151
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:35 No.3435159
         File1293993348.jpg-(37 KB, 485x343, alg_barton.jpg)
    37 KB
    >>3435151
    Are you girls gonna spend the next hour screeching at each other? Because your respective e-penises aren't the topic of this thread.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:36 No.3435161
    >>3435126
    The middle class does make up to 500k a year. There are people who are middle class in places like New York, California, etc. that are making that kind of money, and 70% of it goes out in taxes and mortgage payments and student loan debt to Fannie May, etc

    Maybe you should have gone to college instead of spending your whole life sucking the union cock huh there old fella?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:36 No.3435163
    >>3435089
    >It smacks of "evil Government" on the surface, but getting everyone into the system is the only feasible way to establish system that works for everyone.
    Empty rhetoric does not justify corporate and government collusion to coerce me to give my money to unaccountable private corporations. Try again, with something that means something.

    >Using reform like the OP mentioned, it's possible to engineer the system to provide cost-effective coverage to everyone.
    Then everyone would want to buy into it anyway.

    >If the EMT was able to check your pockets for an insurance card when you get hurt imitating Jackass, and leave you in the ditch when you don't have one, then your system would work, and I'd have no problem with you running around insurance-free.
    Which could easily be mandated. Curiously enough though, you strike me as the first to cry about humanitarianism in those sorts of cases.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:37 No.3435171
         File1293993433.jpg-(18 KB, 300x300, prepH.jpg)
    18 KB
    >>3435158
    butthurt
    >>3435159
    needs more diaper change

    Here ya go old fella, you're probably used to smathering this shit all over already so you won't need an explanation
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:39 No.3435189
    Truth is most American rich children are spoiled brats who blow all their inheritance and become middle class or lower within a generation of the profitable patriarch kicking the bucket

    The only ones that aren't are the ones who are raised to run the companies their dad's built in the first place, and most of those were factories and they're all closed down now
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:42 No.3435215
    >>3435151
    You clearly don't understand how the world works. The way people get jobs where they make obscene amounts of money is that they get into Ivy League schools with their parents' connections, and then they get a good job utilizing the same. There are a few stories of the kid that started with nothing and rose to prominence, like Barack Obama, but that's the exception, not the rule.

    >changing arguments
    My argument has been the same all along. People inherit their class and the healthcare that comes with it. You keep throwing up smokescreens to get around it. You haven't even stated a position on the healthcare part.

    Should poor people get the same quality healthcare as rich people? Is healthcare a right or a privilege?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:42 No.3435217
         File1293993764.gif-(45 KB, 320x240, 16754-6196.gif)
    45 KB
    >>3435163
    >Empty rhetoric does not justify corporate and government collusion to coerce me to give my money to unaccountable private corporations.
    Fascinating, since empty rhetoric and Orwellian lies (see Fema Death Camps) are the primary argument used against healthcare reform.

    >Then everyone would want to buy into it anyway.
    In the real world, it's the conundrum of "If we had a large consumer-base, we could produce it cheaply. Of course to have a large consumer-base, we would need to produce it cheaply". Electric cars ect.

    >Which could easily be mandated. Curiously enough though, you strike me as the first to cry about humanitarianism in those sorts of cases.
    Curiously enough, you seem to have a completely wrong impression of my sympathy towards reckless risk-takers.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:46 No.3435246
    >>3435215
    >You clearly don't understand how the world works. The way people get jobs where they make obscene amounts of money is that they get into Ivy League schools with their parents' connections, and then they get a good job utilizing the same.

    No, thats how they become big time lawyers or politicians

    The way most people make "big time bucks" as my sources have already shown, is through hard work

    That's why 94% of millionnaires are...gasp...first generation wealthy, who earned it

    I requote since you're too stupid to read

    >About one in five of us is retired. About two-thirds of us who are working are self-employed. Interestingly, self-employed people make up less than 20 percent of the workers in America but account for two-thirds of the millionaires.

    Many of the types of businesses we are in could be classified as dull/normal. We are welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.

    Working hard, being frugal, investing smartly, expanding and saving in the good times to prepare for the bad are, as they always have been, the main keys to wealth.

    You save your surplus enough, eventually you have some serious buying and investing power. Simple reality bro.

    Soapbox all day, you are wrong and you know it. Thats why you've abandoned your logic 4 times now and shifted your stance to "well you just don't understand blah blah blah"

    Want to know a great way to get into an Ivy League school even though you're poor? Work your ass off in high school, get great grades, be involved in extracurricular activities, and apply for scholarships.

    You'd be surprised how many of the students in those schools fit those exact specifications.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:48 No.3435261
    >>3435215
    >My argument has been the same all along. People inherit their class and the healthcare that comes with it.

    Except that's wrong. Class is based entirely upon personal effort in our nation. Black poor ass kids from the fucking ghetto can become millionaires, rich ass white kids from the suburbs can become meth addicts

    I've seen both in my own personal life, fyi.

    Open a restaurant, find success, bam you're wealthy. Work your ass off, save money, invest wisely, don't spend on useless shit too much, bam you're wealthy. This is how reality works, not your soapbox 18th century Hindu fascist mindset, which isn't reality, its just a good excuse for you to whine
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:49 No.3435273
    >OP cites article showing that doctors will (finally) be forced to actually take care of old people

    >two old people argue about the definition, and demographic, of the word "wealth"

    my grandma always said that if you could go to the grocery store and buy whatever you felt like cooking, without worrying about what you had in your checking account, then you were rich. she was married to a rancher who made a small fortune selling meat and who, upon his "retirement", rented out his land to other less fortunate cattle-owners. grandma had a nice side business selling bread and other baked goods.

    I would expect their doctors to give them the medical care that their insurance paid for. these are good laws.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:49 No.3435274
    >>3435217
    >Fascinating, since empty rhetoric and Orwellian lies (see Fema Death Camps) are the primary argument used against healthcare reform.
    And?

    >In the real world, it's the conundrum of "If we had a large consumer-base, we could produce it cheaply. Of course to have a large consumer-base, we would need to produce it cheaply". Electric cars ect.
    Insurance is not in the business of product innovation, manufacturing, or distribution, so those two things are completely fucking incomparable. It's basically a casino without the flashing lights.

    >Curiously enough, you seem to have a completely wrong impression of my sympathy towards reckless risk-takers.
    You mean you wouldn't start playing the world's smallest violin for illegal immigrants every time one of them was denied service under your proposal?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:50 No.3435286
    >Class is based entirely upon personal effort in our nation.

    THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATARDS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:52 No.3435304
    >>3435286
    This is what conservatives have proved that you've failed to refute, crying about it isn't going to make you right, even if it does soothe your rectal injury
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)13:53 No.3435310
         File1293994391.jpg-(31 KB, 560x375, obama-lg.jpg)
    31 KB
    >>3435246
    I'm going to have to take this fellows side on this point.
    Yes there are quite a few Americans with inherited wealth (our last President).
    But quite a large number able to work their way into wealth (our current President).

    A large problem with the country is that there are too few "paving contractors and rice farmers", and far too many financial fund managers and insurance executives getting wealthy.
    Too much of America's "wealth" is based on paper-shuffling shell games, financial roulette and leeching off those who need insurance/services.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:53 No.3435313
    >>3435246
    Using reaching a million dollars as a yardstick is shit tier reasoning. The fact that someone built $1,000,000 in savings by the time he or she is 60 does not mean that they would be able to afford effective cancer treatment at 30 or 40.

    They may be able to afford decent healthcare near the end of their lives, but where is it while they're working their way up? Healthcare is fundamentally different from the luxuries that one can earn later in life through hard work.

    I'm not going to adopt your O'Reilly style of being overly hostile and declaring victory 6 times in each post, but I will ask you to check the sources I listed earlier and see that, when actual studies are done, it is shown that economic mobility in America is weak. Once again, people who build savings by living frugally all their lives would not have the cash on hand to pay for decent healthcare until much later in life.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)13:57 No.3435351
    >>3435313
    >Using reaching a million dollars as a yardstick is shit tier reasoning.

    Oh so a million dollars doesn't make you rich now?

    So which is it liberals? 100 grand? 500? 1 million? 10? Sounds to me like you're practically defending the rich now.

    >The fact that someone built $1,000,000 in savings by the time he or she is 60 does not mean that they would be able to afford effective cancer treatment at 30 or 40.

    This is completely off the topic and irrelevant to my point and position. Basically you're throwing out red herrings now. You stated that all wealth in the United States is inherited. You have been proven wrong.

    Oh and if they had 1 million at 60, there's a good chance they had INSURANCE at 30 and 40, you know. As well as some savings. 401k, the like.

    Its called being responsible. Something liberals tend to not really comprehend

    >Healthcare is fundamentally different from the luxuries that one can earn later in life through hard work.

    No. EMERGENCY CARE is fundamentally different, but HEALTH INSURANCE, where by you INVEST INTO A FUND ALONG WITH OTHERS in the EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC HEALTH ISSUE CROPPING UP is a luxury if anything is a luxury, particularly preventative care

    You can soapbox this shit all day, but the reality is that all society owes people is help in an emergency. Everything else is a commodity to be purchased on a fair and equal goods exchange.

    And we already provide emergency care, free of charge, in every emergency room in America.

    Rest of your post is butthurt and crying because you can't take strong attacks on your presumptions, especially ones so blatantly false that you have to ASSUME facts and then IGNORE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE which flat out proves you don't know what you are talking about
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:04 No.3435407
    I will have 1 million at 65. It should last me until I am 80. assuming social security. 75 without. With life expectancy being increased over time I realized I would be fucked.

    So I started smoking again. Hopefully I die before I become a overaged homeless bum.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:05 No.3435415
    >>3435407
    >he stopped investing his money at 65

    Well you're a fucking idiot aren't ya?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:05 No.3435420
         File1293995155.jpg-(14 KB, 412x385, TRoosevelt.jpg)
    14 KB
    >>3435274
    >And?
    And empty rhetoric is the primary reason that corporations are largely unaccountable in the first place. Regulation costs jerbs, ect. ect. Or do you want them to be accountable? In that case we have no argument. (If you realize they won't hold themselves accountable).

    >Insurance is not in the business of product innovation, manufacturing, or distribution, so those two things are completely fucking incomparable. It's basically a casino without the flashing lights.
    It's supposed to be managing a large fund of money to provide for the well-being of those in the pool. The healthCARE industry is supposed to be driven by innovation, effective distribution and efficient organization.
    Lack of government oversight is why our insurers (and banks) are behaving as casinos. I knew the comparison wasn't ideal when I made it, but you understand my point you need the largest base possible to negotiate the best possible price. A real problem is that the industry itself has lost interest in providing a good price, and in fact heavily lobbies against it.

    >You mean you wouldn't start playing the world's smallest violin for illegal immigrants every time one of them was denied service under your proposal?
    In a clean, efficient system, even they would be insured (again: see Japan). But until we reach that ideal, I wouldn't have a serious problem with denying refugees a citizen's healthcare option. I don't believe I've ever spoken out in favor of such a thing, on 4chan or otherwise.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:06 No.3435421
    >>3435351
    >ignoring sources
    You posted anecdotal evidence about an arbitrary yardstick of wealth. I posted actual studies on economic mobility that prove it is lower in America than the rest of the developed world.

    If you are born poor, you only have a 1 in 100 chance of rising to the top 5%.

    >going off topic
    This thread is about health care. Even if you're the hardest worker on earth, if you get cancer when you're young and you don't have the money to go to the premiere hospitals, you have a good chance of dying soon. Either that time or if the cancer returns within 5 years, as it often does.

    That hard-working, productive citizen is taken out of society, because he didn't have the "starting capital" to invest in his own life. The fact that he had a high income and some savings means nothing when the income dries up and the savings gets depleted by the bills that keep coming and the unbelievably high costs of health care in this country.

    >trusting insurance companies to cover the cost of decent healthcare when it's necessary for you to survive
    You're just being naive now.
    >> THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATARDS ACTUALLY BELIEVE 01/02/11(Sun)14:06 No.3435426
         File1293995187.jpg-(56 KB, 363x484, nsa-2.jpg)
    56 KB
    They are just frightened. They come from a culture of control. Controlling and being controlled. It's all their limited mind understand. Whether it is GOD, or GOVERNMENT.
    >"Somebody else please make my decisions for me, please."
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:09 No.3435450
    >>3435415
    No I'm assuming I will stop working. And I won't have enough leeway to make more than I take out. Also as my only source of income I would have a softer portfolio. So high returns would be unlikely
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:10 No.3435460
    http://www.jmooneyham.com/your-true-chances-of-getting-rich-reference.html
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:11 No.3435464
    >>3435421
    >You posted anecdotal evidence about an arbitrary yardstick of wealth

    No, I didn't. I posted flat out independent studies who showed that only 6% of the total wealth of the richest people in America is inherited, which directly contradicted your claims. Now you're left trying to pretend the data provided is "anecdotal"

    What's ANECDOTAL is your ASSERTION that all wealth in America is inherited. Projection much faggot?

    >If you are born poor, you only have a 1 in 100 chance of rising to the top 5%.

    Yeah. Because its the top 5%. Only....5% of the population is going to get there.

    This is sort pretty simple to comprehend. Not everyone can be the ultra rich, but in every quarter, from those making 500k to those with billions in the bank, the fact is that only 6% of that total wealth is inherited. The rest is earned.

    This completely DESTROYS your position that we OWE people PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE because "all wealth in America is inherited anyway"

    >This thread is about health care.

    So? Threads go in different directions. My direct response to you was that you are wrong on the facts. You can't deal with it, so you're appealing to emotion "OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CRACK HEADS AND METH ADDICTS WHO DONT REACH THE TOP 5% LIFE IS SO UNFAIR BOO HOO"

    Fact is that 1 million dollars makes you rich. According to YOUR LOGIC 250,000 makes you rich. So trying to pretend that LOOKING AT WHO THE RICH ARE AND HOW THEY GOT THERE is ANECDOTAL evidence, why don't you grow a brain and change your opinion that has been so efffectively eviscerated that you are left bawwwing about sources and evidence not meeting YOUR standards? Hmm?

    >You're just being naive now.
    >implying not buying into class warfare rhetoric that exists solely and exclusively to drum up the poor against the rich so the left can gain power and destroy America's economy "bringing social justice" is "being naive"

    No you faggot.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:12 No.3435472
    >>3435450
    Well thats pretty stupid because you're going to live closer to 100 if you were born in the past 3 decades thanks to improvements in health care so you should probably plan to retire at 70 or 75 and keep investing

    But you know.

    pessimists NEVER achieve anything, fyi
    >> Glen Beck Says Buy Gold For Solid Returns 01/02/11(Sun)14:12 No.3435475
         File1293995553.jpg-(56 KB, 587x323, becksblack-board-buy gold.jpg)
    56 KB
    silly little people

    life is for the 1%ers
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:12 No.3435477
         File1293995566.jpg-(29 KB, 350x450, rumsfeld.jpg)
    29 KB
    >>3435351
    >No. EMERGENCY CARE is fundamentally different, but HEALTH INSURANCE, where by you INVEST INTO A FUND ALONG WITH OTHERS in the EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC HEALTH ISSUE CROPPING UP is a luxury if anything is a luxury, particularly preventative care

    You had a fairly compelling argument going on until you went off the rails. This is exactly the sort of viewpoint held by young healthy people until it's one of THEIR family members facing bankruptcy from enormous medical bills. Even many of the insured.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:14 No.3435494
    >>3435460
    That website makes my eyes bleed

    Maybe you should lay off the random google links because there is zero citations for that guy's opinions its a massive butthurt liberal rant. Liberals citing liberals for "Facts" is like Christians citing the Bible for evidence of flat earth theories
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:15 No.3435499
    >>3435420
    >And empty rhetoric is the primary reason that corporations are largely unaccountable in the first place. Regulation costs jerbs, ect. ect. Or do you want them to be accountable? In that case we have no argument. (If you realize they won't hold themselves accountable).
    I never argued against healthcare reform, and we obviously need it. To disagree with how it's being carried out is not to disagree with it in principle.

    >It's supposed to be managing a large fund of money to provide for the well-being of those in the pool. The healthCARE industry is supposed to be driven by innovation, effective distribution and efficient organization.
    >Lack of government oversight is why our insurers (and banks) are behaving as casinos. I knew the comparison wasn't ideal when I made it, but you understand my point you need the largest base possible to negotiate the best possible price. A real problem is that the industry itself has lost interest in providing a good price, and in fact heavily lobbies against it.
    Insurance by its very nature is in the exact same racket as casinos, even government oversight won't change that, it will simply make the money customers pay into it be used more efficiently for their benefit. Considering the kind of a racket insurance is, I fail to see how it needs more money to make it work efficiently when it's simply in the business of redistributing the money it gets to the people who pay into it anyways.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:16 No.3435508
    >>3435472
    Perhaps I will work past 65. I really don't know what shape I will be in. It will certainly help my portfolia. another 7 years should double my savings.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:16 No.3435510
    >>3435477
    >old faggot thinking anything he says matters

    I see you just got back from eating your daily bowl of bean flavored grits. Were you able to feed yourself today?

    The caretakers didn't steal your monthly stipend again did they?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:19 No.3435536
    >>3435508
    working an extra 5-7 years would allow most old people even now to save more than they do. Retirement has to go up to 70 sometime if the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security etc is going to remain solvent.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:20 No.3435538
    The “medical loss ratio” provision. Health-insurance companies are required to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvements for patients, rather than on administrative costs. Those that fall short will be required to provide a rebate to their customers beginning in 2012. According to HealthCare.gov, the Department of Health and Human Services’ website on health-care reform, the new rules will protect up to 74.8 million insured Americans. Some 9 million people could be eligible for rebates worth up to $1.4 billion.
    I would expect that there would be bipartisan support for this provision; it addresses one of the reasons health care is so expensive in the first place.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:21 No.3435547
         File1293996101.jpg-(25 KB, 760x250, Platinum.jpg)
    25 KB
    >>3435499
    >I never argued against healthcare reform, and we obviously need it. To disagree with how it's being carried out is not to disagree with it in principle.
    I was getting the impression we weren't in total disagreement. So what would you counter-propose?

    >Insurance by its very nature is in the exact same racket as casinos.
    Incorrect. Operating as they should, insurance companies should be maintaining a large pool of funds to pay out claims. Casinos do not pay out 80% of their income in winnings, or even a percentage remotely close to that. They exist to generate profits in exchange for a "fun experience". The major reason for Obama's medical loss ration legislation is to curtail insurance companies who've taken advantage of lax regulation to operate in the fashion of casinos.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:23 No.3435566
    >>3435538
    The reason its so expensive is because doctors fucking charge every goddamn thing to it and patients expect it all to be free, they sue the shit out of anyone for anything that goes wrong (not that suing shouldn't be an option if a doctor fucks up obviously) and then you have the lack of competition amongst health care providers because of the state by state nature of them (you can't sell insurance in a state you don't have licensing and an office in for instance)

    Then there's the fact that we've got an aging workforce, fewer educated workers coming up behind them to take their place, these burden medicare/medicaid, which drives down the prices they're willing to pay to doctors, which drives up the costs to regular paying customers in the process
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:23 No.3435569
         File1293996211.png-(299 KB, 458x438, 1292853032243.png)
    299 KB
    >>3435510
    Heh.
    No matter how juvenile you try to make the discussion, I'm still not mad. How about you, MC All-caps?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:24 No.3435580
    >>3435464
    If someone who has the potential to become the most productive citizen in America is born iinto a poor family and gets leukemia at a young age, his odds of dying are much, much higher than they would have been if he is born into a rich family that can afford decent healthcare.

    That's not good for society, and that's yet another reason why healthcare should not be treated as a commodity that's only available to people who have the extravagant wealth to afford it. Only those who are born with such wealth can afford it throughout their lives. No matter how much you try to twist my arguments, you can't change that simple fact.

    Lifelong decent healthcare is an inherited right in America, based on the wealth of your family. The people who scrimp and save all their lives may be able to provide such healthcare to their grandchildren through inheritance, but that's not much consolation to the people who die while they're in the process of building this wealth because they haven't yet accumulated enough wealth to save their lives, even though the treatment to do so is readily available.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:25 No.3435587
    >>3435569
    Its hard to get angry when the very act could cause you to enter into full blown cardiac arrest though so its understandable why you must strive so to maintain your cool

    That and, just like a baby, sitting in a warm diaper of your own filth can be enjoyable, I'm sure.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:26 No.3435600
    >>3435580
    >If someone who has the potential to become the most productive citizen in America is born iinto a poor family and gets leukemia at a young age, his odds of dying are much, much higher than they would have been if he is born into a rich family that can afford decent healthcare.

    Ahem

    http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f87d4c2a71fca210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

    >Mission

    >The mission of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital is to advance cures, and means of prevention, for pediatric catastrophic diseases through research and treatment. Consistent with the vision of our founder Danny Thomas, no child is denied treatment based on race, religion or a family's ability to pay.

    Rest of your rant is based on, once again, disproven fallaciousness, as is your appeal to emotion that "preventative health care is a right"

    no, no it's not. Emergency health care is. And we already provide it.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:27 No.3435602
         File1293996428.jpg-(24 KB, 429x359, 1286430594392.jpg)
    24 KB
    >>3435587
    Could I hire you to follow me around 4chan?
    You make me chuckle.
    Although /co/ would call it indulgent attention-whoring....
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:28 No.3435609
    >>3435602
    no thanks

    You're just a really awful poster on /new/

    Its not really surprising considering where you come from, though at least it's better than the yuri board
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:29 No.3435618
         File1293996581.jpg-(297 KB, 761x1051, 1290379629848.jpg)
    297 KB
    >>3435609
    >You're just a really awful poster
    > on /new/
    Redundancy aside, I'm honored that you feel the need to point it out to me specifically.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:31 No.3435630
    >>3435618
    eh you faggot ron, few others

    You guys are just awful terrible posters
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:34 No.3435667
         File1293996890.jpg-(16 KB, 425x317, igor_young_frank_lg.jpg)
    16 KB
    >>3435630
    I try to keep the bulk of my awfulness on /new/, where no innocents can be harmed.
    And if Conservatives find me this rage inducing, it's a good sign I'm on the right track. Lord knows they get their way most of the time.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:35 No.3435670
    >>3435600
    >St Jude
    So, this one hospital is going to treat every sick child in the entire country who can't afford decent healthcare? I like St. Jude, but I think you're putting a little too much on their shoulders.

    >emergency health care is the only right people have
    We have to agree to disagree on that one. I think people should have access to care as soon as they get cancer and all the way through their treatment and recovery. That's a human right.

    Diseases like cancer don't become emergencies until you're already nearly dead. Having an emergency room give a person a bed and pain killers right before they die is not an acceptable level of care in a civilized society.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:39 No.3435699
         File1293997173.jpg-(56 KB, 300x356, joel-osteen12.jpg)
    56 KB
    /new/
    Where treatment for your catastrophic health event is exactly like owning beachfront property.
    If God wanted you to have it, he'd have helped you become affluent enough to save up for it.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:40 No.3435708
    >>3435670
    >he thinks St Jude is one hospital
    >he thinks its the only charity for children with cancer and other life threatening illnesses in America


    Congratulations, son, you prove you literally can't think beyond the next second. We have HUNDREDS of hospitals in America dedicated to this. Now children getting cancers are pretty rare, 1 in several thousands to hundreds of thousands depending upon the cancer, so then the cancer has to affect a poor kid who can't afford treatment, the point being there's only so many kids without cancer in a nation of 300 million at any one time, yes they do get taken care of

    University hospitals, for instance, tend to give cancer treatment out for free or reduced costs to children, there are also child health care packages offered by states which are affordable, backed up with federal dollars, and can be bought by pre existing conditions, there are OPTIONS

    Thats the point you don't want to see. YOu want to claim there is no option, if a kid of a poor person gets cancer in America, they're a dead man. This is simply not the case. Most kids who get cancer are probably going to die, which is an unfortunate reality of most aggressive cancers, but the poor get treated, your, here's that word again, ANECDOTAL CLAIMS are simply untrue and based on a lack of facts

    Deal with it

    continued
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:41 No.3435710
    >>3435708
    >Diseases like cancer don't become emergencies until you're already nearly dead

    Yeah the thing is, if you get cancer, you get offered treatment, even without ability to pay. It may not be the most up to date treatments, but in many cases they in fact can be, it just depends upon the choices and options to take

    To put it another way, a friend of mine had cancer as a kid, his parents were poor and the local university provided all his treatment free of charge and included him in a medical study of the effects of cancer medications/treatments on his disease at his age

    You simply don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should become a pediatrician or a surgeon specializing in cancer treatment and see how often you give away treatment to a child for free

    By the by, hospitals can write off treatments given for free on their taxes as charitable contributions. In case you weren't aware.

    >>3435699
    strawman and you just proved my point right. Goddamn are your posts fucking stupid, pedantic garbage.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:42 No.3435714
         File1293997326.jpg-(49 KB, 320x450, 08_ddl_lgl.jpg)
    49 KB
    On a completely unrelated note, I can't watch Joel Osteen without wishing Daniel Day Lewis would stalk onstage and beat him to death with a bowling pin.

    Sorry, that was random.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:45 No.3435750
         File1293997554.jpg-(60 KB, 640x480, tucker.jpg)
    60 KB
    >>3435710
    >To put it another way, a friend of mine had cancer as a kid, his parents were poor and the local university provided all his treatment free of charge and included him in a medical study of the effects of cancer medications/treatments on his disease at his age.

    Sure this occasionally happens. An adorable kid is in dire need, and everyone suddenly pitches in to save him. You see it on TV quite a bit. It's not a system I would want to rely on if I were a non-adorable 19 yr-old though. Or some aged retiree on a fixed income.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:48 No.3435775
         File1293997686.jpg-(49 KB, 600x400, lloyd-blankfein-ceo-goldman.jpg)
    49 KB
    >>3435750
    But this is typical Conservative thought-process.
    Let's have a mercilessly cruel profit-driven system, and when you're in trouble you can come on your knees for charity, which will make us look good and feel swell IF we choose to provide it.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:50 No.3435790
    >Sure this occasionally happens.

    Its not occassional, and you damn well know it. As soon as a doctor diagnoses a child with cancer, they have packets of information for the parents that include applications for financial aid and treatment aid, etc. and, believe it or not, the children are usually accepted, especially if the problem is the parents have lack of cash or insurance

    Deal with it you've got anecdotal evidence

    Also Medicare kicks in in this case as well

    http://cancer.about.com/od/treatmentoptions/a/cancerfinancial.htm

    These are facts you simply cannot refute, you can cry that some fall through the cracks, but I dare you to actually try and find a case of a young child, in America, refused treatment due to inability to pay, who died of cancer because of it

    A quick google search comes up with...

    A mother who wouldn't let her child receive cancer treatment who died. Thats....it....
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:50 No.3435791
         File1293997841.jpg-(11 KB, 198x254, images..jpg)
    11 KB
    >>3435714

    Did you hear that story about Osteen's wife? apparently she shitstomped some flight attendant for slighting her somehow... might be worth a look up.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:51 No.3435794
    >>3435775
    Brb, gonna start getting ready for work.
    Give you time to tell me how I'm old and deranged, strawmanning or some other compelling "counter-argument".
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:51 No.3435803
    >>3435775
    >>3435750
    strawmanning and samefagging with a tripcode on and without the facts on your side again I see

    And there is nothing merciless about a system which guarantees treatment regardless of ability to pay, this is typical LIBERAL logic that unless everything in life is free, nothing can be "fair"

    The state does not exist to create social justice through redistributive measures. Get over it.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:52 No.3435816
    >>3435790
    Occasional in the sense that children are quite often automatically covered to some degree in this country, but they don't make up 80% of the populace, and non-children are nowhere near as fortunate.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:54 No.3435839
    >>3435699
    If you're born poor, it's clearly because you were a bad person in a former life. Take your punishment like a man, and maybe you'll be born middle class next time.

    >>3435708
    You said that you think healthcare is only a right when it's emergency care. I was responding to that assertion.

    On a practical level, you're saying that the poor should rely on charity to get decent healthcare. Now, that's true casino healthcare. Let's just hope there are enough programs and charities to cover every single person who isn't born rich until they've worked hard enough and lived frugally enough to build your $1 mil nest egg to cover healthcare costs.

    >you're acting as though every kid that gets sick automatically dies
    Of course that isn't true, but quality healthcare saves lives that half-assed healthcare does not. Exactly how many dead children should there be to make it worthwhile to provide quality care for everyone? What's an acceptable number of people who die when they could have been saved by better treatment?

    >calls an assertion about quality of care anecdotal evidence
    >my friend got into an experimental study
    thatword.jpg
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:54 No.3435841
    >>3435816
    So occassional in the sense that you were completely wrong and had to change your position now that you've been proven so?

    Want me to start citing all the help for adults who get cancer?

    There's even help for you based on race/gender/etc

    And of course Medicare covers anyone with cancer who can't get coverage, but it doesn't pay 100% so you know. People complain they aren't getting their ENTIRE bill paid for when their life is saved, typically the cancer is occuring as a direct result of their actions in life as well, such as smoking.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)14:56 No.3435857
    >>3435803
    "samefagging with a Tripcode on"
    Wut?
    Are you equating Tripcodes to samefaggotry, or saying that I'm posting as Anonymous? I'm far to in love with my own opinions to abandon my Trip, and "more than one person disagrees with me, SAMEFAG!" makes you sound paranoid.
    Also, you love to take asides for these petty little insults, don't you? You're actually doing reasonably well, but that sort of thing simply weakens you.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:58 No.3435874
    >>3435839
    >If you're born poor, it's clearly because you were a bad person in a former life.

    Strawman. Appeal to emotion. A bit of an implied ad hominem as well. Call us when you can argue without fallacy bro.

    >On a practical level, you're saying that the poor should rely on charity to get decent healthcare. Now, that's true casino healthcare.

    Thats an interesting theory considering every major university in America willingly gives out free and reduced price care to critically ill patients, typically paid for by student loan debt.

    There isn't really a part of our society that isn't already subsidizing this shit but your argument, again, boils down to fallacy, the fallacy that health care is a right. Health care didn't exist as a commodity, really on any level, until about 150 years ago.

    >Of course that isn't true, but quality healthcare saves lives that half-assed healthcare does not.

    This is an idiotic argument. The health care they receive is better than any in the world. 5 an 10 year survival rates for ALL FORMS OF CANCER are significantly higher in the US than anywhere else in the world.

    And you were the one complaining about anecdotes while spouting them from the get go bro, don't cry at me because you got your own argument turned back in your face
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:59 No.3435889
    >>3435857
    So are you denying that you are making multiple posts or aren't you?

    And complaining about being called out on your stupidity isn't much of a refutation of the fact that you're strawmanning the argument being made because you can't address the actual argument being made

    Not that we expect much better of you
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:59 No.3435892
    >>3435841
    "Usually" isn't always. We don't want a system that "usually" helps people.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)14:59 No.3435893
    >>3435775
    I'm not sure what conservatives think, but there is nothing wrong with a profit-driven system if competition ensures better service and is more efficient. It's not about being nice, it's just about improving the quality of the health services. (Not implying that conservatives help to create such a system. On the contrary, they often stifle corruption. Nothing wrong with a profit-driven system, though.)
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:01 No.3435907
    >>3435892
    You can't save everyone all the time, in fact to try and give everyone exactly equal treatment all the time will end in excessive rationing and lack of supply, crippled by snowballing demand

    We've seen this play out plenty of times before dipshit

    The fact is that what we have is TREATMENT WHEN IT MATTERS and FREE IF YOU NEED IT

    That's how real "fair" works
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:06 No.3435956
    >>3435907
    >strawman followed by personal opinion
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:07 No.3435968
    >>3435956
    >implying the laws of supply and demand in a world of limited resources and surplus capability is a strawman

    Man you just went full retard bro

    I really mean that

    Full fucking retard
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:07 No.3435972
         File1293998869.jpg-(15 KB, 300x277, 1285301100557.jpg)
    15 KB
    >>3435889
    I'm genuinely curious as to what posts you think I've made in this thread Anonymously. Because unless my cat has gotten really clever, I haven't.

    So what I'm taking away from all of this is that the American families that tell of how they were driven into bankruptcy by a medical catastrophe, lost their homes because of enormous medical bills, balooning insurance premiums and a "lifetime coverage cap" (Obama got rid of that too)...are complete and utter liars, that a system is in place where their bills are generously taken care of by kind samaritans. And they should be ashamed for making all of this up.

    I've got you correct on this, yes? Or am I strawmanning again?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:10 No.3435998
    >>3435972
    I never said you made any posts anonymously, in fact I said the opposite

    When you reply to yourself and start complimenting your opinion and strawmanning the opposition with it, you're still committing samefaggotry of the highest order

    And the whole second half is a strawman again, yep. But you already realized it

    I never said they were liars. In fact I never said anything about them... at all. What I've said is that there are options available for the poorest among us and that preventative care is not a right.

    The fact that you have to make that post at all is proof you simply cannot argue what I've said directly, so you must create whole new arguments, tag me with them, claim I made them, then try and make them absurd and knock them down to attack me.

    Its exactly the definition of what strawmanning is
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:12 No.3436015
    >>3435874
    >thinks categorizing every statement according to loose definitions of fallacies is an argument
    >does this without ever actually stating a coherent position of his own to defend
    Yes, there definitely is some flawed argument in this thread. It's easy to attack the manner in which arguments are made and collateral issues while rarely, if ever, addressing the central issue and never stating a position on healthcare reform.

    First, you said it needs reform, then you argue that everyone is covered just fine the way things are. It's easy to poke holes in things, much more difficult to make actual assertions that go to the central point.

    >everyone gets treated extremely well under the current system
    *yawn*
    http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/no-health-insurance-mortality-rates-are-higher

    http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/06/lack_of_insuran.html

    And as far as children go

    http://www.childrenshospital.org/newsroom/Site1339/mainpageS1339P1sublevel577.html
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:16 No.3436065
    >>3436015
    Strawmanning is not loosely defined. Its plain as day. You make up an argument, put it in your opponents mouth, and attack it to avoid attacking the issues. And its all you're left with once facts come into the picture

    >First, you said it needs reform, then you argue that everyone is covered just fine the way things are

    no what I said is that when people receive treatment, they get quality treatment. And they do.

    Of course if you don't have preventative health insurance, regular check ups, doctors and dental care you're going to die sooner than someone that does, this is common sense, and a good reason why you should think ahead in your late teens/early 20s and work to prepare for a life where nothing is guaranteed

    This whole government could/will go bankrupt in our lifetimes due to the demands people like you, who think the world owes you everything or life isn't "Fair enough" and then you won't have health care AT ALL. For anyone. You will have riots and gang wars and social breakdown and a return to the harshness of life before the world of privilege built by our grandparents that have created an existence of such privilege and conceit that you can sit there and proclaim how unjust the world is for not ensuring your eternal survival when this entire world has been based on survival of the fittest for billions of years and that fact isn't going to change just because you got some insurance coverage
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:19 No.3436100
         File1293999567.jpg-(21 KB, 300x400, Beck.jpg)
    21 KB
    >>3435998
    >I never said they were liars. In fact I never said anything about them... at all. What I've said is that there are options available for the poorest among us and that preventative care is not a right.
    You've asserted repeatedly that help is out there for people who need it. I'm telling you that a routine Google search will find you plenty of examples of INSURED people who've lost everything due to our current system.

    The fact that you consider that a "Strawman argument" leads me to believe that you use that label generically when faced with opposition. So kindly address the aforementioned situation these people face, or admit you are mistaken. Put up or shut up.

    Also, "samefagging" is not agreeing with your own opinion in a post where you are clearly identified as the same poster. Yet another definition you seem confused on.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:19 No.3436113
    >>3436065
    >Strawmanning is not loosely defined. Its plain as day. You make up an argument, put it in your opponents mouth, and attack it to avoid attacking the issues. And its all you're left with once facts come into the picture

    >This whole government could/will go bankrupt in our lifetimes due to the demands people like you, who think the world owes you everything or life isn't "Fair enough" and then you won't have health care AT ALL. For anyone. You will have riots and gang wars and social breakdown and a return to the harshness of life before the world of privilege built by our grandparents that have created an existence of such privilege and conceit that you can sit there and proclaim how unjust the world is for not ensuring your eternal survival when this entire world has been based on survival of the fittest for billions of years and that fact isn't going to change just because you got some insurance coverage
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:22 No.3436132
    >>3436100
    >You've asserted repeatedly that help is out there for people who need it.

    Yes

    But did I do this?

    >So what I'm taking away from all of this is that the American families that tell of how they were driven into bankruptcy by a medical catastrophe, lost their homes because of enormous medical bills, balooning insurance premiums and a "lifetime coverage cap" (Obama got rid of that too)...are complete and utter liars,

    no I did not. Strawman harder, cry more. Get your diddie fitted for a new, larger size. A day in the life of 60 year old /co/ldier

    >The fact that you consider that a "Strawman argument"

    Whats that? The fact that I consider having someone literally make up a statement I never made, and then arguing that I made that statement and it wasn't a strawman as in fact a strawman means you're retarded?

    Yeah thought so. I never said they were liars. Strawman refuted

    Cry more
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:22 No.3436140
    >>3436113
    I would have to claim that you made that argument, and then knock it down, for that to be a strawman

    You should probably educate yourself a little better before you bother posting again.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:24 No.3436154
    >>3436140
    >you can sit there and proclaim how unjust the world is for not ensuring your eternal survival when this entire world has been based on survival of the fittest for billions of years and that fact isn't going to change just because you got some insurance coverage
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:26 No.3436170
    >>3436154
    Yeah still not a strawman bro

    Here let me help you out

    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    >A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

    >education how does it work?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:27 No.3436181
    >"University hospitals, for instance, tend to give cancer treatment out for free or reduced costs to children, there are also child health care packages offered by states which are affordable, backed up with federal dollars, and can be bought by pre existing conditions, there are OPTIONS
    >Thats the point you don't want to see. YOu want to claim there is no option, if a kid of a poor person gets cancer in America, they're a dead man. This is simply not the case. Most kids who get cancer are probably going to die, which is an unfortunate reality of most aggressive cancers, but the poor get treated, your, here's that word again, ANECDOTAL CLAIMS are simply untrue and based on a lack of facts"~Some Anonymous Douchebag

    "Over half of U.S bankruptcies result from out-of-pocket medical expenses, according to a study published on June 24, 2005 in the journal Health Affairs. The study, conducted by researchers at Harvard’s medical and law schools, is based on interviews with 1,771 individuals who filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Of these filers, 931 cited medical causes for their financial woes.

    The results of the study indicate that an estimated 1.9-2.2 million Americans (the filers and their families) are affected annually by medical bankruptcy. In other words, every 30 seconds someone new is forced to contend with the double whammy of medical and financial catastrophe.
    Middle-Class Medical Costs

    On July 17, 2007, Professor Elizabeth Warren from the Harvard Law School testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary that rising health care costs are linked to increased bankruptcy rates among the middle-class. She states that since 2000, “an estimated five million families have filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems. The current health care finance system is bankrupting hard-working, play-by-the-rules American families.”
    http://www.suite101.com/content/medical-bankruptcy-epidemic-a73393
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:29 No.3436200
    >>3436132
    The point is that no one needs to go into massive debt to pay for medical costs. People shouldn't have to rely on handouts from universities, donations from civilians, etc. to pay for this stuff.

    Many countries across the globe have efficient, effective health care programs that cost a fraction what the ours does and don't plunge people into debt.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997469
    This presents the health care programs that several countries have in place, and directly compares them to ours. I found it very informative.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:30 No.3436212
    >>3436166
    >save life
    >go bankrupt
    >cry about how you wish you'd died instead

    This whole argument is a bit of a red herring you're throwing out at this point, were we talking about bankruptcy? Or were we talking about access to ability to receive treatment?

    Are you posting a link showing people go bankrupt getting health care costs taken care of to prove that people don't have access to health care? Because the entire facts of the case that...you know...people are getting the care and its making them go bankrupt tends to dispel that myth

    Anyway bankruptcy is...not the end of the world. Dying is. But bankruptcy is not. in fact you can still get loans and whatnot from bankruptcy, and health related bankruptcies are usually treated pretty well in courts, in fact bankruptcy wipes the slate clean

    I guess my point is...What's YOUR point? That health care costs money and it shouldn't? Well how are the doctors gonna live? When does REALITY ever come into your...you know...point of view, exactly?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:30 No.3436215
         File1294000257.jpg-(32 KB, 440x594, 129189156195047160.jpg)
    32 KB
    >>3436181
    OH FUCK! Now you look like some 20-something douche who doesn't know how the real world works!

    Too bad!
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:32 No.3436224
    >>3436065
    >wait an hour to state a position and call strawman on anyone who tries to figure out where I'm coming from
    I'll be on the lookout for that from other conservatives in the future. Thanks.

    >>>3436065
    >let people die to save money
    Ah, the truth comes out at last. This is the Machiavellian logic that ultimately underlies most neocon positions. It's based on the false principle that the richest country in the history of the world doesn't have the means to care for its own citizens through both private and public means.

    People need to stop drinking the insurance company kool aid that makes them believe that an executive's right to $100 million dollar bonuses every year is more important than a poor person's right to live.

    As far as balancing the budget, that's an issue that draws several things into the matter. Tax reform, social security reform, military cuts, etc. All that goes too far off topic, but needless to say, there are several things that can go on the chopping block before healthcare.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:33 No.3436236
         File1294000387.jpg-(1.4 MB, 2893x1875, 1285016624274.jpg)
    1.4 MB
    >>3436212
    Compassionate Conservative in one easy post.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:33 No.3436239
    >>3436200
    >The point is that no one needs to go into massive debt to pay for medical costs.

    Except, you know, for all the rest of the nation having to go into massive debt to pay for them, you know, as we borrow it from China, spend 10 times what we bring in, and have trouble meeting the demand with enough supply.

    >Many countries across the globe have efficient, effective health care programs that cost a fraction what the ours does and don't plunge people into debt.


    Right, this is a canard, because 1: They have less survival rates from major surgeries
    2. High rationing of non emergency care
    3. Lower standards of care overall
    4. Higher personal and income tax rates
    5. Fewer people
    6. More homogenous populations, often buttressed by limited numbers and net exports of resources like fossil fuels and Sweden/Norway etc

    I could go on but you get the point. Apples to oranges. Most of them don't have to expend on their military either, because they fall under our umbrella.

    No matter how you cut it, the nation cannot afford to cure every person's goddamn headache and stay solvent. Simple reality.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:35 No.3436266
    >>3436215
    >ad hominem
    >strawman again
    >continuing to samefag himself to support his positions in a very pathetic manner

    Oh I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you thought reality and fantasy were the same thing

    >>3436236
    Oh look its just more of the same here too

    >>3436224
    first line: butthurt

    >let people die to save money
    >strawman again

    And...the entire rest of your post is just soapboxing the strawman

    You can stroke that cock all day bro but ultimately its never going to give you the satisfaction you're looking for, because its based on fallacy logic and thus refutes itself without my having to do anything
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:39 No.3436294
    >>3436239
    >Right, this is a canard, because
    Japan
    1: Highest rate of survival from surgeries and treatable illness
    2. See physicians 4-5 times as often as Americans
    3. Highest standard of care overall, longest average age
    4. Could be, but their government spends a fraction what we do on healthcare.
    5. Fewer people, but higher percentage of elderly.
    6. More homogenous populations, (wut?) often buttressed by limited numbers (to what effect?) and net exports of resources like fossil fuels and Sweden/Norway etc (Nope, not Japan)
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:40 No.3436305
    >>3436239
    I'm not suggesting we simply copy another nation's program word-for-word, I'm suggesting that our current system could and should change the way it operates and that insight into other working programs can help us make ours better.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:42 No.3436335
    >>3436305
    Yeah well see I don't necessarily disagree with that, but making everything single payer in the US will actually have the negative effect on health care that you think it will, because so many people come here every year legally and illegally, and with our dwindling population we simply can't afford it.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:43 No.3436347
         File1294001022.jpg-(51 KB, 450x338, 12845373360102.jpg)
    51 KB
    >>3436239
    Seriously bro, it'd become quite clear that you've reached the limit of your talking points and internet buzz-word vocabulary.

    It's that time.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:44 No.3436355
    >>3436294
    >Japan
    >98% homogenous population
    >limited population
    >entire economy based on exchange with ours
    >entire military protection falls under our moniker freeing up much of their yearly wealth to put elsewhere
    >Have been in debt and stagflation for generations
    >highest suicide rates in the world

    Apples and Oranges bro. But thanks for playing.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:45 No.3436365
         File1294001124.jpg-(109 KB, 492x600, 1290611564207.jpg)
    109 KB
    >>3436347
    Apparently not since it took you two separate posts to reply to it

    Looks like the only time it is is time to post one of these because it so accurately represents your current state of mental being
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:46 No.3436371
    >>3436266
    I'd like to see you go one post without using the word strawman.

    Also,
    >Me: posts sources that show that inferior care for the poor causes higher mortality rates
    >You: This whole government could/will go bankrupt in our lifetimes due to the demands people like you
    >Me: you said you'd let people die to save money
    >You: whine about strawman arguments
    It's not a strawman when it's exactly what you said. Throwing around names of logical fallacies is terrible argument, especially when you don't seem to understand what the fallacy is.

    Just like all neocons, you're scared of China and scared of deficits, so you're willing to go along with an agenda that screws the poor, while magically handing obscene profits to the wealthy.

    Fear brings obedience, which allows exploitation. It's the oldest trick in the book.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:47 No.3436384
    >>3436335
    >making everything single payer
    I don't think everything should be payed for by one single entity/group/individual. I think much of the burden comes from the fact that these procedures cost so much to begin with. The insurance companies set the prices (for the most part) and their decisions are motivated by profit. They are a business, and they operate as one. I think that is what needs to be changed. or at least heavily regulated.

    I understand that this is a very complicated issue, and that anything we do could potentially lead to negative consequences. However, I do not think doing nothing and letting the system continue on as-is is the right course of action, either.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:49 No.3436407
    >>3436371
    Yeah hate to break it to ya but just because you're mad and want to use the same term you've been hammered into the mat with on me doesn't mean you get to just use it on whatever

    I've yet to put words in your mouth, I haven't needed to, in fact your arguments refute themselves through logical fallacy time and again.

    Its why that term is frustrating you so effectively. Because the truth. Hurts.

    >It's not a strawman when it's exactly what you said

    Really? That's interesting because its NOT exactly what I said in fact its exactly NOT what I said, which is why its a strawman.

    And fyi: Letting the nation go bankrupt will kill more people than providing health insurance. Riots and disease spreading as infrastructure breaks down alone will kill hundreds of millions. This is how the black plague took hold so heavily, also the plagues of Justinian and other plagues throughout history.

    You see a little understanding of how governments rise and fall historically is all you need to realize that excessive demand is the death of liberty and freedom. You cry your emotional appeals, but your ends will cost more lives than your means will prevent. Simple reality.

    No strawman needed. Just historical accuracy.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)15:51 No.3436424
    >>3436355
    >Japan
    >98% homogenous population
    Is this a Stormfront thing? Because it sounds like it
    >limited population
    Which factors in to what? x amount of people pooling to pay for x amount of people's healthcare.
    >entire economy based on exchange with ours
    So we need an example who's economy isn't based on trade? Wut? But you cited independent oil-producers as a bad example too....
    >entire military protection falls under our moniker freeing up much of their yearly wealth to put elsewhere
    Sure, our military expenditures are retarded, but that's a completely different topic than cost to insure citizens. Fact is they spend far less per person than we do.
    >Have been in debt and stagflation for generations
    Yeah, due to playing the same games in the 80's we are playing now. Also not healthcare relevant.
    >highest suicide rates in the world
    Social environment, completely irrelevant. You might as well relate German fetish tendencies to healthcare coverage.

    Ball's back in your court.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:53 No.3436442
    >>3436384
    >I don't think everything should be payed for by one single entity/group/individual

    Yet once you make a single payer system, all the competition starts getting driven out of business.

    You've got companies who have to compete to make a profit, up against a company that, if it fails, gets bailed out by tax payer dollars. It will inevitably make NON state insurance MORE expensive, cripple supply as doctors simply refuse to take on more patients or leave the industry in frustration, costs will go ever higher, but of course you won't see that because it'll all be tied into one big bill the government covers every year like the 700 billion it spend on the military, the social security system and medicare, and so you won't really comprehend the impact that is happening until you wake up and people are rioting in the streets as the government scales back benefits and expands working years, etc. in order to make ends meet until such time as things simply go insolvent and the nation crumbles into the vacuum of power which typically ends in tyranny.

    This is historical reality. The Romans cried for Bread and Circuses, we cry for health care. Its all the same in the end: Costs the state can't cover, liabilities the state cannot provide, ever growing, an ever greater burden, till no one can fix it, no one has the will, and the nation you love and relied upon is lost to the ashes of history
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)15:58 No.3436481
    >>3436424
    >Is this a Stormfront thing? Because it sounds like it

    No, diverse populations require higher health care costs because you have to account for diseases that affect different groups more, like sickle cell anemia and populations which developed around malaria and whatnot. Certain ethnic groups have higher rates of cancer, and other illnesses. African Americans have higher rates of infant being born dead, for instance, while european caucasians have higher rates of other diseases (I wanna say MS is one of them but could be wrong on that)

    >Which factors in to what? x amount of people pooling to pay for x amount of people's healthcare.

    Its just a lot cheaper to care for 100 million than 300 and even more so when you go over to Europe to some of the nations with 5 to 10 million and net exporters of natural gas and oil, it skews the outcomes.

    >So we need an example who's economy isn't based on trade?

    You need an example that doesn't fall under our defensive umbrella, which allows them to spend much less on their military than they otherwise would have, who doesn't engage in free trade with the US, which creates huge net benefits to domestic profits, look at South Korea, Japan, China, etc.

    Because you're looking at nations that benefit indirectly from our wealth and power by being essentially vassal states to us in all but reality, and judging how we should work, but we don't have anyone protecting us with their umbrella, so its not comparable. Super power versus vassal state

    >Sure, our military expenditures are retarded, but that's a completely different topic than cost to insure citizens.

    No, its really not. Healthcare will be another trillion a year. We spend a trillion on health care already, and social security, and the military. We can't afford it and we can't cut ANY of the other three because of political will and facts of reality like violence happens

    Im sure I"m running out of space in this post
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:00 No.3436496
    >>3436424
    >Yeah, due to playing the same games in the 80's we are playing now.

    Yes. Exactly, so what you're saying is we should emulate them some more. That's dictionary definition of insanity and also just a silly argument "These guys suck, we should emulate them"

    >Social environment, completely irrelevant.

    Really? they have this wide open access to health care which includes mental health care, yet they can't prevent themselves being the highest suicide rate per capita on the planet? And this doesn't prove my point that health care isn't a panacea to all life's problems?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:01 No.3436503
         File1294002072.jpg-(126 KB, 450x373, 1286518582895.jpg)
    126 KB
    >>3436442
    >This is historical reality. The Romans cried for Bread and Circuses, we cry for health care. Its all the same in the end: Costs the state can't cover, liabilities the state cannot provide, ever growing, an ever greater burden, till no one can fix it, no one has the will, and the nation you love and relied upon is lost to the ashes of history

    >Implying Rome wasn't brought down by trying to maintain military control over a vast, bloated empire while simultaneously maintaining a palace-building class of superelite rich.
    >Implying Rome was brought down by being a coddling nanny-state
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:03 No.3436522
    >>3436407
    >letting the nation go bankrupt
    By your definition, that's a strawman, because nobody said that the costs wouldn't be covered by offsets in other areas. But, since I'm aware that you were simply looking at the logical extension of what I was sating, from your perspective, I'll refrain from claiming there's a logical fallacy and actually address the argument.

    >You see a little understanding of how governments rise and fall historically is all you need to realize that excessive demand is the death of liberty and freedom
    I can't tell you exactly how every nation has risen and fallen throughout history, but I'm quite certain that no civilization came to a grinding halt because it ensured better health care for its citizens.

    If anything kills this country, it will be another depression brought on by the same thing that caused the current recession and the Great Depression, reckless behavior by the wealthy.

    You're right that excessive demand can breed tyranny, but too little demand can do the same. The more we sit back and let the wealthy profit at the expense of the people, the further we let freedom slip away.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:05 No.3436536
    >Implying Rome wasn't brought down by trying to maintain military control over a vast, bloated empire while simultaneously maintaining a palace-building class of superelite rich.

    Yeah that's not what happened at all.

    What happened was they didn't even bother having a budget, and so they blew all their money. To get more, they had to conquer more. So the problem of their expansion was directly related to, and born from, their lack of fiscal responsibility.

    Once they ran out of places to conquer, and couldn't afford to keep the empire in one and maintain contact and reasonable control over all they had conquered to maintain their gold lust, they split in twain, and the Eastern Empire, still able to access the wealth of the trade from China/India and the West, stayed wealthy and alive for another 1000 years, while the Western empire was sacked by barbarians and what remained of its wealth dispersed amongst them

    Nice attempt to point to the problem, but you only nailed a symptom of the greater disease
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:07 No.3436554
         File1294002442.jpg-(28 KB, 550x395, area-code-map.jpg)
    28 KB
    WHAT WE NEED IS WAR!

    A good, imperialist, territory- and resource-expanding WAR!

    I vote for Canada.

    Look, they are a puny 33 million cowardly fags with no military on the border - we can conquer them in about 3 days - TREBLING our territory and resource base, without hardly a dint (10%) increase in our overall population (less the ones we had to massacre in the takeover).

    THEN we can steal their statist health care system, and implement it because we just go SO MUCH MORE RESOURCES TO EXPLOIT we'll be rolling in cash.

    Problem solved!

    Pic related - that's America!
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:07 No.3436559
    >>3436522
    >By your definition, that's a strawman, because nobody said that the costs wouldn't be covered by offsets in other areas

    So its' a strawman now to presume that a government 13 trillion in debt and unwilling to address the issue is going to find a way to actually pay for another entitlement?

    Just how far up the stupid tree you climbin' today boyo?

    >If anything kills this country, it will be another depression brought on by the same thing that caused the current recession and the Great Depression, reckless behavior by the wealthy.

    Except thats not what caused the Great Depression. Hoover had 90% fucking tax rates on the wealthy. There was a recession, and then Hoover raised taxes and then FDR tried to spend his way out of the hole and it led to a decade of no economy. The Dust Bowl didn't help much with that situation either.

    We didn't even get out till we bombed half the planet into smithereens and went on to loan them the dollars and resources to rebuild
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:08 No.3436566
    >>3436554
    I actually completely agree with this

    Canada's been asking for it for awhile anyway.

    They're basically just our hat
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:10 No.3436582
    >>3436554
    I would then continue on an assassination campaign for every american politician who votes in favor. It would be slow, it would have many numbers all loosely connected in purpose, it would be successful. Bullet proof glass can't stop a road bomb
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:11 No.3436587
    >>3436481
    >>3436496
    So:
    1.Sickle-cell anemia and malaria are killing our healthcare. Confirmed for Stormfront.
    2. I didn't go to Europe, I cited a large population caring for themselves. They aren't being subsidized by a larger populace
    3. They build us many nice things we don't choose to build for ourselves. On the other hand, they don't have a massive replenishing agricultural export industry. Utterly irrelevant. Also, Military spending is in no way linked to Healthcare spending. Increasing one does not increase the other. Irrelevant to the fact that they spend less per person for better treatment.
    4. We choose to impose our will over other countries policies through military intimidation, we aren't forced to. And again, completely irrelevant to healthcare conditions.
    5. They made poor gambles in Real Estate and unregulated Banking. Has no effect on their (very solvent) healthcare system.
    6. Having a healthcare net to ensure you're physically healthy into your 90's is not proof against "So Ronery" syndrome, nor is anyone about to suggest that except yourself.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:13 No.3436608
    >>3436587
    >1.Sickle-cell anemia and malaria are killing our healthcare

    Strawman again

    Not bothering even reading the rest of the list

    You're just gonna have to troll better than that to get a serious response. Trying to conflate what I"m saying to be a racist statement is simply untenable, its a fact of reality that diverse, and larger, and mostly urban populations cost more to give health care coverage too, this has nothing to do with race.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:15 No.3436629
    >>3436554

    I agree - why the fuck SHOULDN'T we take down Canada? That would be the grandest easiest cheapest acquisition conceivable.

    WAY less expensive and time consuming than pointless wars of attrition in sand nigger countries.

    ALL OF THE BENEFITS OF REAL WAR - WITHOUT THE COST!

    FOR FUCK SAKE GOGOGO KILL CANADA!

    I bet we could plan and execute an operation in under 28 days. FUCK TO BE RICH AND A BIG-SHOT AGAIN GO USA!

    USA USA USA USA!!!
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:15 No.3436634
    >>3436536
    >Once they ran out of places to conquer, and couldn't afford to keep the empire in one and maintain contact and reasonable control over all they had conquered to maintain their gold lust, they split in twain, and the Eastern Empire, still able to access the wealth of the trade from China/India and the West, stayed wealthy and alive for another 1000 years, while the Western empire was sacked by barbarians and what remained of its wealth dispersed amongst them

    Exactly. They expanded beyond their ability to afford it. What you are implying is that it wasn't the cost of controlling this gigantic standing army that bankrupted them, that it was a smothering social safety net for the common Roman citizen.
    Which is flat-out retarded, and why you are dodging addressing it.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:17 No.3436653
    >>3436559
    >reckless behavior didn't cause the depression
    Seriously?

    A huge chunk of the market was traded on the margin, so when the artificial inflation inevitably popped, the losses were catastrophic. Derivatives and their ilk caused the same exact thing in the last bust cycle. Things will always go up and down, but when the wealthy use short-sighted, risky methods to gain more while things are up, the inevitable fall becomes much, much worse.

    It's like you're not even trying at this point.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:18 No.3436661
    >>3436608
    >No, diverse populations require higher health care costs because you have to account for diseases that affect different groups more, like sickle cell anemia and populations which developed around malaria and whatnot.

    This wasn't you? And you if you have no rebuttal, don't bother posting your feeble attempts at Contempt. You're on shaky enough ground as it is.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:18 No.3436672
    >>3436634
    >Exactly. They expanded beyond their ability to afford it.

    No, they expanded as a result of inability to afford their lifestyles, and when they ran out of places to conquer, they went bust.

    The important part is which came first, the expansion, or the fiscal stupidity. And the historical evidence is clear: From the start Rome conquered to generate profits for their state.

    >>3436629
    Fallout did it first

    But seriously they got lots of nuclear fuel and rare minerals up there, its inevitable that we'll be taking them over one day, though they'll be the ones to vote for it to happen I imagine
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:19 No.3436686
         File1294003199.jpg-(38 KB, 450x448, racist.jpg)
    38 KB
    >>3436661
    It was me, you strawmanned that to be a racist statement "Stormfront" you said.

    Sorry but I don't have to respond to your logical fallacies anymore, they are so stale and you repeat them so ad naseum that they refute themselves on their faces.

    Basically you did pic related and its because you lost this argument
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:24 No.3436739
         File1294003468.jpg-(35 KB, 475x340, Tokyo-Japan-subway.jpg)
    35 KB
    >>3436608
    >its a fact of reality that diverse, and larger, and mostly urban populations cost more to give health care coverage too, this has nothing to do with race.
    I agree it has nothing whatsoever to do with race, which is something YOU injected into the conversation.

    But are you seriously suggesting that Japan's population isn't densely packed into an urban environment? Because it sounds like you are.

    Also, I think you've worn out the word "Strawman".
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:25 No.3436741
         File1294003508.jpg-(227 KB, 812x566, 1292197686188.jpg)
    227 KB
    >>3436706
    >I agree it has nothing whatsoever to do with race, which is something YOU injected into the conversation.


    Wrong. I pointed out that ethnically diverse populations have more health concerns than homogenous ones

    You're the one injecting race, and again its because you lolmad that this conversation is over and you lost it

    Time for Matlock by the way, I know you hate missing that.

    Or was it Murder She Wrote that was your favorite?
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:26 No.3436758
    >>3436672
    >inability to afford their lifestyles
    You're talking about the Roman elite. They were the ones with the opulent lifestyles that cost a fuckton of money to maintain.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:27 No.3436769
    >>3436686
    >98% homogenous population
    This is where you started
    >its a fact of reality that diverse....... populations cost more to give health care coverage to
    and continued
    >this has nothing to do with race.
    wut?
    Also: Citations needed.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:29 No.3436783
    >>3436758
    Clearly it was that Full Healthcare provided to the plebes and slaves that brought down Rome. Clearly.
    Fucking Nanny State.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:29 No.3436787
    >>3436758
    >You're talking about the Roman elite. They were the ones with the opulent lifestyles that cost a fuckton of money to maintain.

    Uh no gladiatorial competitions, and grain doles, were in fact both two of the biggest expenses, as far as we can tell from the historical record available, next to the military they had. Of course the excesses of the Emperor especially were major contributing factors as well, but the NATIONAL coffers were separate from the wealthy's accounts.

    We're talking about the NATION going bankrupt. There were still RICH PEOPLE but the nation itself went tits to the wind for all intents and purposes
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:31 No.3436809
    >>3436741
    You keep trying to cut off this debate, wheras you are just now starting to advance some pretty "interesting" concepts.

    And if childish insults were compelling arguments, you WOULD be miles ahead at this point. Stop getting off topic.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:33 No.3436825
    >>3436769
    >still implying ethnicity and recognizing that health related issues vary by population is racism

    And the reason the term strawman is getting worn out is because you're employing it so much. So don't blame me for pointing out that you continue to rely exclusively on fallacious reasoning to come to your conclusions

    >>3436783
    Grain dole mother fucker.

    Here have a gander

    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

    Lots to learn there
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:35 No.3436848
         File1294004116.jpg-(32 KB, 499x333, pleasedogoon.jpg)
    32 KB
    >>3436809
    >You keep trying to cut off this debate,

    Actually I"m pretty sure its just your inability to come up with anything but a fallacious argument and lack of real sound counter argument to my facts that has done that, along with, of course, the attention span of the other two in this thread gradually waning to be more the cause of that than anything else

    also

    >the guy who does nothing but ad hominem and strawman crying others are childish
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:37 No.3436873
         File1294004255.jpg-(33 KB, 374x275, afghan-hamid-karzai.jpg)
    33 KB
    >>3436787
    >Uh no gladiatorial competitions, and grain doles, were in fact both two of the biggest expenses, as far as we can tell from the historical record available, next to the military they had.

    I'm going to say now that comparing Gladiatorial competitions to the cost of maintaining a military presence in almost the entirety of Europe is similar to equating the expense of Public Television to maintaining our twelve carrier fleets abroad.
    And I'm sure feeding people had its costs, but stretching a supply line all the way to Britain likely overshadowed it, and was less of necessity than everyone not starving to death.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:39 No.3436889
    >I'm going to say now that comparing Gladiatorial competitions to the cost of maintaining a military presence in almost the entirety of Europe is similar to equating the expense of Public Television to maintaining our twelve carrier fleets abroad.

    Welp that would be pretty dumb since they were carting in animals and slaves from all over the world at massive expense. When a new Emperor was crowned theyd thrown weeks to months worth of feasts and games to shore up the popular opinion towards them

    Then, as now, they used the state coffers to shore up their election chances at the expense of the nations ability to endure long term

    The same mistakes, repeated endlessly, because people like you fail to learn from the lessons of histories past.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:40 No.3436897
    Insurance companies and bankers shouldn't be allowed to make more than 10% of money gathered doing their services.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking idiot.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:41 No.3436906
    You are underestimating the complexity of the gladiatorial games during the final centuries of the empire... thousands of live animals from Africa, converting arenas into water-bassins for elaborate sea battles and of course a huge demand for ever new gladiators... whereas the cost of keeping the army was usually outsourced to the respective provinces and done without the detour to Rome and back, which actually saved them a lot of money
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:45 No.3436954
    >the guy who does nothing but ad hominem and strawman
    This continues to fail at making you seem either cool or smarter than me. But keep trying.
    >>3436825
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire
    Read. Grain Dole was a symptom of an overextended and inefficient economic system that hyperinflated and taxed the shit out of commoners to pay for military adventurism.
    Sure sounds America to me.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:49 No.3436980
    >>3436954
    Welp you failed to comprehend that the military excursions were what was paying for everything else, not the other way around, congratulations

    And in the end they became socialist

    fyi, if you'd read it, you'd know that

    >Bruce Bartlett traces the beginning of debasement to the reign of Nero. By the 3rd century the monetary economy had collapsed. Bartlett sees the result as a form of state socialism. Monetary taxation was replaced with direct requisitioning, for example taking food and cattle from farmers. Individuals were forced to work at their given place of employment and remain in the same occupation. Farmers became tied to the land, as were their children, and similar demands were made on all other workers, producers, and artisans as well. Workers were organized into guilds and businesses into corporations called collegia. Both became de facto organs of the state, controlling and directing their members to work and produce for the state. In the countryside people attached themselves to the estates of the wealthy to gain some protection from state officials and tax collectors. These estates, the beginning of feudalism, mostly operated as closed systems, providing for all their own needs and not engaging in trade at all.[9]

    So it does sound like the America you and your ilk would like to create and have taken drastic steps towards in recent years.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:50 No.3436992
    >>3436906
    >You are underestimating the complexity of the gladiatorial games during the final centuries of the empire... thousands of live animals from Africa, converting arenas into water-bassins for elaborate sea battles and of course a huge demand for ever new gladiators... whereas the cost of keeping the army was usually outsourced to the respective provinces and done without the detour to Rome and back, which actually saved them a lot of money
    Fine, lets compare it to the cost of paying the entire salary and expense of the NFL, which might be roughly 32 billion a year (probably a gross overstatement) with free tickets to our 700 billion a year (which ignores a lot of hidden costs) military budget.
    Sending hunting groups to cart back some lions =/= maintaining a legion garrision thousands of miles from home.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:52 No.3437006
    >>3436980
    That link contained numerous theories on the Fall of Rome, giving equal weight to all of them.
    You're citing one theory among a score of them as absolute evidence. Any number of them are interesting ideas.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:54 No.3437013
    >>3436992
    >implying the gladiatorial games were of comparable expense to the NFL

    NFL pays for itself

    Gladiatorial games were paid from taxes/conquest. They were buying up slaves, good warriors, and rare animals from around the world by the tens of thousands and killing them. They weren't even able to garner a profit from that. They didn't charge tickets for seats to the arena, it was first come first served

    You can try all this ill informed mental bullshittery all day but it's not making your case stronger, its just a sign that you require a better education
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:56 No.3437027
    >>3437006
    Actually the link gives a series of theories but most of them clearly correlate

    The one I quoted just happens to point out that one facet well which is why it was quoted

    No matter how you cut it pal, you've been proven wrong, to the point you've been shown that the Roman Empire collapsed from literally the same policies you support and the only refutation you've got is "Well its like the NFL"

    no, no its not. In the gladiatorial games they were killing people, they were raping people, they were slaughtering them whole sale, they were doing this not just in Rome but in MOST MAJOR ROMAN cities

    They were shipping fucking wild animals from Africa to fucking England and holding gladiatorial games there, for instance

    Its not comparable. It was a MASSIVE burgeoning expense found necessary by politicians to buy the support of the lowest classes
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)16:57 No.3437034
         File1294005473.jpg-(25 KB, 300x387, carlosslim.jpg)
    25 KB
    >>3436980
    >Overburdened poor and middle-class footing the bill
    >Workers toiling for corporations in bed with the Government
    >commoners living in servitude to the Wealthiest

    Sure sounds like Conservative paradise to me bro.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:59 No.3437048
         File1294005555.jpg-(74 KB, 407x405, butthurtfrog.jpg)
    74 KB
    >>3437034
    Back to the strawman he goes
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)16:59 No.3437055
    I'd even argue that the Romans did actually not spend ENOUGH on their military, but relied on cheaper but unreliable Germanic mercenaries instead of keeping service in the armed forces attractive for the kind of citizen soldier that defeated Hannibal and Vercingetorix...

    Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)17:00 No.3437060
    >>3437013
    >Fine, lets compare it to the cost of paying the entire salary and expense of the NFL, which might be roughly 32 billion a year (probably a gross overstatement) with free tickets
    >free tickets
    Reading comprehension, do you know it?
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)17:01 No.3437065
    >>3437055
    Not really, our mercenaries are far more expensive than regular troops.
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)17:02 No.3437071
    >>3437055
    You wouldn't be far off from the truth

    The wikipedia article mentions both this fact and the fact that roman equipment was actually rusting on the soldiers from lack of repairs towards the ends so yeah

    The premise that the military was the one having all the money blown on it is just incorrect
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)17:03 No.3437079
    >>3437060
    Free tickets or not, the State was paying for shipping extremely rare, wild animals, like Elephants and shit, around its empire for entertainment. Back in the 3rd century CE that shit wasn't cheap
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)17:04 No.3437086
    >>3437065

    Ah, I was more referring to a higher than average representation of ethnic minorities and people of lesser education in the regular forces.
    >> The Old/co/ldier !1V6Z4xOlI6 01/02/11(Sun)17:05 No.3437102
         File1294005934.jpg-(90 KB, 630x380, entrepreneur.jpg)
    90 KB
    >>3437048
    That word....
    >> Anonymous 01/02/11(Sun)17:07 No.3437115
    >>3437102
    That word

    Apparently you need to learn what it means more so you employ it less

    Because really, it gets old. When your ONLY ARGUMENT is the same fallacy every time, well, I mean its like fucking a woman who just lays there and moans oh oh over and over again. You know?

    Its boring.



    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]